Democratic Presidents Need Space On the Left

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 19:07


Via Mark Matson in the comments, I have never been a huge fan of The New Republic, but I think Noam Scheiber has a real point in his column today. Obama needs left-wing criticism in order to have any hope of passing progressive legislation:

Prior to all the apoplexy on the left, the two poles of the debate were the president, who wanted a reasonable, fairly moderate set of health insurance reforms, but was nonetheless being branded a socialist or whatever, and a lot of lunatics on the right screaming about death panels and enemies lists and home invasions.

Around the conference table at TNR, we've been saying for weeks that what Obama really needed was a group of equally vocal, equally zealous critics on the left, pulling the debate's center of gravity in the other direction. And, wouldn't you know, that's exactly what's happened over the last 48 hours. We've now got a pole on the left to match the intensity of the pole on the right. (Don't get me wrong: I'm not suggesting a moral equivalence between the two. As far as I'm concerned, the critics on the left are basically right and the critics on the right are either insane or deeply cynical...)

In the national debate, Obama now looks like the centrist voice of reason instead of an over-ambitious lefty (I'm caricaturing, of course, in the spirit of the cable-news coverage). Inside Congress, Obama may not get a public option, but if he doesn't, he was never going to get it. And now he can extract a ton of concessions in return, because he can point to a left-wing of his party that's ready to eat him alive for failing to deliver on it (whereas that left-wing outrage was largely hypothetical before now).

Since the November election, some of the more dyed in the wool Obama supporters within the blogosphere have taken great umbrage at any criticism coming at President Obama from the left. Having been a target of much of this umbrage myself, it sometimes even feels as though more anger is directed toward us critical lefties than even at Republicans. My best guess is that this is because such left-wing criticism smacks of betrayal and / or Naderism to some people. (Yeah, I know that I am sort of vaguely calling people out here.)

However, the current fight over the public option is a perfect demonstration of why such left-wing criticism is absolutely essential to any attempts to pass progressive legislation by the Democratic leadership and the Obama administration. If there had been no left-wing revolt to Sebelius's statements on Sunday, it would be far more difficult for the Democratic Congressional leadership and the Obama administration to justify not giving into right-wing demands. Lacking any Progressive Block demanding more progressive legislation, the Democratic leadership and administration would be practically forced to offer up even less progressive legislation than even the compromises they were floating over the weekend.

More in the extended entry.

Chris Bowers :: Democratic Presidents Need Space On the Left
Mike Lux once told me an anecdote about then-Representative Bernie Sanders and President Clinton during the signing ceremony for the fiscal year 1994 budget. Before the ceremony began, he heard President Clinton telling Representative Sanders that he and other progressive members of Congress should have attacked the budget from the left more vehemently. President Clinton's reasoning was that such attacks would have provided his administration more room to push the legislation to the left, and less justification to give into demands from the right.

Two months ago, President Clinton himself told me a similar story. He said that he had read a lot of people online calling him a sellout, or something similar, for any number of reasons. Rather than being upset with this criticism, he said that he wished that sort of progressive media had been around to broadcast that left-wing criticism during the 1993-1994 health care fight. Once again, if that criticism had been both prominent and backed up with real power in Congress, it would have given him a lot more room to work on health care.

It is understandable that some progressives who worked very hard to elect President Obama get irked by left-wing criticism. Not all Democrats are on the left, not everyone buys into the same strategies as me, and criticism toward someone you personally identify with is irritating.

It is also understandable that not all Democrats and progressives will be on board with the Progressive Block strategy, since they are not comfortable with maintaining such an oppositional stance against either the Obama administration or the Democratic Congressional leadership. And make no mistake about it: the Progressive Block strategy is an oppositional stance. The entire idea is for Progressives in Congress to deny a Democratic Congress and White House something that Democratic leadership and White House greatly values unless they deliver something big for Progressives in return.

No matter these objections, in order to pass progressive legislation, both prominent left-wing criticism and powerful, Congressional Progressive opposition to a Democratic trifecta is absolutely necessary. In the current health care fight, the lack of such criticism and the lack of such a block would mean that the public option was dead in the water right now. Not everyone is going to like it, and some party higher ups like Rahm Emanuel may call it "f*ckng stupid," but any progressive ecosystem lacking such criticism and left-wing organizing is only a short time away from suffering a mass extinction.


Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

I said it to you twice now but it bears repeating (4.00 / 10)
The "Leave Obama Alooooooone!" crowed has always seemed a bit politically naive to me. It's not about being nice to BO. It's about getting results. Being critical is... well... critical.

Me | My Work | Future Majority

Assuming we're doing the right things (4.00 / 1)
to actually get results and not further weaken the President.

I have seen few, if any, suggestions as to what to do that are realistic. Arm-twisting isn't realistic, it never works. You can't threaten people who aren't afraid of you. Line in the sand hasn't worked either, for the same reasons arm-twisting doesn't.


[ Parent ]
But people aren't afraid of you unless you threaten and follow through (4.00 / 4)
LBJ got this, and I've seen little from Obama that indicates a willingness to assert power over the right wing of the party.  And LBJ twisted a helluva lot of arms to tremendous effect.

Moreover, Obama himself has said that he needs pressure from the left to get good legislation through.  That Rahm has lashed out against progressives who are vocal in their support against the PO doesn't necessarily mean were "weaken[ing]" Obama.  

Rather, it could easily mean such criticism is effective as the Dems try to maintain a solid front in favor of reform.  

Anyhow, Obama's appearance of weakness is more a function of the necessary deference to Congress in matters of complex legislation than the "Dem v. Dem" bullshit that the MSM likes to foreground.  


[ Parent ]
NO HE DIDN'T (4.00 / 1)
Please, again, give me names of Senators LBJ arm-twisted to change their votes.

THERE ARE NONE,because he DID NOT twist arms to tremendous effect. I am so disappointed to so many people believe this fallacy.

LBJ did NOT twist arms to tremendous effect...he compromised to tremendous effect.  


[ Parent ]
Why change the subject? (4.00 / 2)
We're talking about Obama and the left. You've already had that discussion.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Not changing the subject (0.00 / 0)
I was responding to this;

LBJ got this, and I've seen little from Obama that indicates a willingness to assert power over the right wing of the party.  And LBJ twisted a helluva lot of arms to tremendous effect.

and pointing out that LBJ did not change the vote of a single Southern Senator during Civil Rights or a single conservative Democrat on his Great Society legislation.

Not one.

So LBJ didn't "get this," because even though he threatened, they weren't afraid of him.

What does the President have to hold over them? Nothing. Johnson had nothing, neither does Obama.  


[ Parent ]
No you weren't (4.00 / 1)
for nothing more than the simple fact that you wrote what you did about Obama before I responded.

Answer SpitBall's question.  You say you support a public option yet defend every political maneuver that has served to undermine it thusfar.  Be sincere and say what you think we need to do to pressure Obama without weakening him and how he will negotiate without arm twisting.  


[ Parent ]
I did say what I think (0.00 / 0)
smart compromising...doesn't mean throwing out the public option, means going as far as you can while holding some of your chips, in this case the public option, and in the event that's not possible, decide whether you're willing to give away your chips or take them and go home.

you read about LBJ, you did know he gave up some regulations over private entities to get Republican votes to reach cloture on CVA. You do realize he stripped the bill of regulations on police brutality before it even reached the floor of the House, right? You do know he allowed Republican John Byrne to write Medicare legislation so it would get liberal Republican votes, right?

Smart compromising.


[ Parent ]
But we've let the GOP amend the hell out of health care (4.00 / 1)
and now Grassley says that whether he gets everything he asked for or not, he still won't vote for it.

Dumb compromising.  


[ Parent ]
Maybe so (0.00 / 0)
actually that's only true of the Finance Bill, almost no GOP amendments passed in the House, few in the HELP.

The real compromise is within the Democratic Party. The difference between LBJ and Obama is LBJ had a coalition of rational Republicans to work with to outnumber the renegade Democrats.

Obama doesn't have this luxury...it's either compromise with the Blue Dogs or the Republicans.  


[ Parent ]
BS (4.00 / 1)
the blue dogs are fewer than the progressives and dependent for their political future as Democrats on the success of the president.  

[ Parent ]
In ONE committee (4.00 / 1)
Don't confuse the Senate Finance committee with the bill.  Four committees (I think) have already passed their own version.

[ Parent ]
Well, OK (4.00 / 1)
Who can argue with smart compromise? If you have to compromise, why not be smart about it. Makes sense.

Step up from the dumb compromising that seems to be the forte of the Democratic Congressional leaders, gotta admit.

I'd expand the notion to "smart negotiation". Why say "compromise" right in the name of your strategy? Can you agree to that change?

So, how to negotiate smartly? Well, one way is to have your left flank push further to the left. This opens up space for you to negotiate, see? Ask for MORE than you actually will settle for in the end. That way you can "give up" things while extracting concessions from the right. Net gain: movement of the policy solution (I'm being generous) to the left.

This is why my advice is to put single payer back on the table. Hell, call it "Socialized Medicine" and include a clause that serious study of the Cuban system be conducted to find efficiencies. As left as possible.

Now is not the time to negotiate. Now is the time to stake out bargaining positions for the negotiation phase that comes when the "bill" is in reconciliation.

Now is the time to move the argument to the left. Smart negotiation is the next phase.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
What about keeping your powder dry? (4.00 / 4)
You forgot to mention keeping your powder dry.

I think you hit all the other main appeasement metaphors but you forgot that one.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
You make an artificial distinction between compromise and arm-twisting (4.00 / 2)
And there's a massive literature available on LBJ:  read it.  

For just one suggestion, you might look at the role of the Rules Committee in the House during the mid-20th century and how LBJ worked around it.  


[ Parent ]
Read it all (0.00 / 0)
it's all a fallacy...again, give me a name of one Senator whose vote he changed.

I know the role of the Rules Committee...I know all about Howard Smith, I know how Emmanuel Cellar got around him and not LBJ.

Maybe you mean James Eastland in the Senate Judiciary? Because it was Mike Mansfield who got around him and not LBJ.


[ Parent ]
Unless you're an academic who specializes in mid-20th century politics (4.00 / 1)
no you haven't.

[ Parent ]
Actually (4.00 / 1)
I spent five years as an academic who specialized in 20th Century American politics and history, was the focus of my double major in college from 1997-2002.  

[ Parent ]
A double major as an undergraduate???? Good God..... (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
yeah, which is why it took five years (0.00 / 0)
lol

[ Parent ]
You don't even understand why I'm so incredulous that you would offer that as a claim to expertise (4.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
No, seems I don't (0.00 / 0)
what's your claim to expertise? Were you one of my professors?  

[ Parent ]
I'm not making one (4.00 / 1)
and an undergrad double major doesn't make you an academic

[ Parent ]
Bobby Byrd (4.00 / 1)
Byrd changed how he was going to vote on one bill because LBJ attended the funeral of Byrd's grandson in absolutely miserable weather.  They made a big point of that when I visited the LBJ Library at the University of Texas.

Various references indicate that LBJ mentored Hubert Humphrey a lot and had an effect on Humphrey's voting and behavior making him a liberal member of the team rather than a bomb-thrower.

That TV movie with Randy Quaid had LBJ arm-twisting a young JFK mostly without success.  

These may not have happened after a vote had been announced but they were pretty well documented.

PS-Also a double major in college.  However, I spent no time as an academic.


[ Parent ]
Ok (0.00 / 0)
The Bobby Byrd example doesn't equate arm-twisting as a successful strategy, rather being a nice guy as a working strategy. What would the netroots think if Obama went out of his way for Baucus if, God-forbid, there was a similar situation today?

As for Humphrey, he wasn't all that liberal. He was one of the four co-sponsors of the compromise CVA. He was really more a center-left Democrat. Again, mentoring does not equal arm-twisting.

Basically, what this proves, is being a nice guy works.


[ Parent ]
Judging from their complaints (0.00 / 0)
all of them. And the occassional governor, like Wallace.

[ Parent ]
There is at least one example... (0.00 / 0)
..of a Dem Senator from the more progressive link who regularly clashed with LBJ. Johnson used his power to relegate this guy to the least important committee of all, and then even took away that committee's meeting room and added it to his own offices! I've read about this yesterday, but sadly forgot the neme. Douglass, maybe? Dunno. But the point is, what a signal to other Senators! "Rebel at your own risk".

I really have to get "Master Of Senate" by Robert Caro. All those stories should be in there.


[ Parent ]
Other than the status quo (4.00 / 3)
what path do you consider "realistic"?

I mean, if you can't tell me was IS realistic, how can I trust your judgment of what is not?

 

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
smart compromising (0.00 / 0)
yeah, I know, we hate that, but that's really the only realistic way. Giving away something and keeping something. We need to find a compromise between the progressives and the blue dogs that work for both

THAT is how LBJ got legislation through. He compromised with Republicans to reach cloture, he compromised with conservative Democrats to get Medicare and Medicaid.

Even FDR compromised to get Social Security.

that's realistic.  


[ Parent ]
We're not complaining about that (4.00 / 2)
We're complaining about giving up something for getting nothing.  

That's not realistic.


Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.


[ Parent ]
What if they secretly welcome the pressure? (4.00 / 3)
Bill Clinton wanted more unproductive noise from people he had no reason to fear.  We can't know what's in Obama's head, but if he ever wanted to act more liberally, and felt he could if there was more noise from the left, we at least have to provide that much.

I'll take that over waiting for the magic pony plan.


[ Parent ]
We should be applying the pressure (0.00 / 0)
to the public...we should be countering the teabaggers in masse, not sitting around handwringing that the President isn't giving us a reason to.  

[ Parent ]
Finally a legitimate position (4.00 / 1)
but not a solution; pressuring the president and the public aren't mutually exclusive proposition.

[ Parent ]
Except we're not pressuring the public (0.00 / 0)
and that's the problem, we're only pressuring the President, who is being pressured more the other way.  

[ Parent ]
Not to be snarky (4.00 / 4)
But this is in the category of "magic pony" ideas.  Since when has the netroots been able to purposely generate this kind of action?  It's just not in the nature of the beast.  There's what, something on the order of 500K to 2M people who read netroots blogs regularly.  How many would come out?  

What Chris, FDL and others are doing generated a significant number of House votes for a public option and against anything without.  Given the evident resources available and the options, I can't see a better plan and it at least has a shot at actually working.


[ Parent ]
Well they're not (0.00 / 0)
I'd be surprised if there was even that many who read the netroots blogs regularly.

That said, most of the names FDL has come up with as a "public option only" vote probably always was that...and I would be surprised, if forced to vote for a bill without a PO or nothing, they'd cast the vote in favor.

Then what?

If you really want to make an impact, get those 500,000 people on the streets. In any other country that would happen.


[ Parent ]
Late to the party (4.00 / 5)
But I disagree.

The issue here is not that we have to have the "answers" that are smart or even realistic.

The issue is that we have to move the goalposts to the left in order to allow for governing compromises which are more favorable to our position.

In practice, this does mean getting some leverage on congress at key points -- credible primary challenges will help here enormously -- but from a rhetorical standpoint it starts with a willingness to ask for what we want and be critical when we don't get it.

Me | My Work | Future Majority


[ Parent ]
AND (4.00 / 2)
You need to be able to make them pay a real price for ignoring you or selling you out.

[ Parent ]
I agree that there should be criticism (4.00 / 3)
No criticism is obviously no good.  The "Obama has only been in office for X months" excuse won't work forever.

However, I also have a problem with excessive criticism from the left -- aka "Obama can't do anything right EVER!"  To me, that criticism is just as poisonous as right-wing criticism in that it distorts his actual record and dismisses his accomplishments.  It makes many people on the left feel as though we will never win, that "they" will never listen to us, that there is no reason to ever be optimistic or hopeful, or to have faith in any of our elective officials.  It's sour and self-defeating.

Which is why I applaud bloggers like Chris Bowers who, while acknowledging the negative, work to show what we can do and what the picture really looks like.  We need more like him.  If the blogs become just a sour snipefest, they'll be no good for anything.


[ Parent ]
If I could draw a comic (4.00 / 6)
I would draw Uncle Sam on a highwire, struggling anxiously with one of those long balancing poles. Hanging on the right end of the pole would be a big elephant, and clinging desperately to Uncle Sam's torso would be a donkey.

If I wanted to get more elaborate, I'd draw someone down below with an MSM label pointing at the section of the pole between the donkey and the elephant and shouting at Uncle Sam: "you need to move to the center!"


Hehe! But of course, the guy with the "Morning Joe" T-Shirt... (0.00 / 0)
...would be pointing to the elephant's side of the pole! Far out...

Hey, maybe Gary Larson could draw this for us!


[ Parent ]
Reverse Triangulation? (4.00 / 2)
"Mike Lux once told me an anecdote about then-Representative Bernie Sanders and President Clinton during the signing ceremony for the fiscal year 1994 budget. Before the ceremony began, he heard President Clinton telling Representative Sanders that he and other progressive members of Congress should have attacked the budget from the left more vehemently. President Clinton's reasoning was that such attacks would have provided his administration more room to push the legislation to the left, and less justification to give into demands from the right."

Or, maybe I don't get the whole concept of triangulation.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


You need something to triangulate against (4.00 / 2)


[ Parent ]
"Against" the far left. (4.00 / 1)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
As another thought (4.00 / 2)
Although Obama has not covered his administration in progressive glory, what we can't know, is how much worse things might have been had we not made the noises we've made.

Maybe there would have been additional Republican cabinet appointees.  Maybe he contemplated a 50/50 cabinet.  Maybe he considered an even smaller stimulus.  Maybe he would have chickened out on Sotomayor after that TNR hit piece.  Who knows?

Counter-factuals are really hard to do accurately, but there's reason to believe we've had an impact worth considering already.


This is why I'm in favor of the Progressive Block (4.00 / 2)
I've made no secret that the Progressive Block scares me.  I have no desire to leave universal coverage, community rating, expanded Medicaid, insurance exchanges and a more sanely regulated insurance industry on the floor just because there is no strong public option.

But you need to define the fight on your own terms.  The only way to do that is to rally around one easily understandable initiative.  The public option is perfect for that.

I know I'm not supposed to say this, but even if the public option dies in the final reconciliation bill, it passes and everyone declares we failed, that bill will be significantly stronger because of this effort. And I still think we might succeed.


That's exactly why Obama sent (4.00 / 1)
Sebelius out there to say that. He's a genius, like Rove, 'cept super-dooper liberal!

I dunno. I appreciate this post, to a degree--I mean, yeah, the stronger the left, the leftier legislation is likely to be, but to hear Clinton say he wishes the left had been more vocal makes me physically ill. Hey, Big Dog, we lived through your presidency; we remember. You used liberalism as something to triangulate against. When there was an veritable outcry on the left, over NAFTA, say, and welfare deform--when you were given every excuse to move left, you didn't, so shut the fuck up. It's clear you're trying to rehabilitate your reputation among progressives by feeding bullshit to bloggers. I ain't buying.

As for Obama, it wasn't too long ago that we were being told he was a progressive; now it's up to progressives to get him to do thing that the country wants and needs? Fine, I'll play along, but let's be clear about what and who he is, and isn't.



lol (4.00 / 1)
As for Obama, it wasn't too long ago that we were being told he was a progressive

I supported Obama (after Hillary), but whoever told you that is brain dead. None of the major candidates were progressive really...Edwards sorta was, but I'm willing to bet now that was all an act.  


[ Parent ]
I support criticism (4.00 / 1)
But what always got me was a kind of knee-jerk "Obama is selling us out" reaction I have seen on the left. Obama MUST be criticized from the left, but I think the left would do themselves a favor if they didn't automatically assume that any action which is not in their direction is defacto evidence of a sellout.

By itself, that sounds reasonable (4.00 / 1)
but when you look at the makeup of his team of economic advisers, the vitriol-spewing anti-left rhetoric of Rahm, his failure to do anything of substance for the LGBT community, his failure to push card check - just four of among many examples - maybe the left assumes he's selling out because so much has already been sold.  

[ Parent ]
. (4.00 / 1)
the problem is that friendly fire is fucking annoying and it's nice to not have to waste political capital on stupid shit. A lot more can be accomplished by pressuring grassley from the left (although what grassley really needs is a credible democratic challenger for 2010) than Obama. Then there is baucus and conrad to target. Even scaring Reid would probably be productive since he's very vulnerable. A threat to run some ads against him in Nevada would probably get the ball moving.

But extracting walk backs on statements from Obama officials? I fail to see the logic. The veto point for the legislation is in the same fucking place no matter where Obama puts his flag down.


Ummmmm (4.00 / 1)
Grassley has stated in no uncertain terms that he is impervious to pressure from the left while admitting that his "negotiations" with Democrats have all been pursued in bad faith.  

[ Parent ]
Ummm, that's really easy to say when you don't have an opponent for 2010 (4.00 / 2)


[ Parent ]
Because he's unbeatable (4.00 / 1)
even Iowa progressives admit that...so we have NO leverage over him.



[ Parent ]
Veto place (4.00 / 3)
Actually, that isn't really true.  As other bloggers have pointed out, "centrists" like nice, round numbers.  Give them an 800 billion dollar stimulus bill and they'll cut it to 700b, just so they can say they "saved" 100 billion.

The further to the left we make The Left, the further to the left the centrists will veto.  But it has to be a viable left, not just their stereotypes of some college professor and a blogger in PJs.  The reaction over the past few days showed a viable, strong Left.


[ Parent ]
The public option saves money and it's on the chopping block (0.00 / 0)
This isn't the stimulus bill.

[ Parent ]
I was just giving examples of how these people think (0.00 / 0)
Their goal is to appear central and moderate.  In a very real way our goal is to help them do that.

[ Parent ]
<a href="http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88v/ashbery-america.html">Is anything central?</a> (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Wow, it works in the preview, again: (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
The premise of the comment is invalid (4.00 / 3)
The premise that the people want "health insurance reform" is invalid.  The people want healthcare.  The people want a national healthcare system, available to everyone, without regard to income or ability to pay.  

Who cares about the health insurance industry?  Nobody except the insiders who make so much money looting the public.  It's a protection racket.  They deny claims, deny coverage, do everything in their power to kill off their insureds so they can make more money.  The only thing the citizens want to do to the health insurance industry is to terminate it, kill it off, end it forever.  Why should these people act as scummy middle-men raking a percentage off the top of every medical procedure performed in this country?  

Obama isn't being the voice of reason -- he's being the voice of the well-paid, corrupted, sold-out, bought and paid for politician who has taken money from the health insurance industry, drug dealers and doctors' lobbyist groups, in exchange for his promise that he will change nothing, he will do nothing to help the public, he will do nothing to cut into the obscene profits made by these industries.  

This is such a silly debate.  Even polling what percentage of the public wants this or that is nonsense.  Obama and the Democrats have been relatively silent, apparently agreeing with their Medical Corporate sponsors that they would allow the Republicans and the lunatics to completely dominate the discussion of health care for the entire month of August.  Where are Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer?  Where is Reid, where is Pelosi?  They should be out at every single public meeting on this topic in their own states.  Instead, apparently they're working on their tans at their villas at Lake Como.

If the Democrats wanted to provide the people with a national healthcare system, they would have written the bill and voted it in.  Remember -- just like they gave $700 Billion to their friends on Wall Street when 70% of the public was against it.  They don't care what the public wants.  They just do whatever is going to get them the most bribes.

http://NABNYC.blogspot.com  


"I am sort of vaguely calling people out here." Ohs nos! (0.00 / 0)
Not again, pls! Still suffering under the aftermaths of you vaguely calling us out to party yesterday! Or whatever this was about...
=%/

I have no problem with criticizing Obama (0.00 / 0)
on his methods, strategies, or even aims, especially if the goal and/or result is to push him or allow him to move in a better direction. In fact, I heartily endorse this, as indeed Obama himself does.

What really gets to me, and I suspect most Obama supporters, is when people question his motives. That he is really just a corporate slash conservative stooge and has been duping everyone all along, that kind of thing. The accusations that Obama supporters were duping themselves by imagining him to be some kind of perfect amalgation of Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold, Paul Wellstone, at least three different Kennedies, FDR, Lincoln, and Jesus Christ, when in fact he is just Barack Obama, are not much better, either, even if I am sure there are actually some cases where this is true. (And this is only vaguely pertinent, but I thought all the handwringing during the transition over his appointments was misguided and rather irritating -- it was rather obvious, even then, that the Senate would be all that everyone would be screaming themselves hoarse at over the next howevermany years.)

I have been a huge Obama supporter since a month or so before Iowa; there was one point where he disappointed and in my consideration went from being 'highly awesome' to merely 'awesome' (telco immunity), but since then, nothing that he has done has really surprised me -- what I saw is, for the most part, what I got, within the margins of my expectations.


So if we want a 'public option'... (0.00 / 0)
we should raise hell for 'single payer'!

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox