A Note to Naderites and Clintonites

by: David Sirota

Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:37


I need to get something off my chest - something that's been bothering me for a while. Over the last few weeks, I've received a river of "I Told You So" email from both Ralph Nader fans and from Hillary Clinton sycophants claiming that because President Obama has made some tactical mistakes and ideologically odious moves - and because I've been critical of some of these - that it means I was abhorrently wrong for being generally supportive of his candidacy during the primary and the general election; that I need to apologetically throw myself on the mercy of the court; and that I need to beg for forgiveness.*

These rants - and they are really, truly half-deranged rants - represent a kind of reductionism that's just braindead. I stand by everything I wrote and said about Obama during the election - that includes both the praise and criticism. I, and many others who supported Obama, weren't misled by him. I had my eyes wide open - just read the Nation piece I wrote about Obama after spending a day with him. He's not a perfect president, and he's not what I would call a movement progressive. I'm not happy about that, but I never thought otherwise.

But I did think - and continue to think - he was far and away the best and most progressive person for the job, among the serious contenders out there. Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich were never going to win the presidency - I wish I lived in a country where people with their politics could win the presidency, but that's not America yet (though I'm trying to do my part every day to make that day possible). Likewise, if you think Hillary Clinton would be a more progressive president, then you either weren't born - or weren't paying attention - over the last 17 years of the Clinton administration (which she played a major role in) and Hillary Clinton's career in the senate.

The Clinton argument, in particular, is so utterly stupid and silly. A big part of what Obama has to do right now is clean up after Clintonism. Granted, lots of the criticism directed at him is aimed at his failure to take on Clintonism, but the idea that Hillary Clinton would be better at taking on the ideology and policies she herself helped craft is inane.

David Sirota :: A Note to Naderites and Clintonites
Among Naderites, the "I Told You So" rants are a way to justify disengagement. They look at Obama's failings as reason to simply sit on the sidelines and complain. They never consider the inherent failure of the Nader model - a model that said it was more important to run a quixotic campaign for the presidency than to do the hard ground-up work of building a real third party in America.

Among Clintonites, the "I Told You So" rants are just straight-up sore-loser-ism. Unable to accept that a first-term senator defeated their candidate who had every single advantage, they cannot embrace the new president, even as that new president (wrongly, IMHO) appoints her to a top position in his administration.

And so the Naderites rant and rave about "never voting in an election again," and the Clintonites come up with fantastical narratives claiming Hillary Clinton - the same Hillary Clinton who championed NAFTA and voted for the Iraq War and did almost nothing progressive of note in the U.S. Senate - would have been America's progressive savior. And both of them accuse anyone who said anything supportive of Obama - and now says anything critical of him - as somehow hypocritical.

Here's the undeniable truth: Other than votes for final passage in Congress, politics is rarely a binary black-and-white, red versus blue paradigm. Candidates are inherently flawed, inherently some mix of ideology. Movements and activists and voters have to choose the best among this imperfect pool of possibilities. Journalists like me - if we're interested in the truth - will end up being both critical and supportive of candidates because those candidate aren't typically 100% bad or 100% good. That doesn't make the criticism or the praise "hypocritical" - it makes the reporting authentic and real, rather than sycophantic and propagandistic, and it certainly doesn't make it "hypocritical."

I'm very proud of the reporting I did during the campaign, and of the work I'm doing with the team at OpenLeft. We don't carry water for individual politicians - we're honest and straightforward about trying to do our part to build a movement. And that means there's going to be praise and criticism - all at the same time. That doesn't make us the hypocrites in American politics - not even close. Indeed, the real hypocrites are those who insist they care about the future of this country, but either disengage or actively work to undermine a president because their favored candidate didn't win.

So my message is pretty simple:

1. I - and other Obama supporters - have nothing to apologize for on this score. Nothing at all. If telling the truth makes you dislike me or anyone else, that's your problem, not mine.

2. To Naderites, STFU and start doing the unglamorous work of building the third-party you say you really want.

3. To Clintonites, just STFU and slither back to your rathole of bitterness. Your candidate lost because she helped create the problems we now have to fix. Deal with that and become a productive member of society, or again, just STFU.

* I also continue to get email from Obama sycophants who are angry that anyone criticizes Obama and insist that we should "wait and see what he does" - even though the criticism is directed at what he is, in fact, doing. But that's fodder for another post.  

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
A Note to Naderites and Clintonites | 107 comments
My favorite paragraph: (4.00 / 5)
Here's the undeniable truth: Other than votes for final passage in Congress, politics is rarely a binary black-and-white, red versus blue paradigm. Candidates are inherently flawed, inherently some mix of ideology. Movements and activists and voters have to choose the best among this imperfect pool of possibilities. Journalists like me - if we're interested in the truth - will end up being both critical and supportive of candidates because those candidate aren't typically 100% bad or 100% good. That doesn't make the criticism or the praise "hypocritical" - it makes the reporting authentic and real, rather than sycophantic and propagandistic, and it certainly doesn't make it "hypocritical."

Your job as a progressive journalist is to also point out the  stated ( in how it serves the needs of the majority of people) goals of these politicians and to report on how close we get to achieving it.

An excellent article in the Nation, but still... (4.00 / 2)
I can't agree with you that nobody with principles like Kucinich is ever going to be elected President, and I think it's a mistake to throw him into the same pot with Nader and Clinton.

Nader has never held any public office, and Clinton is like an anti-Kucinich... opposite in character and with almost the same nothing for principles as Obama.

But the idea that nobody like Kucinich is electable hasn't exactly been proved by Democratic primaries that are decided almost entirely by money.

Obama already had $75,000,000 in campaign money in June 2007, when he was a nobody with 3 years in the Senate and no accomplishments of any kind anywhere ever.

As long as elections are bought and sold, we're probably stuck with TV con-men like Obama, TV puppets like Bush, and triangulators like the Clintons, but it isn't absolutely impossible to chase most of the money out of the game, and then it wouldn't be impossible to elect a smart, principled candidate like Dennis Kucinich, or even an honest and really brilliant statesman like Wesley Clark.

Kucinich and Clark? (4.00 / 1)
If you think Kucinich and Clark are squeaky clean, or that they would never disappoint you in office, you are living in dreamland my friend.
[ Parent ]
Yeah, I think both of them are "squeaky clean." (4.00 / 1)
Do you have any evidence that suggests either Clark or Kucinich isn't a hundred times more honest than Obama, with his economic team of shills for the mega-banks, and his long history with the Queen of Sub-prime Scamming, Penny Pritzker?
[ Parent ]
David, "just STFU" yourself, ok? (2.50 / 8)
Here's a Clintonite who isn't bitter, but who is really annoyed not only about your constant insults, but also about your stereotyped thinking. Naderites arent doing enough to build a party, Clintonites are bitter - d'oh! This actually was a quite good response to the mails you receive, but once again you ruined it with swearing and with insulting people who haven't sent you a single mail and who didn't engage in  "sore-loser-ism".

For heaven's sake, where did you get the idea that "populism" means seeing the world in black and white? Is it so outside of your imagination that there can also be shades of gray?
:D

HAAAAAAAAA (2.67 / 3)
If ever there was a comment that showed how commenters often don't read the posts they are ranting about, this is it. You said:

where did you get the idea that "populism" means seeing the world in black and white? Is it so outside of your imagination that there can also be shades of gray?

I wrote:

Here's the undeniable truth: Other than votes for final passage in Congress, politics is rarely a binary black-and-white, red versus blue paradigm. Candidates are inherently flawed, inherently some mix of ideology. Movements and activists and voters have to choose the best among this imperfect pool of possibilities. Journalists like me - if we're interested in the truth - will end up being both critical and supportive of candidates because those candidate aren't typically 100% bad or 100% good. That doesn't make the criticism or the praise "hypocritical" - it makes the reporting authentic and real, rather than sycophantic and propagandistic, and it certainly doesn't make it "hypocritical."

You ought to brush up on your reading comprehension, dude. Or just your reading. Otherwise, yeah, STFU.

[ Parent ]
I was actually hinting at that you are guilty of the same behaviour... (4.00 / 10)
...that you criticize there. You rant about politics not being either black and white, but in the very same article you tell all Clintonites to "STFU" because they're only "bitter" and suffer under "sore-loser-ism"? Sry, don't you see the paradox here? Maybe you didn't want to put all Clintonites in the same bucket, but then you really should care more about the way you word your statements. Speaking of "Clintonites" as if they're all one and the same certainly looks like a serious case of black and white painting!  
[ Parent ]
well said, gray. (4.00 / 2)
while i can certainly understand his position, the entire post comes off as one long rant against entire groups of people.  

2. To Naderites, STFU and start doing the unglamorous work of building the third-party you say you really want.  <-- not all naderites have emailed and many are trying to do just that: create/build the 3rd party they want.

3. To Clintonites, just STFU and slither back to your rathole of bitterness. Your candidate lost because she helped create the problems we now have to fix. Deal with that and become a productive member of society, or again, just STFU.  <-- not all clintonites were sore losers nor are they NOT productive members of society.
 

speaking as one of the bitter, tho neither a naderite nor a clintonite, fear not, little sirota, i shall never email you.  most times, i find your view refreshing (tho i'd much rather noam chomsky had your mainstream airtime)... this is not one of those times.  i get what you're saying, it just could have been said better.  but hey, we all have off days.

**anyways, personally, i think both camps are crazy, acuz we should all do things MY way, but hey, to each their own :D

[ Parent ]
Thank you, Gray. (4.00 / 10)
Someone needed to say that. Here's another "Clintonite" who isn't bitter, but rather annoyed that a few here and on other blogs have nothing better to do than continue the "primary wars". No matter who said what to Sirota, he has no right to lump all Hillary Clinton voters in as "bitter", "corporatist", "sore loser", or any other negative crap.

And secondly, he obviously doesn't get it on Obama. There are far more similarities between President Obama and President Clinton than he cares to admit. Both are well-meaning Democratic Presidents, and both are susceptible to influence from the DLC/corporate right. President Obama is no more a "progressive messiah" today than Clinton was in 1993. What we as the Left failed to do in 1993 that we must do today is organize in support of our causes. This means we must stand with our progressive allies in Congress in fighting tooth and nail for a better economic recovery bill, universal health care, real climate solutions, expanded civil rights, and so on.

When we couldn't support Clinton when he tried doing the right thing (such as health care and open military service), he backtracked once the GOP pressured him into a tight corner. We can't repeat that mistake. Don't just expect Obama to do the right thing, but make him do it! If we assert ourselves over the likes of Geithner and Summers, then we can start seeing Obama shift left.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

[ Parent ]
Talk about painting with a broad brush... (2.67 / 3)
David was talking about the email complaints.  If you sent an email telling him 'I told you so', then he is telling you to STFU.  If you didn't send an email, then he isn't telling you anything and if read his work his isn't telling you anything you didn't already know.

If you have gone so far as to send David a sore-loser, I-told-you-so email then you have gone beyond keeping your own counsel.  I imagine David must have gotten a lot of these sorts of messages to go on this harangue. That said, if you can't separate yourself from those nutjobs who are sending David these ridiculous emails, then perhaps you do fall in the group that needs to just STFU.

I often have to grit my teeth to read David's stuff because he is just too shrill for my tastes, but in this case I think he is spot on.


[ Parent ]
Well, that's not what he wrote (0.00 / 0)
He wrote:

So my message is pretty simple: ....

3. To Clintonites, just STFU and slither back to your rathole of bitterness.

There's reading comprehension. And then there's writing ability. Eh? Because, Ricky, if that's what Sirota meant, that's not what he wrote.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
The Deal with Obama (4.00 / 1)
The Nation article resonates with just about everything else I've read about the President by people I consider perceptive, and also with my own observations, limited as they are by the usual media filters.

What he tells people, apparently as clearly in private conversations as in public speeches, is that he isn't prepared to let us in on what really moves him, or what precisely his intentions are in addressing the issues which concern us all so deeply. That he does so for strategic as well as tactical reasons is understandable in the context of politics. That he's been relatively, if not completely, guileless in the way he justifies his actions is welcome, but not entirely convincing. David is spot on here; there's no point whining about Obama's strategy, or his tactics. They are what they are, and they got him as far as he's gotten. Given how far that is, it's not surprising that he refuses to alter them just to please us.

If I were President Obama, I doubt I'd be any more forthcoming than he is. It's his job to get done what he thinks needs to be done. If we're as clear about what we want as he claims to be about what he wants, then we have the basis for a genuine political conversation. If we're not, then he might be more justified in ignoring us than we think. That's the deal, as I see it. He makes his case, we make ours. Different responsibilities in pursuit of an outcome which is equitable for everybody. We can't expect him to do our work for us.


"... he isn't prepared to let us in on what really moves him, or what precisely his intentions are..." (4.00 / 1)
This sort of defines a con-man, but your assumption that every politician is guilty of the same isn't well-founded, considering that Teddy Kennedy is still in the Senate, and Dennis Kucinich is in the House, and when those guys talk about universal healthcare, it isn't a joke.  
[ Parent ]
You make my point for me (0.00 / 0)
Neither Kennedy nor Kucinich have gotten themselves elected to the presidency, and I honestly doubt they ever could. More is required than purity of intention, much more. In fact, every politician is part con man; the diversity of our voting public, and the structure of our electoral system requires it. I don't know what lens you use when you look at our recent political history, but it's my recollection that in Kennedy's case the public purity of intention came after it was made clear to him that he could never be President.

The piety of Jimmy Carter is well established now that he's been out of office for nigh on thirty years, and the canonization of Al Gore is already well underway. Both appear to be very different people now that the brass ring is out of their reach. I'd guess that they aren't really, but it's quite clear that feel less constrained about showing it than they did when it might have cost them something.

It ain't mendacity, Jacob, not in its purest form anyway. It's just politics.

[ Parent ]
Do you really believe McCain would have won against Wesley Clark? (4.00 / 1)
If the Democrats ever nominated anybody with real integrity and demonstrated competence at managing huge and unwieldy organizations like NATO or the US government, I think they would crush the Republicans in the general election.

The Republicans ran against Obama mainly on the issue of national security, and on that turf Wesley Clark makes McCain look like a clown.

[ Parent ]
The McCain wasn't a hero-line was politically inane. (4.00 / 1)
It doesn't matter that it was true from a rational standpoint; it revealed a complete lack of facility with emotional truths as Americans have defined them.
[ Parent ]
Clark never said McCain wasn't a hero. (4.00 / 1)
At least try to get a real quote before you substitute your silly distortion for what Wesley Clark actually said.

He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war.

[ Parent ]
Which is it, Jacob? (0.00 / 0)
Wesley Clark? Dennis Kucinich? Ted Kennedy? Anybody but Obama? Do you ever get the feeling that you're shouting in a windowless room?
[ Parent ]
"Anybody but Obama?" (4.00 / 1)
If you really think that Clark, Kucinich, and Kennedy define the realm of "anybody but Obama," maybe you never heard of...

George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson, Susan Collins, Sam Brownback, Jim Bunning, Saxby Chambliss, Tom Coburn, John Cornyn, Judd Gregg, James Inhofe, John Kyl, Harry Reid, John D. Rockeller IV, Mike Arcuri, Joe Baca, John Barrow, Melissa Bean, Marion Berry, Sanford Bishop, Dan Boren, Leonard Boswell, Allen Boyd, Dennis Cardoza, Christopher Carney, Ben Chandler, Jim Cooper, Jim Costa, Lincoln Davis...

All those bums are also "not Obama," and there's a lot more to know about Kucinich, Kennedy, and Clark than their non-identity with Barack Obama!

If that's news to you, maybe you should subscribe to a newspaper, or read something besides your own condescending comments on the internet!


[ Parent ]
A bit late for what iffery, in any event (0.00 / 0)

All those bums are also "not Obama," and there's a lot more to know about Kucinich, Kennedy, and Clark than their non-identity with Barack Obama!

Yes, and when judged by the standards you're advocating here -- of integrity, competence, and political acumen -- not all of it is good. Which was my point -- not that Obama isn't what you claim he is, but that your own habits of reasoning, at least those on view in the current thread, would seem to make you a poor judge of whether he is or isn't, even if there were a lot more evidence available than there is.

In short, I disagree with you, not just about Obama, but about the odd grab-bag of not-Obamas you've trotted out as viable alternatives. As it happens, events have proven them to be somewhat less than viable, at least as presidential candidates. The rest, I think, is history.

[ Parent ]
I think you may be underestimating the ability of US voters (4.00 / 1)
to be sold a shoddy President on the basis of lies, innuendo, and image. Logic may drive YOUR decision-making process, but not so for all that enter the voting booths.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Isn't that what the Kerry campaign said (4.00 / 1)
in 2004? That his military record made him untouchable?

Hm.

[ Parent ]
I supported Clark in 2004 (0.00 / 0)
yes I believe McCain would've beat him. Clark is ready for a foreign policy centered campaign, not an economic campaign.  
[ Parent ]
This is really poor argument (4.00 / 10)
Look, no one who could maintain any level of objectivity really believed that Hillary was some kind of progressive savior. It is really a strawman argument to argue as if that is what most Hillary supporters believed.

But many who supported Hillary did believe that

1. She was, in fact, more progressive on policy than Obama (her views on the most basic progressive reform going forward, UHC, were clearly so). The one area where she might be cast as less progressive -- foreign policy -- and which brought many progressives to Obama's side, is now essentially ceded to her in the Obama administration, essentially nullifying that potential difference.

2. She was far more experienced, and would likely prove more effective. I should think that the current fiasco over the stimulus negotiation might prove why it is that experience is deemed important in a President.

3. She was emphatically not wedded to any belief that bipartisanship would make for a more effective Presidency in terms of bringing about progressive change. I don't see how anyone can look at what has gone down in Washington so far and conclude that Obama's commitment to bipartisanship has been a success in engendering progressive policy. It has been a grave, and -- should the stimulus fail -- perhaps a fatal mistake.

Can you seriously make the case that Hillary would have brought about a less progressive set of policies than Obama has to date, and promises to do? I don't know how you would begin to make that case on even a single issue.

And, to me personally, what is most discouraging about Obama's Presidency is precisely that it has given too many so-called progressives the illusion of change where none is really to be found. There is a complacency about Obama in the progressive crowd that is simply disturbing. Because of this complacency, he is for the Villagers, who desperately want to preserve the status quo, an answer to their prayers, the perfect President: all the feel of change, with none of the substance.

What I would have liked about Hillary as President is that no one on the left would hesitate to criticize her when she would have failed at implementing progressive policy. That criticism would have been healthy, democratic, and productive.

I personally was never so much a supporter of Hillary (whose limitations never eluded me) as I was a great sceptic of Obama, and of the movement that supported him. I have certainly seen nothing in Obama's Presidency that has made me think that I was wrong to doubt his progressive credentials and commitment, and his effectiveness. And the movement that arrayed itself behind him has only been a great disappointment. It has remained firmly committed to Obama as a leader even when -- if not especially when -- he deviates from progressive policy.

I must say, on some days, it seems to me that Obama has single-handedly sabotaged the progressive movement, redefining it around his own personality and robbing it of its sense of purpose. Perhaps this is only temporary; at least I so hope.

We are of course, stuck with Obama at this stage, and must somehow figure out how to do the best with what we've got. I, however, find that a very discouraging and demoralizing exercise. Most especially I feel this way because this was the election cycle in which, perhaps uniquely in my lifetime, true progressive change seemed within reach.

But in my view, if you were a big supporter of Obama, and yet really want progressive policy to be implemented, you should either admit you made a mistake, or at least express some very real doubts on that score.

And I'm not seeing either in your post.

Nah, no mistake (4.00 / 5)
Went in with my eyes wide open - never pretended anything different. The people who are making a mistake are those who assume everyone who supported Obama's election was an Obama sycophant. The real world isn't black and white - come visit it sometime.
[ Parent ]
Well, you sure ranted about "Clintonites" in general... (4.00 / 4)
so if you really only wanted to criticize "those who assume everyone who supported Obama's election was an Obama sycophant", a small subset of all Clintonites, you should have written so. Looks like this was a totally avoidable misunderstanding.
[ Parent ]
Can't have it both ways (4.00 / 3)
Which is why I got snarky below.

Either:

1. "Politics is rarely a binary black-and-white"

Or:

2. "To Clintonites, just STFU and slither back to your rathole of bitterness."

Having said #2, you then counter with #1. But if the world is, indeed, not black and white, then there are perfectly legitimate reasons to have supported Hillary, her supporters don't need to STFU, and, just maybe, they're not "bitter" -- cliche-ridden writing is, so often, a sign of sloppy thinking -- but learning lessons from the entire process of the 2008 elections.

At any rate, at this point, I'm impervious. As are many.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
Yes (4.00 / 4)
Can you seriously make the case that Hillary would have brought about a less progressive set of policies than Obama has to date, and promises to do? I don't know how you would begin to make that case on even a single issue.

Going after your points one by one...

1.  She was not more progressive than Obama by a longshot.  During the campaign, she campaigned on the McCain plan for gas tax reductions and spent most of her time coddling conservatives on Fox News.  Her whole political career has been championing DLC policies.  She made no pretense about that.  And her health plan was essentially the same as Mitt Romneys... sure it was "universal"... everyone had to buy private junk insurance at exhorbitant costs... but, but, but the public plan option... sure, the one she never, ever talked about in public.  Her plan is the exact same as Max Baucus' plan that is being presented now and assailed by the left.

2. Experienced, yes, effective, maybe...  The Clintons had many fiascos of their own during their time in office, and seemed to thrive on it...  Their history suggests that nothing woudl have been different, except that Hillary being a rabid DLC'er... she would have pushed more tax cuts in the stimulus and sold it based on that.  She always sold her "more progressive" policies in a conservative light, as DLC'ers do, since they feel that conservatism is still dominant and one must cede moral authority to that paradigm.

3.  Bipartisanship is what got Hillary her Senate creds.  The Republicans liked her in the Senate, since she'd capitulate to most conservative issues.  I wouldn't call it bipartisanship, mostly... just typical DLC caving.... or triangulation...

I'm sorry, but I do not understand the love affair with the Clintons.  They joyfully watched the party collapse from under their feet, and were more than willing to be Republican-lites for most of their career.  Hillary Clinton would never have gone on stage and said that republican policies failed.  I'd expect her more to go up and say, "The era of big government is over." and coddle right wingers that way.  This would be consistent with her history and beliefs as a DLC'er....

We've got a Tom Brady int eh White house, and some people still insist on bringing back Drew Bledsoe.  Bledsoe was a decent quarterback for the Pats, but would you really replace Tom Brady?

Hillary would have been a decent, maybe even good, president... but, to say she would be more progressive is folly.... Her political history shows otherwise...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
"We've got a Tom Brady in the White House..." (4.00 / 2)
Tom Brady? So far Obama looks more like Donald Duck, trying to throw the ball with three little cartoon fingers.

$9.7 trillion for the banks and $450 billion in stimulus spending for the rest of us...

Apparently Obama doesn't even know which team he's supposed to be playing for, and he keeps running into the wrong end-zone.

[ Parent ]
Come on, Mike, lots of distortions in your posting... (4.00 / 3)
- not more progressive than Obama? Maybe, but nore more conservative, either. Didn't their rates show they are essentially in the same league?
- "spent most of her time coddling conservatives on Fox News"? Comeon mike, "most of her time2 is a shameless exaggeration. And Obama was and is regularly on Fox, too.
- "her health plan was essentially the same as Mitt Romneys"? Almost everybody agreed that both Clinton and Obama stole major parts of their plans from Edwards!
- "everyone had to buy private junk insurance at exhorbitant costs"? Uh, no. Everybody had the option of bvuying into a government run Medicare like plan! That's the way to single payer through the backdoor. In the long run, private insurers can't compete, et voila! national universal coverage. About the same as what Obama is proposing.
- "Hillary being a rabid DLC'er"? The DLC didn't endorse either candidate! And lots of DLCers supported Obama.
- "She always sold her "more progressive" policies in a conservative light"? Sounds like a good strategy to me, if you will have to compete with a republican candidate in the general election! And consequently, Obama moved to the right, too.
- "Bipartisanship is what got Hillary her Senate creds."? And was all over Obama's camapign program, too. And he really meant it, as we can witness now.

Really, Mike, there are much less differences between Obama and Clinton than you want to make us believe. Can't we see things a bit more objectively now, since the race is really an issue of yesteryear?

[ Parent ]
Well, I think that was the point... (0.00 / 0)
...the differences between the two are minor... so, why are the Hillary people still in a huff? The big difference between the two was Obama's ground game and organization.... something that the party will benefit from the years to come.

There is no evidence that Hillary would have handled the stimulus debate any better than Obama.  Obama got blindsided by the media... Hillary would have as well, and there is no guarantee that she would have forseen or preempted it.

I will quibble on the health plan, though.  The "public option" was always supposed to be the saving grace of the Clinton plan, however she never, ever talked about it in public.  She did say that she would compromise if necessary.  Guess what would probably be curt right off the bat?  The "public plan" that she refused to defend.

We're seeing the same "compromise" being discussed in the Senate as we speak with Baucus' copy of the Hillary plan...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
Not quite... (4.00 / 3)
Let's go over these points again:

1. I used to agree with you... Until I did my own research, saw the bills Hillary proposed, and examined her policy goals. Honestly, there wasn't much difference between her and Barack. And where there were differences, many of them showed Hillary's proposals as slightly more progressive, such as her climate/energy proposal investing heavily in renewable energy and her health care plan ensuring everyone was covered.

2. The Clintons "thrived" on controversy after learning the hard way that the Rethuglicans weren't their friends. Perhaps the Obama Administration should look at recent history as they talk about "bipartisanship". Yes, President Clinton lurched to the right (despite Hillary suggesting he not)... But our movement is as much to blame for that as he is as we weren't organized and ready to defeat the GOP.

3. Can't we say the same of President Obama's Senate record. Excuse me, but who cosponsored legislation with Tom Coburn?

4. Fortunately or unfortunately, there's a history of the President's agenda and campaign taking precedence over partybuilding. What you accuse President Clinton of can easily be said about President Carter or President Johnson. Excuse me, but who was the ONLY Democratic President since FDR to serve two terms?

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think President Clinton was perfect and I don't think Hillary Clinton would have governed like Nader or Kucinich. I'm only saying that we need to take our blinders off and realize that President Obama isn't the "progressive savior" that certain bloggers pumped him up to be. He, like Hillary, is just another slightly left of center pol who needs to be pushed leftward.



Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

[ Parent ]
Lord Mike (4.00 / 5)
Hillary Clinton would never have gone on stage and said that republican policies failed.

But she  said it every day on the campaign trail. She said it over and over. I heard her over and over say Republican policies had failed, had caused enormous damage and hardship.  

She was a much more partisan Democrat than Barack Obama.  Bipartisanship was merely a tactic you employed when you had to...it was not a deeply held belief. With Barack Obama it is a deeply held belief....which we will see how much he modifies.

She was not her husband. Just because she was his wife, did not make her his clone. She was an independent person. She was not the one who crafted every policy.  It is wrong to ascribe to her every position or thought he had.  Their own daughter made it clear that her mother was always more progressive than her dad. If anyone should know it would be her.  David ascribed positions to  her,  that despite contrary contemporary reports of people who had been there,  she did not have, i.e. on NAFTA.  Sure she was publicly silent, she had to be;  she was the First Lady. Just as now she will forever be publicly silent on any domestic issue because she's the Secretary of State.

STFU is just not a useful dialog...but that is aimed at angry Obama supporters, not you.

I think she would have been a different president. I never thought her positions and Barack's positions the future in foreign policy had any real differences.

She would have had no honeymoon in the media as Barack has had.  We'll see if it continues....let's hope so.  they seem to have laid off their new "cynicism" about him for a day or so...  

She would have needed the left more so she would have been more responsive to their pressure.  

If you look at their domestic policy positions during the campaign, she didn't precomproimise...neither on her health care plan nor her prescriptions for our econimc difficulties; they had no significant tax cuts in them.  They were traditional Keynesian spending on mid to lower income people.  She would have had a stronger bill which the press would have crucified her for as well as her lack of bipartisanship.  I think the votes in the Sente would have been the same. Could her presidency have suceeded under the constant media assault?  I don't know. We'll have to see if Barack's can succeed when he gave up too much on such a crucial bill.

But Barack is the president,  and we have to do our darnedest to make sure that he's successful. We must help him be the great president we need.  


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Subtle Support of McCain as President over Obama Partisan Democrat? (0.00 / 0)
We're going into la la land...  She lost we need to move on.
[ Parent ]
I never support Republicans, them or their ideas (0.00 / 0)
this is what I used to say to Democratic politicians who praised John McCain for his maverickness. I knew he wanted to run for presicent as a Republican.

"If you have nothing BAD to say about John McCain, say nothing at all"

You are engaging in the fallacy that thoughtful critique of Barack Obama makes one a Republican. There is a real difference between looking at Obama from the left and the right.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
I didn't mean you. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
okay thanks...but you replied to me (0.00 / 0)
or well ...nevermind

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
Reality Check: (0.00 / 0)
Hillary could barely manage her campaign and handlers*, I sincerely doubt she would have been able to deal with our misogynist republican party, realizing the misogynist backlash argument used in the primary would not work in our current political environment.

*
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc...

[ Parent ]
She made a comeback (4.00 / 1)
She made some screwups and then came back to within an eyelash of winning. Count the big states she won - something's hugely wrong with your theory of "complete mismanagement". She got 49-50% of the vote against someone who managed to heavily outraise her in spending. The ahistorical jabs at her that continue to this day are quite irritating. I suppose the first thing that happens after the Revolution is the complete rewrite of history.
[ Parent ]
Early on, she had leads of over 20%. (0.00 / 0)
And the support of the wretched Dem establishment. Chew on that.
[ Parent ]
She had no plans beyond Super Tuesday, and she essentially conceded the caucus states. (0.00 / 0)
She had plenty of money to not have such a plan. But she went bankrupt because of lavish spending on luxury and failed projects. Do you remember the staged "Town Hall"? It was a comedy routine. Do you think Barack Obama had any say in how his campaign was run?

Clinton made bad decision after bad decision. She is a political failure.  

[ Parent ]
For a failure (4.00 / 1)
she sure had Obama sweating bullets.

Chew on that. Whole Democratic leadership and media behind him, and he couldn't close the deal? Pathetic.

Anyway, back to la-la land with you.

[ Parent ]
I knew she was more progressive (4.00 / 3)
When she suggested that Iran should be wiped off the map.  Oh also when, in front of god and everyone on stage at YearlyKos, she proudly proclaimed that "lobbyists are people too".  Also, the Iraq War.  Also, cluster bombs.
[ Parent ]
So true. (2.00 / 2)
What the people above seem to forget is that we were electing a Pres., not a Senator. Getting in front of everyone and preaching hate and war tends to turn a few people off. And HC's horribly corrupt rapist husband would be a kind of co-Pres. Minute combings of the congressional record will never convince me--congressional votes tend to break along party lines.

What people don't understand is that Clinton gets her "moderate" label not because she votes down the middle, but because her "progressive" votes come with some pretty horrible "conservative" votes. I've long lost any trust I had in the Clintons. Sleeze city.

[ Parent ]
A really interesting post. (4.00 / 4)
Thank you.  I suspect that Clinton's agenda would be less progressive, but who knows.  I think you're right that Clinton would have handled the stimulus in a less naive fashion, and that's huge.  

I realized what Obama was all about when I saw how he handled the situation at the Harvard Law Review.  He reached out to the Federalist Society-types and was seen by many on the left as screwing them.  But he rose to power.

Re: Kucinich's politics--it's not clear to me that if someone with Obama's charisma pushed Kucinich's policies that he couldn't be elected.  I mean, look at the way Kucinich is covered--the talk in the MSM is all about how short he is and whether he's been abducted by aliens.

[ Parent ]
"...if someone with Obama's charisma pushed Kucinich's policies..." (4.00 / 2)
That's an excellent hypothetical, and it's absolutely worth a try.

I actually thought that someone might be Paul Hackett a couple of years ago, but he got totally screwed over by the Democratic Party, and went back to practicing law and lobbying for disabled veterans.

[ Parent ]
Heh. (4.00 / 6)
Sometimes, I feel the same way. And before anyone here calls me a "PUMA", let me remind you all that I didn't just vote for Obama last November, but I also donated whatever $$$ I could, called states like Colorado and Florida, and canvassed in Nevada for Obama. I knew he'd make a good President, and even though I ultimately favored Hillary Clinton in the primary, I had no doubt in moving to Obama in the general.

Now with that said, I need to say this. It's a HUGE mistake for us to center a movement around a personality over a cause. Sure, it's nice to look at the Obama Administration and say "change has come". But really, when will we start seeing more change? When will we see universal health care? Real climate solutions? The Employee Free Choice Act? An end to DOMA & DADT?

Honestly, I see President Obama as I saw President Clinton. Like Clinton, I do think Obama has good intentions and I do understand his sympathies mostly lie with us. However, he seems quite susceptible to the same DLC/corporatist influences (like Summers or Geithner) that Clinton was 15 years ago. And if we don't keep up the pressure and encourage Obama to shift left, he'll follow the DLC rightward... Just like President Clinton.

That's what we should be discussing now. How do we avoid the same mistakes we made 15 years ago in not being prepared to fight the radical right when they attacked "Hillarycare" and "tax and spend lib'rulzm"?

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

[ Parent ]
I never understood the experience (4.00 / 1)
argument for Hillary.  Hillary was responsible for one major initiative: health care.  

It was a complete disaster.

[ Parent ]
It only worked against Obama (0.00 / 0)
because Obama's experience was on the state level until 2005. The experience argument wouldn't have worked against someone like Bill Richardson or Mark Warner.

It really wasn't a compelling argument because one of the draws to Obama was that he was a fresh face and not part of the establishment.  

[ Parent ]
I started out as a likely Clinton supporter (4.00 / 1)
but evolved into a voter who could hardly stand her. Clinton's behavior while becoming the Secretary of State hasn't improved my opinion - it has actually gone down despite the media fanfare. For all the pretense of gravitas, Clinton is definitely a lightweight.

Naderism is just a hair style.  

[ Parent ]
Ugh... (0.00 / 0)
Perhaps some of these arguments have merit, but I absolutely have to take issue with this line of BS which has made its rounds WAY too many times since early 2008:

1. She was, in fact, more progressive on policy than Obama (her views on the most basic progressive reform going forward, UHC, were clearly so).

Supporting Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health care plan is not, I repeat, NOT progressive. It's a gift to the insurance industry. There is nothing progressive or smart or common sense about mandates. They don't work. Period. That's not to say Obama's health care plan is great... in fact it sucks. There was only one candidate who had a good health care plan - Dennis Kucinich. He was never going to win.

So rail against Obama and his health care plan all you want, but don't feed us lies about Hillary Clinton's supposed progressive domestic policy plans because they never existed.

[ Parent ]
Good piece (4.00 / 3)
And I can't believe so many people think David is an Obama apologist. Wow, talk about Obama Derangement Syndrome.  
I know, seriously (4.00 / 1)
These people really must be freakish delusionals to think I am an Obama apologist.
[ Parent ]
Indeed. (4.00 / 1)
We Sirota completists understand that you're actually a John Edwards apologist, and this essay is remarkable for his absence.
[ Parent ]
Given what we learned about (4.00 / 1)
John after the fact, his absence from this essay is not surprising.

And I say this as someone who worked for him in Iowa.

[ Parent ]
well ... (4.00 / 1)
... one could still hypothesize about how his presidency would have diverged from this one (including his Congressional majorities relative to Obama) in a universe in which that didn't happen.
[ Parent ]
Good post David. (0.00 / 0)
The way I look at it, Obama is nothing more or less than a tremendous step in the right direction.  Personally I love him, even if he does have tremendous flaws that we should call him on when he's wrong.  But his critics should think of it this way-how dramatic of a leap is his presidency from his predecessor's?  How likely would the distance of that leap be rivaled by Hillary Clinton, whose husband as president whole heartedly supported a corporate agenda and signed on to heinous policies like extroardinary rendition (that's not to say there was nothing good about the Clinton presidency-there are a lot of things I remember quite fondly).  What's more, if we are successful with this endeavor, what kind of door might that open up for us on down the road?  While it doesn't necessarily hold true for us, what Nixon used from the ashes of '68 was in turn used by Reagan and continued snowballing until the right wing elites and grassroots had changed the political conversation and dynamics of the country.  This might well be our starting point, however tedious, to doing the same.

As for the Naderites, they should look at it this way.  Obama's the first president probably since FDR to take on corporate accountability, demonstrate a commitment (at least to this point) to opening up government, and other progressive policies, however toned down, that Nader has championed in the past.  So, basically, American politics is working like American politics-the third party ideas are being absorbed into the mainstream.

Check out Blue Arkansas:
http://bluearkansas.blogspot.com/

Hillary would know better than to appoint Gregg to the Cabinet (4.00 / 3)
A hyperpartisan Republican hearing everything said at Cabinet meetings? Bad decision.

Otherwise, I think the actions of the Obama administration have validated what a comparison of Obama and Clinton on platforms and voting records indicated - they are very similar politically and would pursue indistinguishable policies. Because of his bipartisan rhetoric, lack of baggage, and symbolic importance, Obama has much broader public support than Clinton would have had so he we have the right choice.

It was weird... I could have understood if... (4.00 / 1)
the 'Democratic' Gov. governing a State that elected Obama as the President for change actually argued that replacing Gregg with a Democrat could be justified.

Do you think 'slight of hand' politics was part of the deal?

Just plain weird.

[ Parent ]
Wow (0.00 / 0)
He went there.

The Politics of Bruno S.

Obama is a vast improvement (4.00 / 2)
over McCain.  I make no apologies for supporting him.

On the fundemental issue of globalization, neither he nor Clinton really got it.  Each in the end listens to the same economic advisrers who are largely free traders.  In that respect the debate over NAFTA during the Ohio primary was among the sillier I have ever seen.  

My hopes for Obama are, and always have been, limited.  Get out of Iraq, restore the rule of law, move toward some form of UHC, reverse some of the tax cuts for the rich.  Taken together these steps represent significant change.

They do not, however, address the fundemental cause of growing economic inequality.  Of the three major candidates I thought only Edwards really saw the problem correctly, which is why I was for him.  

Thank You! (4.00 / 3)
And so the Naderites rant and rave about "never voting in an election again," and the Clintonites come up with fantastical narratives claiming Hillary Clinton - the same Hillary Clinton who championed NAFTA and voted for the Iraq War and did almost nothing progressive of note in the U.S. Senate - would have been America's progressive savior. And both of them accuse anyone who said anything supportive of Obama - and now says anything critical of him - as somehow hypocritical.

The biggest criticism of Obama has been that he's engaged in too much Clintonism, but to the PUMA crowd, all that means is that we should have gone with ... Hillary Clinton! The only way we can get less Clinton is more Clinton! Gotta love that logic.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

This is the current problem with the blogsphere (4.00 / 1)
I was a big poster and came to the blogs daily back in college after the 2004 elections until I went to work at ABC about two years ago. I skimmed, but never participated, but met many who did.

During the primaries I saw many of my friends on the blogsphere just hit the x button and close out. During the hayday of the primary wars, other Democrats I knew who used to participate on kos, MyDD, etc instead laughed at the childish behavior that erupted here. The blogs had become a joke.

Although I've come back, many won't, they chose to participate in other ways, which is unfortunate. The reputation of the blogs among liberal activists, at least the ones I know, have been damaged by the primary wars. Now, everytime there is warrented criticism of the President, the Clintonites and Naderites as you've describe them, smell blood in the water and troll the comments thread. They use those diaries to keep their childish behaviors alive. Obama supporters, in the meantime, may feel the need to defend the President, even when they're critical of something he did, because they don't want the trolls to "win"

That's why I've stayed here and not gone back to kos or MyDD. Especially MyDD, which still has the stench of primary wars all over it, even though I think you and Chris are a little too left of me.

In the meantime, as we look objectively at this administration, there are going to be times where we need to defend him against the likes of crap like this;

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI...

We're never going to get a place where progressives can hold real power as long as the MSM is pushing THAT CRAP.

Nail on the head... (4.00 / 5)
The primary wars absolutely ruined some previously good blogs. MyDD was completely destroyed. TalkLeft used to be a good blog. DailyKOs has some value only because of its sheer bulk (allowing it to have original content like polls).

The quality here is struggling too... At least 20% of the comments come from crazy people, PUMA dead-enders, out-of-touch purity trolls, 9/11 truthers and various assorted nuts.

The best blogs remaining are either on the small side (something like Balloon Juice) are centered around original reporting (e.g. Talking Points Memo) or are narrower in scope (Calculated Risk).

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

[ Parent ]
Start your own (0.00 / 0)
that's how I'm getting around it...starting my own

local blogs are good too. They seemed to have survived the primary wars unscathed because they weren't totally focused on the Presidential race.  

[ Parent ]
Hypotheticals (4.00 / 3)
As a passionate Clinton supporter, I don't see the point in hypotheticals.  

Nor do I see the point in "I told you so" comments via email or otherwise.

The past is the past.  It doesn't matter who anyone voted for - we got Obama.  He's a generic, corporate, milquetoast Democrat that shows no signs of being able to handle the tasks befor him, but I don't have much choice but to ride it out.  Except that I don't even really listen to him much anymore, since I just can't take him seriously.  We live in serious times, and we lack a serious leader.

He proposed a tepid, inadequate stimulus package and invited the opposition to dilute it.  But the funny thing was, when the predictable happened, and the package was shaved, there was anger against the so-called moderates, not against Obama.  He BEGGED them to cut his plan.  Today he was going on again about how it isn't perfect, etc, etc.  That isn't leadership - that's confession.  If he isn't serious about aggressively tackling the worst economic downturn of the last fifty years, and isn't committed to forcefully standing behind his plan, he isn't very likely to be serious about anything else.  He had the weakest approach to healthcare of the primary candidates - in the end, he will dilute that, if he passes anything at all.  Everything is going to be half-assed with Obama.  That's who is is, and who he has always been.

If you want to continue to beat your head against the wall, insisting that you can force Obama to the left, or that he will discover a fighting spirit, go ahead.  The reality is that you care about issues, and Obama doesn't care about much of anything.

and clintion is not a (4.00 / 1)
generic, corporate democrat?

[ Parent ]
Sigh (0.00 / 0)
I didn't want this to be about supporting Clinton.

Clinton is as corporate as Democrats come.  

But Clinton, in my eyes, would have been an effective corporate Democrat who would fight particularly for health care.  (You can disagree, say that she ran a horrible campaign, or that her negatives would make her less effective - but I do think that, for example, on the stimulus, she would have started higher and throttled it through...the Clintons are tough).  

I don't have high expectations for the political system that elevated GWB to power twice.  When the Democratic candidate gives me fluffy talk about hope and change, I know it's bullshit.  That doesn't mean that I don't dream that someday - in ten years, maybe - a truly progressive candidate will rise to power in the Democratic party and trounce the Republican, but I wasn't going to accept that would happen in 2008...it was just too obvious that all aspects of the system, the media, the lobbyists, etc., wouldn't allow it.

I don't have a problem with Clinton losing.  It is clear that maybe the baggage was too heavy for her to be effective (it weighed her down in the campaign) and maybe she wouldn't have been as savvy as I expect.  So, I figure that Obama is the hand we're dealt for a reason, and it's much, much better than losing.

But I'm mystified at the relationship Obama has with progressives.  He's never offered anything.  So many of them hope, against all evidence, that he will be a stronger progressive than Bill Clinton, even though he never promised to be - in fact he promised to be, if anything, more conciliatory to the right.  In fact, some of them (like Sirota) hate both Clintons, while they cheer on Clinton-lite.  That's their business, I suppose, but it looks a bit out of sync to many of us.  The economic crisis is an historic opportunity to turn the dialogue away from Reaganism by staking out a firm demonstration of the power of government to make a difference in people's lives.  And Obama gives us tax cuts and a bill that the most informed economists say was destined to fail at the outset.  If history hasn't pushed Obama to seize his historic moment, the blogosphere won't.

[ Parent ]
As a Clinton "sycophant" (4.00 / 4)
I had a better sense of what she would do, felt she was more consistent, and while might have disagreed with her in places, thought she would be better able to get real policies done that were closer to my position.

There was a wave of people who countered this, quite a lot on the left who brought up every discredited scandal, who assured everyone that the world was ready for a new way, and that Hillary wasn't the one to do it.

Well, after 8 years of Bush, I was happy to return to the 90's if that was the best I could get, and frankly I thought Hillary was more disciplined than Bill and could get more done.

But it didn't happen, and the things I was worried about are happening. I don't write "I told you so" letters, but it's certainly stuck in the craw.

But given all that, David enjoys railing against Obama when it suits him, but doesn't like criticism of himself. A couple of weeks ago, Rosenberg and de Groot went off on some rather insulting rants, and here is Sirota doing much the same. You know you have a Delete key - you can write "rathole of bitterness" on your bathroom mirror without publishing. One of the reasons Clinton supporters are embittered is people shitting on them for say having an opinion, equating them as DINOs, enablers of the Iraq War, and all this other nonsense, and for not either embracing the God wholeheartedly, or swallowing our pride and backing the not-God-but-the-best-we-could-do. Some of us still don't think it's the best we could do, but still wish Obama would get his shit together and not give away the whole damn store in the first month in office. But of course Hillary would have done worse, just as Gore would have done worse than Bush to Republicans, and I'll just STFU and go back to my rathole of bitterness. You guys so clever, we so stupid.

Gee, who's bitter? (4.00 / 3)
A little projection going on there, Dave, maybe? Just a little defensiveness? Maybe an inability to focus on policies instead of celebrity figures in whom you've, perhaps, invested a little too much?

Nice to see Obama advocating for a Home Owners Loan Corporation, which saved people's homes under the New Deal, instead of advocating for the the bankster-friendly approach of handling foreclosures by onesies and twosies in bankruptcy court. Oh, wait....



I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

David, was Stoller being bitter here in Jan 08 with this? (4.00 / 5)

Reality-Based Candidate Evaluations   -- http://openleft.com/showDiary....

... Let's do a thought experiment.  Let's say I were to put a generic candidate forward, and ask whether Democrats should choose him or her as our nominee.  This person rejected the Iraq war at the time of the war authorization vote and has a very liberal voting record as a Senator, though, like much of the caucus, has done little of substance to lead us out of the war.  He has a good if unremarkable career as a Senator, and is loved by Democrats all over the country for inspiring rhetoric.

Since declaring for President, this person has called Social Security a 'crisis', attacked trial lawyers, associated unapologetically with vicious homophobes, portrayed Gore and Kerry as excessively polarizing losers, boasted as his central achievement an irrelevant ethics bill, ran against the DC establishment while taking huge amounts of cash from DC, undermined Ned Lamont in 2006, criticized NAFTA while voting for a NAFTA-style trade agreement, compiled opposition research on the most effective liberal pundit in the country, refused to promise that American troops would be out of Iraq by 2013, and endorsed the central plank of the Bush-Cheney foreign policy doctrine, the war on terror.

How would you react?  You could concoct a 'theory of change' and argue that all of this is just deceptive, and the candidate is worth supporting anyway.  You could make arguments that this person can change the electoral map, with no evidence, and support him for that reason.  Or you could decide that this person means what he says and is running a campaign promising the country premised on conservative ideas such as the war on terror, maintaining an American presence in Iraq, and 'fixing' Social Security.
...

We like to think we live in the reality-based community.  And if you know all of these things, and you still support Obama, you have to concede that you are supporting a conservative candidate for President.  And that's fine.  But just go into this with clear eyes.
...

"a conservative" -- and everything from hires to bills is proving that true.

Why is it a problem that millions didn't want a conservative? And that the majority of the country does not want conservative policy?

This is not about the primaries or anything else -- at all  -- this is about what the President is doing (or not doing) NOW.  

policy positions (4.00 / 1)
As a Clintonite I figured I'd take a shot.

I don't know how anyone could think you have been soft on President Obama, you've published a series of substantive diaries disagreeing with his choices. Your arguments may be somewhat weakened by your mis-perception of Obama's positions in the primaries, but you have been critical where it is due.

I can see how people who think corporations are the root of all evil can support charlatans like Nader or Kucinich, or Perot and Paul for that matter, but I have a hard time making any intellectual progress with people whose premises are so fundamentally different from mine (I'm a liberal who sees corporations as just another concentration of power that must be checked and balanced). Obama's goo-goo message was carefully tailored for those people, but it is their own fault for being taken in by it.

I made a detailed argument that Hillary Clinton was more liberal than Obama during the primaries, and Obama in office has borne out most of my points. I looked at policy interviews, Progressive Punch vote scores, Krugman's analysis of their proposals and union endorsements.

Now that we have seen Obama in action as President the Progressive Punch scores most accurately captured his moderate to conservative Democratic governing approach. It is reasonable to suggest that they also accurately captured Hillary Clinton's more progressive voting record.

Paul Krugman took a look at each candidate's policy proposals on the environment, health care, and the economy during the primary and consistently found that Hillary Clinton was proposing the boldest, most progressive solutions. Krugman's analysis of the Gore and Bush proposals in 2000 was prescient and rare, and really put the lie to Nader's (and the media's) claim that there wasn't a dimes worth of difference between them, so I read his opinions carefully.

Both Obama and Clinton are free-traders, Obama's policies and advisors made that crystal clear during the primaries. But Clinton won the endorsement of the industrial unions. I think the Obama campaign's reaction to the phrase "industrial policy" illustrates why those groups most harmed by free trade preferred Clinton.

But the most telling indicator of where each candidate was on the domestic liberal conservative spectrum was two articles on governing philosophy. Obama avoided directly revealing his philosophy in interviews, but a review in the New York Review of Books of Cass Sunstein's book in June gave the most coherent picture. Sunstein's phrase for it is "libertarian paternalism". Clinton gave an interview to the NY Times in January 2008 where she laid out her philosophy as a return to government as a way to redress economic imbalances.

So it was clear to those who cared to look that Hillary Clinton was advocating a return to liberal FDR style government and Keynesian policies. She gave a series of speeches from the Senate floor after the primaries, addressing the economic crisis and outlining a set of New Deal style programs to address it, that drove the point home. Obama, throughout the primary and now in government, advocates a more libertarian, laissez-faire approach to domestic policy.

I was born in the Kennedy era, and I paid pretty close attention to Hillary Clinton's career and to the last presidential election. I don't know that Clinton would have made a better President than Obama (I think Obama is pretty good, and he has the ability to be a great President), but I do think she would have been more liberal as President than he has been.

Souvarine (0.00 / 0)
now that's how you make the argument.

The disagreement is over whether a liberal president is possible in a country that is still about 50/50.

Ramming things down the minority's thrat is a recipe for failure (see bush). The change wasn't that Obama was going to give us everything. The change was that he was going to try to be less beholden to the extremes of either parties.

I am only one vote, but that's exactly what I wanted from him and I am as liberal as they come.

I think the far left getting everything they want from Obama would be only slightly less of a disaster as the opposite occuring. Nothing good happens on the fringes.

[ Parent ]
i dont think (4.00 / 1)
that hillary clinton and ralph nader should ever be that close
together in a sentence, the exception being this one.

its unsafe in any paragraph.

its a much different argument that you are getting from each camp.  maybe compare hillary and edwards.

arent naderites actually right? (4.00 / 1)
the main thrust of the argument is that you cant slip a credit card between the two parties.

a major change agent emerges and he starts off by asking the same washington actors from the last few decades to wash their faces, then come have a seat at the table once again.

now we see lots of speculation flying around about the "3D chess" obama is playing, and political cover from rham and summers and others, and long range plans and it goes on and on.

what if its not as complex as all that?  what if its just meet the new boss same as the old boss, and nader is right?  what would the implications be for democrats who are serious about changing this country?

the green party cant build itself when democrats co-opt the message then never deliver.  people keep believing democrats.


you need both (4.00 / 2)
you need people to hold down the fort and you need people to push for social change.  And you need them to not hate each other more than they hate rightwing policies (whether patriarchal (christian fundamentalist) or pro-rich).  

The first category can be "Democrats" or "Bernie Sanders Socialist political machine" or "[insert prominent NGO or 527 name here]" or and the second category can be "Green Party" or "Working Families Party" or "Kucinich" or "outside poliltics altogether"  My point is you look at it socially as well as party-politically.

As part of that process, I would like the "hold down the fort" people need to concede that the entrenchment of the two party system is a systemic problem (among others, like the lack of representtives in Senate voting, the Supreme Court's life terms, etc.) that holds back a broader spread of democracy.  They don't have to agree - but they do have to make that compromise with the "push for social change" people.

As a sidenote, what is useful and hopeful about Obama, given the way that social change in America is incremental and slooooooooooooow, is his ability to bring these two strands together - though we'll see how long he can hold it together.  Hillary Clinton could have hypothetically have done the same thing, albeit with a different coalition and different politics, and still can, actually, if she wants to...she's gotta lose the Bill Clinton baggage though.

[ Parent ]
i appreciate your take (0.00 / 0)
and im amenable to taking a big tent view of the situation as you do; indeed our culture encourages the concept of this binary playing field and there is nothing wrong with that per se.  but god, its scary when im finding more in common with libertarians than with democrats.  (except i do tend to dismiss neoliberal economic ideas)

there is nothing wrong with incrementalism.  and i also appreciate the amount of movement we have had as a culture just to get BHO elected in the first place.

i would maintain that my assessment of naders assessments holds true.  from the perspective of a citizen who wants to avoid all war, eliminate domestic spying. uphold civil liberties, and avoid corporate corruption it is difficult to muster enthusiasm for either party, or their candidates.  especially when one begins to suspect that it is not the party but the economic theories, international posturing and intervention, and fundamental worldview that is its bedrock, which is the root of the problem. and when i say that im applying it to many governmental parties across the world

[ Parent ]
well there's nothing wrong with a focus on the individual :) (0.00 / 0)
dignity has to start there :)  and more practically, blindly focusing too much on expanding government power loses sight of the violence that most governments engage not just routinely but in a way they seek legitimacy for (both internally and externally).  

Anyway, yeah I think the point in these circumstnces is BOTH to find others you agree with (so you don't feel like you're banging your head against the wall) as well as to be able to reach out on both sides of yourself to people you can draw into coalition.

I would LOVE to offer a prescription for swift, sustainable structural and radical change in America, but those opportunities are few and far between (e.g. Independence, Reconstruction, the moments when one social force has an inordinate amount of power and can actually get something through our horribly conservative small-c institutions).

on an aside, there's a very interesting take on Bill Clinton's inability to get health care through called "It's the Institutions, stupid."  Can't remember who wrote it :)

[ Parent ]
unnecessarily inflammatory (4.00 / 3)
From one Obama supporter to another, nice job reopening old wounds.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss
Tacit approval of a flawed system (4.00 / 2)
It seems to me that the reason there is no viable third party is the fact that BOTH parties, but especially Democrats work tirelessly to make that an impossibility. FFS, Obama won't even meet with Nader! And most voters will never vote for who best represents them and their interests if they won't win, making the whole thing ridiculous. The reason it's unglamorous to set about creating a viable third party is because every step of the way is paved with road blocks posted by your two parties.

Maybe when voters detach themselves from OLD ideas of what those two parties are they will have the balls to vote for their best interests.

That would be nice.

many did detach themselves from old ideas this time tho -- (0.00 / 0)
to our detriment entirely -- to the country's as a whole. (While still attributing those policy positions to Obama -- despite all the evidence to the contrary)

At a time when traditional -- and wholly partisan -- Democratic principles and policies are more necessary -- and more popular than ever, they were -- and still are -- dismissed and derided by candidate and now President Obama, in favor of comity and "bipartisanship".

Democratic nominees are never as liberal as registered Democrats -- ever. That's a given -- always.

It's really sad that's there still enormous hostility and insults towards those who didn't want Obama for various reasons (which is 1/2 -- or more -- of all registered Democrats) -- especially because even those who did support him then now clearly and loudly disagree with most if not all of his hires, actions, and policies.

[ Parent ]
disagree on Hillary (4.00 / 2)
Once again, Hillary is not Bill and while she is assuredly not a Progressive, in fact India gets much of their trade, business agenda through the India PAC, where she is the chair....

her voting record on trade, economic issues was more Progressive than Obama's.

Hillary simply is not Bill and there is a huge difference between being the first lady and standing on your own beliefs.  

She had a better manufacturing policy in the primaries, she had courted more Progressive economists, she had a way superior plan to deal with the mortgage crisis, long before it was even acknowledged as the tsunami it is...the list goes on and on.

I find attributing to Hillary Bill's policies and agenda sexist and completely unfair.  A role of first lady is absolutely not the same as crafting your own policy positions.

I understand the fear of Bill but the evidence was overwhelming the real Bill Clinton clone was/is Obama during the primaries.  

It's also sexist in assuming magically the power of Bill would overwhelm what Hillary wanted to do as President.  It's like some of assumed reduction in power to her...
and it's quite apparent from her voting record there are differences.

Bill was lobbying to sell ports to Dubai.  Hillary introduced legislation to stop it.  Just one example to show that being married does not mean Bill's brain controls Hillary's brain.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

What you need is an editor, David! (4.00 / 3)
Regarding my translation problems, and my lousy typing, I'm certainly not really qualified for the job, but I'll give it a try. Let's start with the headline:

"A Note to Naderites and Clintonites"
Is this really the group you want to addres, Naderites and Clintonistas in genreal? No! Let's correct this:
"A note to some annoying email writers"

"The Clinton argument, in particular, is so utterly stupid and silly."
Is it really? Those folks who still think Clinton would have stood for a more progressive policy have some valid arguments. Let's be more careful:
"The Clinton argument, in particular, is very questionable, imho."

"A big part of what Obama has to do right now is clean up after Clintonism." Now, this sounds like utter nonsense to me, regarding the fact that Obama has to clean up after Bush, and Billiboy is so 20th century, but ok, this sure will bring up a lively discussion, so let's keep it.

"Among Clintonites, the "I Told You So" rants are just straight-up sore-loser-ism." Well, this is impossible to prove, unless you have a really good mind reader at hand. Let's not be unfair to those who may have other motives. Let's say:
"Cintonites who regularly engage in "I Told You So" rants may still suffer under sore-loser-ism."

"And so the Naderites rant and rave about "never voting in an election again," and the Clintonites come up with fantastical narratives claiming Hillary Clinton"
No no no! Much too general, it's obvious that not all of both groups behave this way. We have to set the scope narrower:
"And so some Naderites rant and rave about "never voting in an election again," and some Clintonites come up with fantastical narratives claiming Hillary Clinton"

"I - and other Obama supporters - have nothing to apologize for on this score." Hmm, there sure are some Obamaniacs who have some corpses in the cellar. Hey, why mention the others at all? They shall do their own defense!
"I have nothing to apologize for on this score."

To Naderites, STFU and start doing the unglamorous work of building the third-party you say you really want. What, four letter words? Hey, remember, "be excellent to each other"! And then, too general, and certainly unfair to the small bunch who try exactly what you say:
"To those Naderites who waste their time emailing me, better start doing the unglamorous work of building the third-party you say you really want."

"To Clintonites, just STFU and slither back to your rathole of bitterness." Aw, really, same as above! Make that sound more positive:
To those Clintonites who are still in a rathole of bitterness, this won't change anything!!

"Deal with that and become a productive member of society, or again, just STFU." How often do I have to say this, no swearing here! And what about this nonsense, suggesting they are not productive memebrs of societies? They may be nurses, firemen or streetworkers! This has to be completely rewritten:
"Don't stand ranting at the sidelines, help to create a better society instead!"

See? Just a few words changed, and, voila! the result is a much better story, which will ensure that the comments will focus on its content and not on the way you phrased it. What's not to like?  

wouldn't it be easier to talk to your friends about this rather than put up a blog post? (4.00 / 3)
I need to get something off my chest - something that's been bothering me for a while. Over the last few weeks, I've received a river of "I Told You So" email from both Ralph Nader fans and from Hillary Clinton sycophants claiming that because President Obama has made some tactical mistakes and ideologically odious moves - and because I've been critical of some of these - that it means I was abhorrently wrong for being generally supportive of his candidacy during the primary and the general election; that I need to apologetically throw myself on the mercy of the court; and that I need to beg for forgiveness.

Disagreements are part of politics and policymaking and on the Internet in particular they can be aggravating and frustrating and even emotionally violent.  We all step over the line once in a while (okay, I step over the line once in a while...I won't speak for anyone else), but the level of unwarranted divisiveness in this post is wholly unproductive.  

To be frank, I'm more impressed with Obama than I expected to be (yes, my expectations were that low and my class privilege is that high).  However, I still understand that has election generated no social antagonism towards sexism and homophhobia (i.e. patriarchy) nor have many of his actions yet...see Rick Warren.  While I do know that Hillary Clinton's would have (but would have done little about racism).    Both of their foreign policies are abysmal by any rational standard that treats human beings as equals, and aboveall, none of the "serious" candidates were remotely social democratic enough on policy to warrant approval beyond "Well McCain-Palin sure as $hit is scary."

So I didn't support Hillary Clinton and I did support Barack Obama though I don't like either of them as an ideal.  But that doesn't mean that I don't take account of the fact that there are more radical strategies that one could have pursued, that there is more that could have been done during the election (especially after the stock market crashed) to read the tea leaves, and that there is more that can still be done now.  And that means supporting the anti-sexist, anti-racist, and anti-classist attitudes in people (i.e. democratic impulses).  Let 1000 flowers bloom, etc.

It does not entail telling people in a blog post to "stfu" because they chose a different strategy from you (and ones that were likely just as necessary if not moreso) and now send you angry e-mails.  That's what therapy, friends, support, and love is for - and you're not going to necessarily find all that in internet conversations, particularly if you don't forthrightly ask for it and instead speak angrily with limited empathy for the people who have made you angry.

That's my piece - hope you receive this in the spirit of anger and empathy in which it was intended and that you are well and stay well.

The liberally biased facts are (0.00 / 0)
that the candidate which you still maintain was the most progressive, is pushing a "stimulus" where 40% are tax cuts, that he asked the democrats in congress to drop family planning for no apparent reason, that is continuing the Bush policies on rendition and torture etc.
Sounding like the GOP in 2000 with "Sore Loserman" shall not change what's in store for us and the "I told you so"s are going t keep sounding in your head whether anyone will write them to you or not.
More on this here if you actually care for a dialogue.
comment #93 (0.00 / 0)
Last!

Woot.

Do you hear that sound? (4.00 / 1)
It's the sound of heads exploding in the Mighty Corrente Building. "BUTBUTBUTBUTBUT BUT HILLARY IS A FIGHTER! AARGHGHH!!!11"
Looks like David has run away (2.67 / 3)
Stir the pot, don't wait for it to boil.
Pretty annoying.

I'd suggest sticking as close to facts as you can,
and leave the invective to others. I never saw
Chris or Matt need to tell people to STFU, either
I didn't read enough or they didn't need to.

Respect.

I'm not bitter--I'm pissed (0.00 / 0)
To me, Clinton and Obama were roughly similar in ideology. So the differences between them lay in their potential effectiveness.

Clinton campaigned as a fighter, and I believed her.  Obama campaigned as a post-partisan, and I believed him. I ended up concluding that Obama's approach was either insanely naive or cynically calculated.  So I supported Clinton.

I'm not happy to have been right about Obama's governing philosophy. I'm pissed. We need him to change his act.

And I'm not going to shut the fuck up.


The appropriateness of STFU (0.00 / 0)
I've been in the trenches people. For the past year, I have been trying desperately to get PUMAs and others to see that Obama is not the anti-christ on sites like The Confluence and others and its infuriating.

It's sore loserism at its height, and it has now become clear that for most of these folks, they'll hate Obama no matter what he does. I disagree with Obama on lots of stuff, but he's a democrat and a progressive that is going to do the progressive thing 90% of the time. I actually got into a battle with the "progressives" at the Confluenece the other day because I dared to assert that Obama would be better for women than Palin. I mean come the f*ck on.

The Confluenece today respond to David's post with the usual stuff (you suck, you hate women, you hate America,you still suck, etc.) Anyway, it contains this valuable piece of ridiculousness:

"Obama ran a terrible campaign.  I know that goes against conventional wisdom but that's why it is conventional and not always right.  Obama threw tons of money in the big states and lost.  He went to the convention only 17 delegates ahead, all of them from MIchigan, a state where his name wasn't on the ballot.  And the only reason he got those ill-gotten delegates is because the RBC lowered the bar for him.  They were so determined to see an African-American on the ballot that they ignored the fact that most primary voters did not vote for him.  They saw that his campaign didn't have the votes to make him the nominee and there was no damn way he was going to win a new primary in Florida, so they rigged the primary in his favor.  That's what Obama's nomination amounts to- a rigged vote."

Now I disagree with cursing at large groups indiscriinately, but when I read that, only one thing came to mind.

STFU.

I feel your pain David. I feel ya.

Clintonites should be doing everything that they can to distance themselves from that crap. It's laughable and makes Clinton and her rational supporters look bad.

What the heck happened to attacking the Conservatives? Yu remember them? The ones who got us into this mess. With Limbaugh running his mouth and Hannity in full attack mode, the goal of the PUMAs is to  . . . attack the democratic President . . . with hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State . . . who has the highest poularity of a new president ever.

PUMAs: STFU.

What happened to attacking conservatives? (0.00 / 0)
I wonder that too, when I read constant attacks on Obama's cabinet and posts blaming Bill Clinton for the financial crisis that happened on Bush's watch.

The reality is that the Democrats don't band together.  Sirota can't see beyond his Clinton hatred.  The Confluence can't see beyond Obama hatred.

Republicans are good at hate and they they know to support their party's legacy.  Republicans don't trash Nixon like Democrats trash Clinton.  Democrats don't trash either Bush the way the Republicans trash Carter.

[ Parent ]
Agreed (0.00 / 0)
I think all attention should be focused on therepublicans. That's realy the most ridiculous part of this whole conversation. Sure, call Obama out when he does wrong, but don't give a guy who agrees withyou on 95% of the issues frief because he didn't go with you on the 5%.

I thought Hillary and Bill handled themselves poorly in the primary, but Bill was one of the best POTUS's there was. Hillary is going to be able to have a lot of influence at SOS and she's earned it.

The idea that in the midst of a crisis, where republicans are doing their best to knock the liberal guy, when Rush Limbaugh is apparently the leader of the GOP, that we choose this time to go after Obama 24/7, is just stupid as all get out.

Obama won. If Hillary won, we'd give her the same respect, but she didn't. The new guy is trying to save all of our azzes from a great depression. It would be helpful if people could maintain some level of perspective.

My honest opinion: they've spent so many years hating bush and attacking him (justifiably) that they don't really know how to treat a guy in charge who is on their side. They just can't turn off "attack the POTUS" mode.

This is one of the good guys, people. Heck, the most conservative dem in congress is still one of the good guys in my book.

Perspective please.

[ Parent ]
A Note to Naderites and Clintonites | 107 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox