Joe and the Volcano: A Matter of Respect
From a response that grew too long:
The problem I’ve found is I don’t think anyone around here knows what netroots is, who Digby is, what Howard Dean has done with 50 states, how much Rahm supported the Blue Dogs and warned people not to ever ever ever mention Iraq. So oddly they think Rahm is both bold and progressive.
But the lesson is not to abandon Netroots. It’s to push them and only them. Stoller and Bowers over at OpenLeft are excellent with focused money. For New York, they came up with a way to give money for Obama via a progressive org - to signal, “this is progressive money, not just generic money”. How to do your own spot ads for the candidate you approve of.
Because they don’t care about you. They don’t understand you. At least most of them. 42-13? For fuck’s sakes, we’re back to the right-wing thing that you’d have to sodomize toddlers while shooting mortar shells into old folks’s homes to get a reprimand.
Let’s take a trip down memory lane:
In the Senate, during the three-and-a-half years that Senator Obama has been a member, he has not reached across party lines to get accomplish anything significant, nor has he been willing to take on powerful interest groups in the Democratic Party to get something done.
So what did Lieberman do, but reach across for a handjob to support everything illegal the government was doing. Mr. Lieberman, I don’t vote Democrat to elect a Republican. If they want to earn my vote, they can go through the necessary steps to earn my respect.
Let me contrast Barack Obama’s record to the record of the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who stood up to some of those same Democratic interest groups, worked with Republicans, and got some important things done, like welfare reform, free trade agreements, and a balanced budget.
And let me contrast the Democrats who sucked up to George Bush with the Republicans in 1996 who fought Clinton every step of the way. Well I admire Gingrich more than Pelosi or Reid, I can tell you that, even though I agree with probably none of his opinions.
But here, let Joe dig his little shithole deeper:
And I was there, so I can tell you, when others were silent about the war in Iraq, John McCain had the guts and the judgment to sound the alarm about the mistakes we were making in Iraq. You know… (APPLAUSE) … when others wanted to retreat in defeat from the field of battle, which would have been a disaster for the USA, when colleagues like Barack Obama were voting to cut off funding for our American troops on the battlefield…
No, you asshole, others weren’t silent. They were speaking out against the stupidity of the war and how it was being conducted and how its supposed goals were completely in denial of the facts on the ground, but Republicans were shutting down any dissent as “unpatriotic”?
Do you remember your buddy John McCain walking through a market on a sick photo op with flak jacket, 100 soldier escort and helicopters flying overhead to show how safe it was for the common man?
Do you remember that disgraceful time in September 2007 when the Congress felt it appropriate to condemn a private citizens’ group that used its own money in a newspaper to protest a General’s conduct of the war? Only 79 Congresspeople and 25 Senators had the courage to stand up to that abomination, all of them Democrats except for 1 Independent that wasn’t Joe Lieberman. That abomination that says American citizens cannot question the flaws of humans running war. Let me tell you about that.
A few days ago the Nation published new info on the Vietnam War, how one group in the push for higher and higher body counts lost complete sight of the purpose fo the war, and committed atrocity after atrocity against civilians in Vietnam. A My Lai a Month. Fucking fancy that. 35 years after the war ends, 4 years after the Swift Boating of John “Winter Soldier” Kerry for not being patriotic enough, we get confirmation that Kerry was indeed right, that free fire zones on civilians were the rule not the exception.
Lieberman wants to extend the myth and the horror of blind allegiance to war and soldiers, that any attempt to cut the war off is an act of betrayal rather than good common sense review. You specifically stated this at the convention:
… when others wanted to retreat in defeat from the field of battle, which would have been a disaster for the USA, when colleagues like Barack Obama were voting to cut off funding for our American troops on the battlefield…Mr. Lieberman, I wish Mr. Obama had done so in those stark of terms, but for someone who came to power in the 60’s with the arbitrary foreign political decisions of a few trumping any oversight from the Congress - you should simply know better, that it is not the Constitutional right of the Executive Branch to simply dismiss the chaotic oversight of the Congressional, but that that chaotic oversight was specifically what was prescribed in the Constitution. To support the President’s extra-Constitutional actions is simply being a traitor to the Constitution, however you want to spice it up. You were wrong, but unfortunately we’re only likely to hear smug self-absorbed pronouncements from you hear on out. Congrats, you have won on the most self-defeating point possible - you’ve shown that the American people and their representatives can be complete suckers, can completely abandon their citizen duties and responsibilities. Constitution? Just a piece of paper. Joe knows better, despite all obvious goings on the last year.
Mr. Obama, a friend of mine told me quite bluntly 25 years ago - if you give respect to everyone, you give respect to no one. People earn respect, and if you give it out free gratis, you do a disservice. Mr. Lieberman deserved to lose. I certainly don’t wish treating him the way Republicans have treated us over the year, but to come to the table of mutual respect requires some effort from the other side as well. Pardons without pre-conditions sounds way too chummy. Let’s give one to the American people for a change.
Yeah, we're just a bunch of dumb ass rubes. We don't read The Nation, or Digby, or all those other sources you read.
Give me a break.
November 18, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
As noted, this grew from a reply I had to Truthwhip that I simply cut-and-pasted:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/howard_dean_supports_senates_l.php#comment-3291853
where he/she's upset about Democratic FU's to the netroots people who seem to work the hardest. From what I've seen at TPM, there aren't a lot of people who pay attention to the machinery behind netroots, DCCC and so on, who's done what in promoting more progressive candidates, etc.
Reading "The Nation" was hardly on the list of related items.
November 19, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Desidero, that was just wonderful.
Mind if I copy and mail it out to every one on my CT lawmakers?
November 18, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably needs some editing, but sure, go ahead.
November 18, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remember when Lieberman told us that it was the sworn duty of the Senators "to protect the people"
An outright lie, not even a half-truth. It is the sworn duty, by oath of office, to protect the Constitution and he knew it and yet to serve his rhetorical ends, misled the people.
November 18, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Protecting and defending the Constitution does tend to protect We the people -- from, as example, transgressions of our fundamental rights. So Lieberman didn't lie on that point.
But did Lieberman do any of that? No.
November 19, 2008 5:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Des:
That was very powerful. Nice work and recommended.
Bruce
November 19, 2008 7:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don’t vote Democrat to elect a Republican. If they want to earn my vote, they can go through the necessary steps to earn my respect.
?
If you don't live in CT, your vote doesn't have anything to do with him being a Senator. And for this term, neither party has anything to do with it, either, since he won as an Independent.
give one to the American people for a change
?
If you said, "let's give one to the classic roots of the Democratic party for a change," that would make sense to me. But once again, it's not about "the American people," the entire U.S. voting population, this is about someone elected to the Senate by the people of CT as an Independent and his possible relationship to the Democratic party.
As to your totally legitimate liberal arguments against his activities and stances,
I would just like to point out that the conservatives hate Lieberman as much or more than the liberal netroots do:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/barnwell/barnwell63.html
How do the Senate Democrats deal with that? Smack a gift horse in the face?
The situation is similar in many ways to Jim Jeffords:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jeffords#Senate_record
Should Jim Jeffords have been ostracized or courted by the Democratic caucus?
I just don't get the amount of anger towards trying to hold a majority together for most voting. I totally understand people making arguments that other options might have been smarter for the majority party to deal with Lieberman's situation as an Independent in the Senate, but I don't see the point of total ostracism of someone who votes with the majority party and against conservatives most of the time.
To have parties you have to have litmus tests, the more litmus tests you have, the smaller your party is, and then you have outliers and have to win them over in order to win. You speak about respect, he doesn't have it as a Democrat, he's an Independent now. He's recognized as an outlier, he took off the Democratic label, supported the opposition for president, already gave up respect as a Democrat, so that has nothing to do with it. You can't get away from dealing with this, even with a parliamentary system you can have purer parties, but you still have to deal with these outliers after the election.
November 19, 2008 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you, mostly. I lean towards kicking Joe out of his chair, but I don't understand the "fierce urgency of now" that has been associated with it.
