Over the past few days, the progressive blogosphere has engaged itself in yet another pie fight over whether or not President Obama is teh awesome or teh suck. This particular fight arose from comments President Obama allegedly made about how progressive groups should supposedly stop attacking conservative Democrats:
President Obama, strategizing yesterday with congressional leaders about health-care reform, complained that liberal advocacy groups ought to drop their attacks on Democratic lawmakers and devote their energy to promoting passage of comprehensive legislation.
On the one hand, many bloggers are taking this to mean that President Obama is a corporate lackey siding with the conservative Democrats and that he wants his activists to be silent on health care reform. On the other hand, many bloggers are taking this as yet another brilliant move of Deep Blue-esque, ten-dimensional chess from the administration that is beyond the comprehension of mere "humans." Or, having been involved in about 6,744 of these arguments myself, at least I assume many bloggers are espousing those competing views.
Look people--whoever you are as I am being admittedly vague--it doesn't matter what President Obama says about process matters like this. No superior, competing reading of what President Obama allegedly said is actually going to result in more pressure on conservative Democrats. Success in key legislative fights like health care will be dependent upon our ability to put the Democratic leadership in a position where progressives give them no other choice but to pressure conservative Democrats to accede to popular, progressive demands. If we accomplish that, then whether or not President Obama is teh suck or teh awesome will not matter.
"Would you put a bit of money and effort to go after these wayward Democrats?" writes blogger Matt Stoller on Open Left. "We can't replace all of them with progressive Democrats, but we can certainly annoy at least a few of them and raise the costs for voting against the Constitution."
That would be liking shooting themselves in the foot, U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told us recently when asked about such groups upset with lawmakers like Carney.
So the Democratic congressional leadership doesn't like progressive activists and organizations attacking conservative Democrats. BFD. Here is the Democratic leadership in response to the Progressive Block strategy:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told the Huffington Post Thursday that a health care overhaul that did not include a public option wouldn't make it through the House because it "wouldn't have the votes."(...)
Asked by HuffPost if she would allow a reform package without a public option out of the House, she responded: "It's not a question of allow. It wouldn't have the votes."
The House Democratic leadership apparently didn't like our attacks on conservative Democrats, either. However, they are still going to have no choice but put pressure on conservative Democrats anyway. Otherwise, they won't get a health care reform bill, and that is politically untenable for them.
Bottom line: it doesn't matter what the Democratic leadership in Congress or the White House says about our attacks on conservative Democrats. If we hold a Progressive Block on something they dearly value, then they have no other choice but to put pressure on conservative Democrats. So, stop worrying about, and / or arguing about, what the leadership says. Join the effort to build the Progressive Block instead.
