End of the Obama Meme - Can We Get Back to Fighting?
Well Bill Thompson just came 5 points away from toppling 3-timer Michael Bloomberg, despite $100 million spent against him. And despite Thompson running an awful campaign. But the Democratic Party also worked against him - imagine what he could have done if Obama, Clinton, Schumer, et al. had actually supported a democrat?
And this should put a nail in the coffin of the meme that the Obama team knows when you've been sleeping, knows when you're awake. Sure, few others caught the disgruntlement of the New York populace (probably those early morning Bloomberg speaker trucks had more effect than Bloomberg's arrogance and Wall Street ties), but you don't get your reputation as a Wünderkind by keeping up with the pack - you get it by being right when they're wrong.
Don't get me wrong - I was pleased that Obama & Clinton went out to support a sure loser in Virginia, just as I was pissed when Obama refused to show up for Jim Martin's Georgia runoff last December. I hate all this Rahm calculated "can't expend the political capital if they'll lose" thinking - too much like the Colin Powell chicken-shit doctrine - only show up if the odds are heavily in your favor - forget Cortez, forget Pizarro, forget come-from-behind Truman or even Bill Clinton. So to have leading Democrats show up to support Democrats just because they need the help? Right on. Even if it only lowers the defeat by a few points, that's a few points of embarrassment the next candidate doesn't have to overcome, especially in all-important fund-raising.
I also think this shatters the myth that blacks will get much of anything out of an Obama presidency, at least not from him. I don't especially welcome some over-the-top affirmative action for any minority candidate, but a black candidate running for mayor in New York City can warrant one visit, one warm message from Obama's lips? Frayed knot.
I think the real answer though is that Bloomberg is closer to Obama's style than Thompson - both at home with the Geithner/Summers crowd, halls of power and money, smooth dressers, smooth talkers. It's hard to ding Bloomberg's self-funded campaign when Obama passed up public matching to spend 3/4 of a billion dollars. Any doubt that Obama would change the constitution to run a 3rd time if he could?
In any case, I hope we can get back to quit trying to pick winners and losers, and just do the right thing - figure out which candidate we like best in the primaries, and supporting them in the generals, whatever the polls say, whatever the pundits say, whatever our party kibbitzers like Rahm say is best for us. For all our Schadenfreude about NY-23 (where conservatives proved they could knock out a moderate to rouse their base), the Democrats suffered their own disease with our Blue Dog 5th column, with the Lieberman vs. Ned Lamont fiasco, with abandoning Jim Martin after the big party, and now leaving Bill Thompson in the lurch. Andrew Weiner was just saying in September he would have beaten Bloomberg like a "rented mule". Coulda, shoulda, woulda. How about "just do it"? As Thompson almost did.
By the way, what happened to that DNC 50-state strategy that served us so well in 2005-2008? Before comrade Dean got shoved aside? The Obama team was going to replace it with another. Is that happening, or will we get a rude surprise come 2010-2012, a quick return to the dog days of 2002?
Agree with you completely, Des. Last night revealed the gaping holes in the Democratic agenda.
But I think the failure to get Jon Corzine re-relected in blue state New Jersey, where Obama actively supported an incumbent Democrat, is the most spectacular example of message/resource/strategy failure. Losing New Jersey is inexcusable and, if history is any indication, potentially fatal.
November 4, 2009 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
5% wasn't much, and a Johnny-come-lately approach often doesn't work well.
November 4, 2009 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
5 percent is because NJ is a blue state.
Sorry, my NYT link didn't mention that starting in July, Obama campaigned 3 times for Corzine, and that Obama himself won NJ by 16 points only a year ago. There were billboards and ads everywhere in NJ showing Corzine and Obama together. The DNC pitched in $3 million for Corzine, to supplement Corzine's own double-digit millions. Biden and Bill Clinton campaigned for Corzine as well. It may have been too little, but it wasn't too late.
In New York, Thompson had absolutely nothing.
November 4, 2009 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, my bad, I just found the latest Obama appearance and used that. Obama of course isn't a miracle worker - I don't know how hated Corzine is, but it's hard to sell rotting fish however charismatic you are.
November 4, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not your fault, I used a crappy reference and I was too impatient to find a better one.
Corzine is not a rotting fish, but in his case, he may have had the Wall Street stink on him. Bloomberg has it too, and Dems better take heed (It's the economy, stupid) for the 2010 midterms.
November 4, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Agree with you completely, Des."
Now there's a shock.
November 4, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cripes, I didn't even know that Bill Thompson is black. Nice job, White House.
My guess is that Corzine is way more attractive to the Obama White House, given his Goldman Sachs past. They don't seem to get that the country is starting to get pretty cranky that The President's new BFFs are Wall Street Biggies, and as long as he sticks with Summers and Geithner, it won't matter how many cute speeches he gives to Wall Street, and how many feints the Big Bank Dems make toward 'regulating' banks and Consumer Protection, the piblic will finally suss it all out.
It's SO bad that some Bloomberg and CNBC writers are starting to worry about the next bubble that's building without sweeping re-regulation.
Corzine wasn't helped that voters get that he is One of Them, not one of Us. He had an approval rating of 37% before the election, I think.
November 4, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the background, no, I didn't know he was tied in with Goldman Sachs, and he has quite the complicated background - lots of confrontation, lots of pushing not so popular positions, but that makes me like him a bit more. It's not easy to actually fix a state's economic situation, as Mr. Schwarzenegger shows. Of course there's all that labor/girlfriend stuff in there. Guess Corzine should have spent another $85 million like Bloomberg.
November 4, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero sez...
"It's not easy to actually fix a state's economic situation, as Mr. Schwarzenegger shows."
Schwarzenegger tried to "fix" California with the same old no-tax agenda as every other Republican. His failure "shows" nothing that wasn't already obvious.
November 4, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seconded. Schwarzanegger pushed for bonds that left the state in an even deeper fiscal hole when the property bubble burst. He is the worst governor in this state's history. And that is saying something.
November 4, 2009 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, remember when CA recalled Gray Davis because of an "energy crisis" ginned up by Enron and a budget deficit of a mere coupla billion? Those were the good ole days.
November 4, 2009 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a question, how is your not knowing that Bill Thompson was African-American the White House's fault?
There is a run-off for mayor in Atlanta that pits a Caucasian woman against an African-American male, should the White House be pointing the African-American male in this contest as well?
I ask the above out of my own curiosity, I'm probably one of the more Afrocentric folks who post at TPM, but I'm puzzled by the sense that Bill Thompson was done wrong. One comment implied that since Obama didn't campaign for Bill Thompson, Blacks can forget about getting anything from Obama.
It seems to me that what Blacks want from Obama is to get the economy righted. The problem is that stimulus projects to try to create jobs worsen the deficit. Decreasing the deficit, contracts the economy and decreases jobs. Pick your poison. Any economic change is going to be slow.
November 4, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, Blacks can forget about getting anything from Obama, and Thompson is just an example. I said I wouldn't be thrilled about overreaching affirmative action, but some nudge here and there or simply basic support for being Democrat might be appreciated. Enough seventy-eleventy dimensional chess. Without the mango-pinenut slurpie, thank you.
November 4, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the problem. You decide what is and isn't overreaching affirmative action. Are you talking about things that Obama should do to help African-American politicians or to help African-American citizens? What policies made Bill Thompson the superior candidate?
O'Malley, a White guy, ran against several African-American candidates for mayor of Baltimore and won. O'Malley was the best choice, and is now Governor of Maryland. A White woman and a Black man are running for mayor of Atlanta. Which candidate should Obama choose?
Obama was criticized for "close" ties to Kevin Johnson mayor of Sacramento. Obama was criticized for getting involved in NY politics by suggesting that David Patterson not seek re-election. Now Obama is criticized for not getting involved in NYC politics. Lose-lose situation.
If Obama addresses the economy and health care, would not that be beneficial to Blacks. Would not Blacks be getting something out of the deal?
Could you provide a list of Black demands to be taken to the White House that do not cross the overreaching affirmative action threshold?
November 4, 2009 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Christ, bore me some more, how about it. Thompson was the Democratic candidate for office. Obama wouldn't be messing with local politics like he was with Caroline Kennedy or firing an IG for Kevin Johnson - he would just be supporting the Democratic candidate. But that I guess was simply too much partisanship for Mr. "Above the Fray".
Any other dumb comments?
November 5, 2009 2:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I did not intend to link the two. I was just sporting my ignorance on Thompson. When I heard his name mentioned by pundits, there was always a subtle giggle that he was 'an unknown Comptroller,' and nothing beyond.
I was responding to the fact that the White House didn't help him.
November 4, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the response. Understood. I think Bill Thompson, rightly or wrongly, was seen as a lost cause.
November 4, 2009 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrongly. Maybe next time they won't think so much and just support the candidates.
November 5, 2009 2:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the conservative Republicans have it figured out - it doesn't matter that their candidate in NY-23 lost - they asserted themselves, they did better than anyone expected and they'll be back. If not next time, the time after, or the one after that. No rest for the wicked.
November 5, 2009 2:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
It may be that Obama is so busy trying to be President, he is unable to campaign for everyone else. What is unfortunate is that Bill Clinton was not seen more, and elevated to campaigner-in-Chief.
It does not feel as though the Democratic Party is together. 60 seats and they are still grappling with healthcare reform. The public wants the option and they are still working to diminish that voice. Political agitators at town halls and the MSM blasting talk of the public option being out of reach, but 57% remain in favor of it. The Dems just need to get it done if they wish to remain in power. I'm all for their remianing in power, but they need to do the job we sent them there to do and that 57% of people expect.
November 4, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're just not appreciating the grand chess master that Obama truly is. By losing NYC, he's setting up for three moves down the board. It's all part of a brilliant plan, so DON'T CRITICIZE IT!
November 4, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eleventy-Seventh Dimensional Chess is hard for the proles to understand, Neb.
November 4, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somebody say 7-Eleven?
Get me a Slurpee, willya? Yeah. Large, Peach Mango Crystal Light.
November 4, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You sound like one of those Whole Foods exiles - still walking in the desert protesting? Come in from the cold.
November 4, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon Des. Why would Obama and the DNC have any reason to believe that a minority candidate low in the polls would have any chance again a well funded Wstablishment candidate like Bloomberg. Egads if people applied the same rules to candidate Obama as they did to Thompson (pull within 10 in polling or we won't help) where would he have been.
Rahm & friends were so out of touch they couldn't see how annoyed folks were by bloomberg changing the rules so he could run again, the 100 million dollar bought election. They wouldn't offer help on the NYC mayor campaign because Obama hearts Bloomie no matter how much thompson's campaign begged, but they wanted to interfere in our 2010 gov race to settle scores against Paterson.
And meanwhile ny'ers get left under the reign of a megalomaniacal election buying asshat. *sigh*
November 4, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do I detect a tad of disgruntlement? Don't worry, be happy, or a Happy Meal, as Andy Weiner might say.
November 4, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
And another thing... I had to see that asshat undercover Red Sox fan Bloomberg on the field when my Yankees won the World Series! Grrr.
Anyway, I'm glad that Weiner stayed in Washington. He's been a fantastic voice for single payer and a real public option. Love him.
November 5, 2009 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
the political climate for incumbents will continue to deteriorate as jobs dwindle and the economy fails to recover for middle America.
As an incumbent, Obama should take notice.
November 4, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
What? You're not happy with a DLC/corporate Democratic administration that in most instances serves the very same interests and policy objectives as the Bush regime? What's wrong with you anyway?
November 4, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is busy proving that he is just the "same old same old." I am NOT impressed so far!
November 4, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
With all the "proof" you've offered, how can anyone disagree?
November 4, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Proof of what? Proof that I am not impressed? Proof that Obama hasn't done anything that sets him apart from any other politician? What is it you think you want?
November 4, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the life of me, I can't figure out why people thought he was the liberal. Didn't they read his book and watch the debates? His political machine extends no further than his election to the WH. His primary backer was Goldman Sachs for Christ's sake.
November 4, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jedi mind control. None shall pass.
November 4, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton
Those are the two most important words on the blog. Isn't that Clinton country? It is always marginally--that means slightly, a blip on the map-- better to have "local" help with a local campaign?
I really believe that having anyone inside the beltway--especially with this economy and the bank deals- come out to reality and campaign for someone is the kiss of death.
Exhibit A: N.Y-23 Republicans make a mess of it Democrat wins.
Exhibit B: Obama campaigns for Deeds and loses
Exhibit C: Obama campaigns for Corzine and loses
Exhibit D: Clinton campaigns for Newsom doesn't have an impact and Newsom quits.
Exhibit E: Garamendi wins CA-10 all by his lonesome.
So all politics are local? Voters are thinking locally/regionally and not nationally.
Just my guess.
November 4, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Deeds and Bill Thompson ran poor campaigns by most accounts. That didn't help.
November 4, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed!
November 4, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't Corzine tainted by corruption? Given past criticisms of Obama's affiliation with Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson, I'm surprised that some of these critics are overlooking Corzine's faults and favoring a party victory over principled government. There was talk of Cory Booker or Frank Pallone steeping in and Corzine stepping out of the Governor's race.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/nyregion/25jersey.html
Poor Obama, so anti-Black that he did a favor for Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson but disses a poorly run campaign by a Black guy, Bill Thompson. Obama also dissed David Patterson. But, then he also dissed the White guy in Virginia who ran a bad campaign. Yep, Obama's just picking on 'dem poor old Blacks.
November 4, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to agree that the "black" thing doesn't pan out. That said, I do wonder why he didn't spend more time helping Thompson. (I'm not implying anything there. I honestly wonder why he didn't help out more in NYC. It's possible that Thompson didn't want his help, but I find that unlikely.) Also, I'm not sure which white guy in Virginia he dissed that "ran a bad campaign". Granted, Deeds ran a bad campaign, but Obama did come out to help him, so if that's who you're talking about, I'm not sure how he was dissed.
November 4, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was based on this complaint from "Mudcat" Saunders.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/23/democrat-blasts-white-house-for-anonymous-sniping/
November 4, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the "anyone who makes anonymous quotes should be fired". Amen.
November 4, 2009 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
bloomberg has vocally supported Obama on big issues like the stimulus and rebuilding our infrastructure. His reelection is not a threat to O's agenda and it would be awkward to tear him down to help Thompson who was predicted to lose. I mean anyone looking at the numbers would NOT have predicted a 5% loss. bloomberg was leading in double digits- there was no come from behind fantasy going on here.
I don't get this sudden defense of Thompson from other people. Most people were voting for Thompson as a vote against bloomberg. Thompson sucked, his commercials sucked, his strategy sucked. Nyer's know it. I live here, I know.
And the last time O got involved with politics, they told him to stay out. Rangel told him, Gov. Paterson's wife told him on tv, the polls told him to also.
November 4, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean trying to install Caroline Kennedy on the throne?
November 4, 2009 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a tiny correction: It was the individual early contributions that added up to big $$ that caused the Big Banks to contribute. They could see which way the wind was blowing.
November 4, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was supposed to have posted as a comment to BevD.
November 4, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting that a blog that asks why can't we start fighting is really a blog about all the things that the oh so incompetent Obama administration is doing wrong. If I wanted to send people to a blog that would be discourage mounting an effort to counter the ills that would befall us if the rethugs took over, it would be this one.
The overall theme is that there is absolutely no difference between a John McCain administration and a Barack Obama administration. Let's just cut to the chase and work to elect Sarah Palin in 2012. Why should Progressives organize, there's no difference between the rethugs and Obama and Clinton's DLC.
Why can't Democrats fight the GOP? we're too busy fight other Democrats. We laugh at the wingnuts for purging RINOs from the GOP, as the same thing is being done to fellow Democrats.
Day after day after day of Obama + GW Bush followed by amazement that Democrats don't fight the GOP. As I pointed out Obama has been accused of working to cover up for a mayor in Sacramento. Then Obama is told to stay the h*ll out of NY politics. Then Obama is criticized for not helping a mayoral candidate in NYC.
Michelle Obama worked for a hospital system in Chicago. Therefore Obama has to be in the tank for BigPharma. Obama = Lieberman. Why aren't Democrats fighting against GOP talking points, they're too busy dodging friendly fire.
The take home message is that there is very little of value that one can expect from Democrats. One leaves the post not energized, but depressed. Good luck mobilizing the troops with that message.
November 4, 2009 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try following the links. Once upon a time there was a 50 state strategy that said we will fight for every piece of turf. Let's get back to full court press instead of trying to read all the tea leaves to figure out which contests are in play and which aren't. Got a Democrat? Support him/her. Can't? Find someone quick you can and pour the money and people in. Not enough money? Do better fundraising, don't cut back on your picked losers.
A loss of 5% is better for party growth than a loss of 15%. People feel the party is involved for every contest. As a friend of mine said, "You may kick my ass, but you'll be one tired motherfucker when you're finished." So be it.
November 5, 2009 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
As far as I'm concerned, the man has four years and at the end of it we can take stock and re-evaluate. I'm not into dissecting his every move or non-move and endlessly speculating about endless speculations. I didn't expect the second coming of Christ. I expected a man with some common sense and the will to do the most good for the greatest number of people. Whether he succeeds or not isn't entirely up to him as last I checked this isn't the dictatorship Bush Jr. was hoping for.
We need to pick up a few more seats and get rid of a few backward blue dogs. Then we'll see what there is to see.
Meanwhile, if you want anything to change, you go out and help make it happen. The "teabag patriots" apparently have it down, so what's our excuse?
November 5, 2009 3:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
My excuse is that too many people are waiting for 4 years to criticize Obama rather than fighting for the public option, withdrawal from Afghanistan, closing Gitmo/Bagram, stop the wiretapping and bring the secrets act back into the Constitution, stop handing out trillions to Wall Street, defend the right to abortion (including government pay for poor people/covered insurance) and have Rahm stop telling progressives to STFU.
As I last checked, he wasn't doing much I cared about except ferrying through a "health reform" process that codifies the high costs I want to get rid of. Oh wait, I didn't want that either. I guess he did stop prosecuting medical marijuana for states, after laughing at medical marijuana as a stoner thing a few months back. Slow progress. Someone was praising him for "getting us out of Iraq" - last I checked we still have 117,000 troops there with no plans on lowering that until after the elections sometime next year. But if you want to give him 4 years to show any progress, that's your right.
November 5, 2009 5:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's perfectly fair to criticize Obama for what he's done/hasn't done up to this point. It's also fair to think that some things will take more time. Solving healthcare isn't easy. DADT, however, should've been. (Really, how hard is it to pass an executive order ending that?)
However, it's also worthwhile to remember what he has accomplished. Before I get into that, I want to remind you that our President serves several purposes and has many goals. Many countries separate the roles that we assign to our President into the jobs President and Prime Minister. Assuming you're familiar with that distinction, I'd say our President is doing pretty damn well on the "President" side of the President/Prime Minister equation. Our international reputation has soared:
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=264
Words do matter.
So, while I'd like to see him more involved in the healthcare debate, and I don't understand for a second his dithering on DADT, I also think it's valuable to remember that he is making progress. (Of course, you do recognize that in your "slow progress" comment, but I can't be entirely sure that's not snark.)
November 5, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, not hearing it... AM hearing a whole lot of complaining from folks that don't actually want to do anything to help things along. This ain't a one man show... sooner people get that, better off we'll be.
As for Rahm, my standing policy is to ignore him.
November 6, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama looked behind him and nobody was there..." Huffinton Post's Dan Froomkin weighs in: "Want Obama TO BE Bolder? Take To The Streets!"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/06/want-obama-to-be-bolder-t_n_348969.html
November 7, 2009 4:45 AM | Reply | Permalink