First of all, I accept that there are a lot of things beyond my ken and there might be perfectly valid reasons to allow him to stay on. (I won't always concede a point that easily, but when I don't understand the strong reasons on the other side, I'll side with the people who are in a better position to know. 42-13 seems like a pretty strong consensus. Of course, on the flip side, I think the Democratic Senators also had a pretty strong consensus to back the AUMF, so my trust is most definitely not absolute.)
Secondly, I also accept that there might be perfectly valid reasons to allow him to stay on for now.
Finally, Obama isn't the one deciding this. I believe that he's working quite hard to repudiate the unitary executive, and I admire that. Perhaps I'm being too optimistic here, as most politicians don't try to reduce the amount of power they hold, but optimistic or not, it is my belief.
November 19, 2008 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I accept that there are a lot of things beyond my ken
I feel that way, too. But in a way, that's my point, this is very much a Senate collegial matter, not one that affects "the American people."
For example, whoever chairs committee hearings, what mostly concerns the public at large is if the hearings get held, and both majority and minority get to say something. Now if you want to argue take away a chair because he's not been holding hearings (Lieberman very naughty on this, but Obama also, was too busy running for prez!) that would be in the general public interest, but doing so because he/she is not obeying party line enough, that's really getting further away from of the interests of the American people, and more into the matter of Senate status games. And what matters in the end for the American people is how each votes on each issue, not their party I.D. or chairs. Getting all involved in the arcana of Senate priorities and perks is really getting away from issues. I see it mostly as "office politics," and I suspect it angers people because they have experienced "office politics" themselves in their lives and want to scream "it's not fair." But "it's not fair" doesn't usually get you anything of real value in the office politics game, just a feeling of righteouness.
As to your other points, I sense they will most certainly be getting back at him in all kinds of ways. :-) And I suspect he has probably already lost the respect of every single fellow Senator, including John McCain; they all probably figure "you can't trust the guy." The Dems are probably doing a "for now," because they feel they need a "for now."
But if I'm not inside the Senate cloakroom, I can't know these things for sure. It is of interest to follow like any office politics game is, of course, but you never can understand the full story unless you are inside. On Lieberman, in the end, the CT voters decide. They even decide in the end if Senate expelled him for some egregious reason, maybe the voters there react in spite next time--smart office politics players take such things into account. I know one thing, "outrage" doesn't work in office politics.
November 19, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
The point being he worked against our interests the last few years on this committee and important opposition oversight was not done. The gratuitous remarks against Obama at the convention were simply icing on the cake. Joe's been threatening to leave for some time, and unlike Jeffords we did accomodate him quite a bit. And Jeffords never acted this much against party. Why should stripping him of this committee chairmanship be so unreasonable? If not with his current actions, what is enough? How do you hold a consensus and unified front if there are never any consequences?
November 19, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just don't get why some people find it so gall darned important and urgent to chastise him publicly, that so many would be inspired to write up so many angry blog posts. It just seems to lack perspective to get all worked up about it unless you yourself work in the Senate.
You can take away all his jobs in the Senate, go ahead, and he's still there, gets to vote, and his votes are what really matters to "the American people" or even just your average person who votes Dem and is not a Dem apparatchik. The way the Senate Dems do or don't manipulate their members, I think the public doesn't even know the truth about that, what the whip does is not public.
And then you've got that he's no longer a Dem, so it's even less applicable.
You apparently see symbolic public gestures as accomplishing something? I don't. That's phony business to me, stuff people fall for, i.e., ok, now we showed 'em, we're tough when people don't agree with us. I think: no you didn't, you didn't do shit, that was just symbolic move, he's still there in the Senate, and he's going to vote the way he's going to vote.
Sure, for my personal interests, I think it would be nice if someone else was running the Homeland Security committee, but I am going to be truthful, it is a very low priority for me who is running the Homeland Security committeee, I am just not going to get all worked up about it that the Senate Dems thought it was ok to leave him there for a while. It just doesn't affect me that much, as I am not a Senate aide looking to work on it. I do care how my two Senators vote on bills that come out of it, that's where my priorities lie. And creating bills is a team effort to begin with, I just can't see how itt matters that much who is head of committee as many are making it out, it is just a wacky perspective to me to see him as meaning so much.
November 19, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see it as symbolic at all. I see Homeland Security as hugely important and a huge bundled up ball of expenditures on security. It's also tight in on everything from illegal wiretaps to border and port control and so on.
November 19, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
From http://www.firedoglake.com
HOWARD DEAN: What I'm saying here is along comes Lieberman. He behaved very badly during the campaign and did some things inside the club that are unforgivable.
So what... if you run and get a mandate for reconciliation, is your first act to kick this guy out of the party?
Well, people of my generation think -- yeah, damn right we should. But in the new spirit of reconciliation, which is why I think Barack Obama got elected by 66% of the under 35 vote, maybe it's not the way.
I'm very willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the Senators and to Barack Obama on that one.
Do we want to have a big fight about what should happen to Joe Lieberman? I don't think so. I think we want to have a bigfight about whether we're going to have a decent health insurance program or a renewable energy program or not?
JANE HAMSHER: With all due respect, Governor Dean, we were all just told to go screw ourselves. That our concern for Barack Obama and that our concern about the war and everything else that we fought so hard for within the Democratic Party is meaningless.
And that Joe being happy, and giving into his threats -- and he did threaten the Democrats in his press conference -- is more important than we are. And so I don't think it was a matter of "reconciliation," I think it was...we were told to go Cheney ourselves. And I think that that really is the sentiment online.
HOWARD DEAN: I know, I'm sure they...I haven't seen the blogs about this because it's just happened...but I'm sure that the sentiment online is one of outrage. But I would line up with Barack. I don't think you were told to go screw yourselves at all, I think he that has now got to practice what he preaches during two years of campaigs that he wants to bring America together.
As objectionable as Joe's behavior was -- and frankly unprincipled -- I don't think that this is the thing that should divide us, and I don't think it's about his vote for FISA or anything else. What kind of a tone do we want to set? Do we want to have a purge as the first thing we do? I don't think so. I mean, I don't know...
JANE HAMSHER: But the tone we just set, with all due respect, is that Joe's lack of oversight on the Homeland Security Committee, and his refusing to investigate Katrina to pay back the Republicans, and his refusal to look into billions and billions of dollars worth of graft and theft is okay for political considerations. I think that's the message you're sending and I don't think that's the change people voted for.
HOWARD DEAN: Well I don't think that stuff is okay but I have to say I'm not terribly familiar with his record. But you know I would agree, that's not the change we voted for, I agree with that.
[]
JANE HAMSHER: Governor Dean, Greg Sargent just put up a post saying that you believe that the liberal blogosphere was motivated to take Joe Lieberman's gavel away because of revenge. Is that what you think this was?
HOWARD DEAN: I think some of it was anger over his behavior, certainly I have anger over his behavior.
JANE HAMSHER: But I think the larger issue here is that Joe was not qualified for the gavel they gave him, and has proved himself unqualified over the past two years.
HOWARD DEAN: Look I'm not going to a dispute with you over that, because it sounds like you know his record much better than I. I never looked into what he was doing as the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. I was too busy figuring out how to win the election. So I don't want to get into a debate on whether he's qualified or not.
JANE HAMSHER: But do you think that's something that the Senate should've looked at in deciding whether to give him the gavel or not?
HOWARD DEAN: Well, I hope they did.
------------------------------------------
FDL: Yes, it would have been nice if someone had looked into whether Joe was actually qualified or not to do the job before giving it to him again.
November 19, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Jane, I don't know who your "we" is; but, yes. Obama's judgment, and that of his advisers, as to how to best conduct his administration to accomplish its goals is way more important than are your desires for revenge.
November 19, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
A blog post I did here (Context: this was before the software change to Movable Type, before the all the Obama bloggers and supporters populated the site with that change):
BTW, the discussion in comments was pretty good, even if most are on the broader theme of "groupthink," though the chronological order might be mixed up now.
November 19, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
artappraiser, you are absolutely right to point out that conservatives hate Lieberman as much as the Netroots do. All the more reason for the Democrats to have called his bluff! Joe Lieberman had absolutely nothing to gain by bolting to the other side. No committee seats (let alone chairmanships) were on offer from the Republicans. He would have gained nothing, while most likely losing re-election in a state that just tossed out the last remaining Republican Congressman in New England.
So why did Harry Reid's Democratic caucus fold against such a weak hand? We can only hope they exacted some kind of Faustian bargain from Joe in return for not reducing him to a clout-less, committee-less loser, as he so clearly deserved.
November 19, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
They did it because Obama asked them to.
November 19, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Joe, where you gonna run to now,
I said hey Joe, where you gonna run to now, where you gonna go?
Goin' back to my committee, back down where I can be free,
Goin' back to my ol' caucus, way down where I can be free -
Ain't no hangman, he ain't gonna put a rope around me,
You better believe me, right now!
And Joe proved the song true - he cheated the hangman - but I do believe that Obama's foot is firmly on his neck, and ol' Joe may hang himself yet if he doesn't toe the line for his new boss.
November 19, 2008 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Shame on you, Barack Obama! Shame on you!"
"The presidency isn't something that lends itself to on-the-job training."
So soon we forget the heinous and untrue things democratic candidates and their supporters said about other democrats this year.
To let bygones be bygones is a sign of transformational leadership and not capitulation. Offering Hillary the Secretary of State job or not being terribly offended by anything Lieberman said during the election is the mark of a statesman. There are going to be numerous compromises and contradictions as we seek to transform a country that's been wandering in the wilderness for the last four decades.
Obama seems to recognize that some ill-chosen words is not the same thing as sodomizing babies. Hyperbole about "enemies" on the right side of the spectrum who must be punished for you to move on will not help our country's progressive renaissance arrive any sooner nor will it make the change lasting.
Time to step away from the ideological chasm defined during your youth and instead move toward the bridge our president-elect has built to the 21st Century.
November 19, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed and well-said.
November 19, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I also would like to associate myself with these remarks....
November 19, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to characterize this situation (as Joe has successfully managed to ) as some sort of revenge for what he did during the election, then I'd agree. It's time to put it aside. Look at the big picture. Create consensus.
But that really misses the point, in my mind. We're to believe the Joe is now properly subdued, that Obama "owns him", that Joe has been properly chastised and will behave obediently.
Why would anyone think that of this individual? He's turned his back, repeatedly, on Democrats, starting in 1998 with that self-righteous moralizing at the expense of Bill Clinton. JOe cares solely for himself, and should an opportunity arise to benefit him, he's going to take it, regardless of how "chastised" and "remorseful" he might be. He has subpoena power. Over the Executive Branch. That concerns me significantly more than the stupid things he said during the campaign.
What also concerns me is his judgment. He chose McCain and Palin. That alone should disqualify him from any sort of power.
I keep hearing that I should trust Obama. That all things will be revealed in time. I understand the enthusiasm for Obama, the excitement, and whatnot. But sometimes, the constant "trust Obama, he knows what he's doing" sounds like only so much brainwashing.
November 19, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe the argument is "Trust Obama in all things" as much as concentrate on the big picture and forget the small shit. Joe is small shit when compared to the enormous tasks we have as a nation. If being wrong about something in Washington was the ultimate measure, we wouldn't have anyone left to serve.
November 19, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed.
November 19, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
While an entertaining and even cathartic read, it ultimately is making far too big a deal over a very small man. He's simply not worth all the emotion.
November 19, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agree. Clearly, Lieberman doesn't matter. Because Obama is President and McCain isn't.
Joe will be a good little doggie from here on out, as he lives in constant fear of public humiliation at the hands of his colleagues. What Lieberman did was foul and despicable, but if people don't learn to grow the hell up and start act like mature adults, we're NEVER going to get past the partisanship and rancor in Washington. This was one of Obama's "teaching moments".
The ultimate revenge is to be better than those who seek to defeat you.
November 19, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps it was the Christian thing to do. But I agree with CT that liberman will not return the favor. He will turn traitor again, sooner or later, when he has something to gain by doing so.
November 19, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It occurs to me that maybe it wasn't such a magnanimous gesture for P-E Obama to show his support of Lieberman.
If he let the Senate Democrats decide, without weighing in, it could have gone a number of ways. Maybe Liberman gets stripped of his committee chair, maybe he doesn't. Maybe he gets expelled from the caucus, maybe he doesn't.
If he had been allowed to keep the Homeland Security chair, the Democrats look weak and Lieberman isn't seen as being particularly beholden to P-E Obama.
If he had been stripped of the chair, maybe he caucuses with Republicans and maybe he doesn't but the Democrats' punishing him appears to be out of step with the spirit of the new presidency.
By stepping in, Obama makes it seem like the Democrats did his bidding, looks like he's taken the high road yet again, and prevents Lieberman's move to the Republican side--which would have given the Republican's their first major victory before Obama even takes office.
Lieberman is beside the point. He's a putz. He's gonna vote in the best interests of Joe Lieberman, regardless of who he's caucusing with or who he's supposed to be beholden too. But if he breaks with Obama now, he just looks like a bigger asshole and makes his re-election campaign more difficult for himself.
November 19, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow...grammar police on a donut break this morning...that should be:
He's gonna vote in the best interests of Joe Lieberman, regardless of with whom he caucuses or to whom he's supposed to be beholden.
November 19, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which, of course, may be said of any US Senator.
November 19, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Des, totally co-signed. The thing about respect is it has to be mutual. Lieberman's very public demands about what punishments he was and was not willing to accept is the very opposite of respect. This could have been a more private party matter had Lieberman not decided to make public his intention to bolt if stripped of his chairmanship. In a position with very little leverage, he decides to again make fools of the Democratic party.
Obama endorsed Lieberman when he needed support against Lamont; Lieberman paid him back by saying "I’d hesitate to say he’s a Marxist, but he’s got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America." First, what the hell is he talking about? Obama is probably the most centrist Democratic candidate we've run that I can recall. Or Obama wanted to "retreat and defeat" in Iraq? I've criticized Obama harshly, Hillary has been critical of Obama as she was his opponent in the primary, but Lieberman went way over the foul line even by my standards and that says a lot.
So if we took the chairmanship away, what real world impact would it have had? When Jeffords bailed to the Dems, his voting on policy didn't change, just on procedural votes. Whether we have 58 or 59 senators in the Dem Caucus doesn't matter procedurally, so what is the significance here? Will he start voting for the Republicans 90% of the time out of pique and spite? I don't believe Lieberman is that morally bankrupt. We should have called his bluff.
There's a difference between reaching across the aisle and getting slapped repeatedly and begging to be slapped again.
November 19, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, dijamo. It's not having 60 nominal party members that counts, but having 60 votes. And as I've pointed out elsewhere on this page, Lieberman had everything to lose and nothing to gain by declaring himself a Republican. I completely agree that the Dems should've called his bluff.
Any idea what Ned Lamont is up to these days?
November 19, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
re: Lamont.
He appeared on the Rachel Maddow show last night (The Rachel Maddow show, unfortunately, lacked Rachel Maddow). He was asked about running in another primary. His answer: "Never say never".
November 19, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, Democrats don't seem to appreciate this distinction.
November 19, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Mr. Obama, a friend of mine told me quite bluntly 25 years ago - if you give respect to everyone, you give respect to no one."
How so? That just simply sounds specious to me. And besides, President-elect Obama is a Christian. I doubt he follows your friend's rules.
November 19, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
My, sorry, forgot we were under the Marquess' Christian Nation rules.
November 19, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't expect you to argue that Obama doesn't have the right to consult his own personal set of values when making decisions.
November 19, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems awfully easy to lose respect for Obama before he even gets sworn in. No honeymoon, I guess.
Since Obama has shown himself to be rather smarter than all of us here, I'm willing to believe he had good reasons for the Lieberman decision. Similarly, announcing ahead of time that chasing those who engaged in White-House-ordered torture is not a betrayal of everything we hold dear, but a practical decision that he lacks the political cover to do that.
Let's all chill a bit.
November 19, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
As you can imagine from my statement, respect is earned, not just granted.
November 19, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see it as "granting respect." Obama is doing the politically smart thing to do for the time being.
Forgive me if I missed it, but I haven't seen any public pronouncement by the President Elect that Joe L is respected or even admired. Real politik at work here. Nothing more.
Don't make it grander than it really is.
November 19, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen, brother Tom.
As Jay Newton-Small put it in a Time commentary
Additionally, exacting revenge on Lieberman would have undercut Obama's campaign theme and created a huge distraction for his opponents to exploit as he enters office.
November 19, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
One other point, "the netroots", to which a number of commentators have referred, does not just include left of center online political activists. So there are many amongst the netroots who think Lieberman is great.
November 19, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. You may use the term to mean general internet activism, but there is a quite identifiable group that self-identifies proudly using the label "netroots." Like Desidero says, they include Digby, Stoller, Bowers, also Firedoglake very prominently, and lots of Daily Kos activists, as well as former proud "Deaniacs."
There have been 4 annual Netroots Nation conventions, which started as the Yearly Kos convention. I think you'd have a hard time finding a Lieberman supporter at one of them, unless invited as an alternative voice to debate with.
I strongly got the impression that a majority of self-identified "netroots" were supporters of John Edwards, and have never felt that comfortable with Obama.
There was some kvetching among "netroots" that Obama did not feel they were important enough appear in person at the last one in July, see for an example
Ian Welsh's Why Obama Doesn't Care About the Netroots And Why He Wasn't At Netroots Nation. Welsh used to run a group blog with Stirling Newberry, both are big "netroots" self-identifiers, and he has also been active at Firedoglake.
I think Welsh was correct there that Obama knows all about this self-identifying group called "netroots," and also that he doesn't think much of them, and that he worked on purpose to grow an internet network of supporters outside and apart from that group. I think he did so because he strongly disagrees with their views of how Democrats can "win" politically. As he said to New York Magazine about Kos in September 2006, what he looks for in people doing "good work" politically, is "do they surprise me" and then he said that when he looks at DailyKos, it doesn't surprise him, it's all exactly what he would expect.
November 19, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
first link above corrected:
http://netrootsnation.org/about
November 19, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for all this, good followup.
November 20, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Point on this
The problem I’ve found is I don’t think anyone around here knows what netroots is
with which you started your entry.
Part of that is knowing the history of this site. I think while "netroots" admired some of Josh Marshall's past work in muckraking journalism, I don't think they ever saw him as an ally, only a fellow anti-Bush person. (For instance, at the start, he took a very moderate position on invading Iraq.)
Early on when comments started here, and even earlier in posts on other sites, I saw evidence that they saw him as part of the DC/beltway elite that netroots loves to hate (he was blogging in DC before moving to New York a couple years ago.) When he started TPMCafe, it was heavily populated with contributors that were ex-DLC types and a group of neo-liberals on foreign policy. I also think that when he started up TPMCafe, it was meant as an alternative to DKos style netroots.
An odd thing happened then, mho. The neo-liberal and DLC type contributors drew a small bunch of very noisy anti-DC-elite commenters on TPMCafe, who eventually pushed out the more moderate and more elite types Marshall intended to appeal to as an audience. But it was only a small bunch. And then TPMCafe site was sort of dying with fewer and fewer contributors.
Then in Feb. of this year, they changed the software so that all the Obama fans checking Election Central and TPM (which had become Hillary/Obama central) every hour, realized that they could blog now, people who never visited the Cafe section. And the Obama fans took over the site.
So "netroots" never really had a home here, first because they weren't the target audience, and next because Obama base took over. And, as I just went through, the Obama base was purposefully formed via avoiding "netroots," and there is some anonymosity involved there.
For better or worse, whatever one's opinion, I happen to think this is Josh has a large audience, now. It's clear that there are a lot of people out there who didn't find "netroots" sites attractive sources of information. Huffpo is another one that sidetracked "netroots."
I think you are very correct that much of the current audience here is blithefully unaware of "netroots." It's like netroots are ancient history. Did Obama help do that? It's possible. I think Josh Marshall and Ariana Huffington certainly helped do that.
November 20, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
p,s. Just remembered, Matthew Yglesias was offered his own blogger sub-domain here at the start-up of TPMCafe, not exactly a "netroots" kind of guy, not a "netroots" audience.
November 20, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink