well, for one of your examples (0.00 / 0)

I imagine Obama thinks he is getting more support from Specter now that when he was running in a Republican primary. It's not exactly a crazy theory. Anyway, Obama has to support Specter to keep his word. We don't.

That doesn't apply to Bennet of course.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 13:20:25 PM UTC

The answer is pretty simple (0.00 / 0)

the sitting Senators have votes he needs.

It's not rocket science.

---

by: fladem @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 13:34:52 PM UTC

The best answer is to stay out of it (0.00 / 0)

Just let democracy work, that's what he should tell people who ask for his endorsement if bennet or specter asked for him (or Gillibrand in NY). If they don't vote with him because of that, their voters will take care of them, probably.  

---

by: Terran1212 @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 13:39:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Apparently you don't read (4.00 / 1)

Try reading the column - it addresses your claim, and shows how idiotic it is.

Again, try reading before commenting - it makes things so much more relevant and interesting for other readers.

---

by: David Sirota @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 13:55:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Aw, come on, David! (4.00 / 3)

I've read that damn column, and it doesn't address the claim. All you provide as an explanation for the pesident's behaviour is that he likes to "kick away the ladder,", holds a "royalist's disdain for local democracy" and that this is "a corrupted pol's willingness to prioritize country club etiquette over policy results". And I have to say, fladem's answer, as I interprete it, makes more sense: Obama wants a healthcare reform without the public option passed, and that's why he is against primary challenges that may make the lawmakers think twice about what their constituency expects from them. I don't say that's the truth, but it's at least a better explanation than you have to offer.

And could you pls stop accusing people of being illiterate, and "idiots"? It's always the same rant you post when somebody criticzes you, and it's not only tiresone, it also makes you look extremely thin skinned. Why don't you just imagine you're on TV, or that the commenter is a potential customer of one of your books, before wording your replies???

---

by: Gray @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 14:28:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'll just cut and paste (0.00 / 0)

If you are too lazy to read the column, or too obstinate to do anything other than dishonestly summarize what it says, then fine - I'll just cut and paste for you:

At a moment when Obama's agenda is acutely threatened by congressional Democratic recalcitrance, the president's anti-primary posture tells all Democratic incumbents he will defend them, regardless of their position on issues. And that message blunts Obama's most powerful instrument of legislative leverage: fear of contested elections.

Without vigorous primaries forcing Democratic legislators to face Democratic voters, those legislators feel free to defy the president's Democratic agenda. Alternately, with primaries, Democratic lawmakers typically compete to show who is more committed to the Democratic agenda. As two examples, Sens. Specter and Bennet went from mealy-mouthed equivocation to strong support of the public health care option immediately after opponents announced primary challenges to them.

'Nuff said.

---

by: David Sirota @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 14:37:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Damn, David, as I said, I've read that! (0.00 / 0)

And that isn't an explanation, but a contradiction, that you later explain away with the unbased accusations of "royalty disdain" and "corrupt pol". Fladem, on the other hand, says the Pres unwillingness to support primary challengers is based on him being satisfied with the actions of those Senators. Of course, there is no evidence that Obama really thinks that way, but at least at firxst sight it's a more rational explanation than an alleged prejudice for the establishment.

And if YOU don't understand this argument, David, maybe you haven't really read it, or are mentally challenged.

---

by: Gray @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 14:44:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, maybe it's better if you explain to us illiterates... (0.00 / 0)

...what you think these words should tell us, and how they explain Obama's anti-primary stance?  

---

by: Gray @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 14:49:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Again with (4.00 / 1)

the prejoratives. "Idiotic".  

I won't bother you again. I'm done.

I have never seen anyone who enjoys insulting their readers as much as you.

---

by: fladem @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 14:59:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks dude (0.00 / 0)

Thanks dude...buh-bah.

---

by: David Sirota @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 15:34:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That is so Steve Martin (0.00 / 0)

ala Planes, Trains, & Automobiles:

"And next time you're telling one of your stories, have a point! It makes things so much more interesting for the listener!"

---

by: glacierpeaks @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 18:09:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Watch this space (4.00 / 6)

Tomorrow sometime I'll be publishing a diary here reviewing Walter Karp's "Indispensable Enemies", which describes (among other things) the way that party machines and party regulars crush dissidents and reformers, and discourage outreach to voters if they think that the new voters will make inconvenient demands on the party. Taking sides in a primary campaign isn't the worst of it -- it's not at all common for the permanent party bureaucracy to sabotage a candidate of their own party in the general election.

The party bureaucracy is a thing in itself, and it works for itself. Not for the voters, not for the candidates, not for the elected officials, and not for the common good.

And unfortunately, Obama is a party regular. We could have known that when he hired Rahm Emmanuel.  

---

by: John Emerson @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 14:18:00 PM UTC

Not at all UNcommon (4.00 / 1)

it's not at all uncommon for the permanent party bureaucracy to sabotage a candidate of their own party in the general election.

Damn.

---

by: John Emerson @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 14:19:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, it's always the same, John: Blame the UN! (4.00 / 1)

How rightwing of you!
:D

---

by: Gray @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 14:33:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree. Look at my comment on what they did recently (4.00 / 1)

in Montana.  David is right.  I'd add that I have noticed a dangerous tendency to micromanage every state's politics from Illinois to New York.  Obama gives speeches and gets in the weeds of electoral politics.  I wish he would read William Greider's "Come Home America" or Stephen Kinzer's "Overthrow" or Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" or "Uprising" for that matter.  And make sure he sees Michael Moore's movie without a bunch of nudgers around to yap negativity about it.

---

by: FeralCat @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 17:39:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I meant to say "Instead of micromanaging, I wish he (4.00 / 1)

would stay in the White House and read some books and get some learnin'or talk to people outside the bubble.  But I don't hold out any hope really.  Read Naomi Klein's interview with Michael Moore.  Even Moore is more hopeful than me.
http://www.alternet.org/story/...

---

by: FeralCat @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 17:43:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Moore has disappointed me. (0.00 / 0)

After reading the Rolling Stone multi-interview featuring Michael Moore, Paul Krugman, and some dishonest right-wing hack, I had to accept the unfortunate conclusion that the guy who brought us SiCKO and Fahrenheit 9/11 has adopted Joe LIEberman's former role of sucking executive genitalia.

---

by: Michael Kwiatkowski @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 18:03:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I meant to say "Instead of micromanaging, I wish he (0.00 / 0)

would stay in the White House and read some books and get some learnin'or talk to people outside the bubble.  But I don't hold out any hope really.  Read Naomi Klein's interview with Michael Moore.  Even Moore is more hopeful than me.
http://www.alternet.org/story/...

---

by: FeralCat @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 17:43:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maybe he's got no intention of carrying out the agenda that he ran on .... (4.00 / 4)

... but is looking for political cover as an excuse as to why he can't.  Looking at how little of what he ran on that he has carried out, that would seem to be plausible.  

If the political landscape is arranged in such a way that bills that are unfriendly to corporate interests never reach his desk, he gets to continue to give his pretty speeches and posture like he is trying to carry out the agenda for change that he ran on, but has an excuse as to why can't do it becoz the congressional forces are aligned against it ... which he has helped to align.  Therefore, he gets cover for selling us out and also the big campaign donations from corporate interests for serving them and not us.

He can't get be bothered to get off his ass and fight for efca, doma, the public option (I'm sorry, saying you support it, but are willing to compromise on it is not fighting for it), etc.  But he'll get off his ass to try to influence these primaries that discourage change in multiple ways.

Not only does it seem plausible that he is doing this to maintain cover while selling us out to his big corporate donors, but also likely.  Hell, he did hire rahm emanuel, the dlc's master of deceit who specializes in such operations.  

Maybe we are the pawns in the pope of hope's game of 85-dimensional chess.  

Z

---

by: Z @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 14:29:18 PM UTC

Obama ran as a centrist (4.00 / 2)

He talked about reaching across party lines, etc. He said a lot of other stuff too, but we had plenty of warning.

I actually caucused for Obama vs. Clinton during the primary season, and some of the younger Obama-ites bothered me. They seemed to believe that Obama could put an end to the hard feelings in American politics by magic, while at the same time doing all kinds of wonderful liberal things.  

---

by: John Emerson @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 14:54:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't remember the label on his posters displaying CENTRIST at the bottom of them (4.00 / 4)

Personally, I did not believe that obama would wave a magic wand and change would suddenly appear.  I lost a ton of respect for him when he turned collar on the FISA issue and I did not have as much hope for him as most did.  But, I would have to say that he has managed to burrow beneath my low expectations ... way below.

He did in fact run on change ... said he would fight for labor, gays, civil rights, against government secrecy, getting out of Iraq and a host of other issues that I don't have time to get into right now, so your contentions that he ran as a centrist and that we somehow misunderstood him rings rather hollow.  But, I may be taking your comments further than what you intended.

Z

---

by: Z @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 15:58:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yup, Im sure, too, that on his posters, they didn't say... (4.00 / 1)

...MORE OF THE SAME!
:D

---

by: Gray @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 16:03:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

must have been in zero-point font ... (4.00 / 2)

Z

---

by: Z @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 16:45:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes we can , but doesn't mean we will. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: FeralCat @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 19:20:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Couldn't have said it better. (4.00 / 1)

I didn't support Obama.  I supported the guy with the mistress problem but had the right policies. So I did too much opposition research to buy what Obama was selling.  By reading people who knew Obama from Illinois like Paul Street, Bruce Dixon, and Lynn Sweet, it was clear that he was very comfortable with the Chicago Boy school of economics and crass machine politics.

So I'm through with electoral politics although I like Michael Moore's idea of Elizabeth Warren and Marcy Kaptur running on a ticket together.

Meet me in D.C. to join the "Mad as Hell Doctors" on Wednesday in Lafayette Park at 4PM.

---

by: FeralCat @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 17:53:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Edwards was the candidate that I supported too ... (0.00 / 0)

Z

---

by: Z @ Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 05:17:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A picture says a thousand words. (0.00 / 0)

If you want to know why Obama doesn't want his right-wing Democrats primaried, the following image speaks volumes:

Democrats having to move leftward, and possibly defy his efforts to continue the horrific policies of the Bush-Cheney regime, doesn't fit in with his agenda.

---

by: Michael Kwiatkowski @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 14:30:53 PM UTC

Better the game you know (4.00 / 4)

This is so common in Washington -- doing the exact opposite of what seems reasonable -- that I despair of making any sense of the usual political explanations. I look at what you're describing here, David, and wonder if the explanation isn't as simple as it is absurd. If so, I'd say that it would look something like this:

From President Obama's perspective, the people aren't trustworthy business partners. He cajoled them once, but it took heroic effort, not to mention the careful dispensation of a laboriously collected hoard of resources which he'd likely never be able to assemble again.

Now that he has a bit of power of his own, and his horizons are shrinking rather than expanding, better to do business with predictable people, solid people, whose assistance has benefits which his staff can quantify, and whose perfidies are at least well documented.

This is only prudent, right? The People, Sir, is a Great Beast, and all that. This is conventional wisdom. Everybody and his dog follows it.

The President may very well see what you and I and hundreds of others see, that the people are also a reservoir of vast, and largely untapped political power, which could defeat not only his enemies, but when engaged by an intelligent and ethical leader, theirs as well. Democracy as mutual benefit association -- what a concept!

Still, it's risky to offer yourself to them. You might become the new FDR, but you might also wind up as the lowest form of human sacrifice, like Winston Churchill in the 1945 elections.

President Obama is smart enough to see that these are his choices, but he's also smart enough to know that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. He's not Prince Hamlet -- for that he'd require passions which he seems to have spent decades suppressing. He's much more a man of our own century. Go along to get along isn't just a slogan to such people, it's their Apostles' Creed. If we want real leadership we'll have to keep looking. Let's just hope that it turns out better for us than it did for Diogenes.

---

by: William Timberman @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 14:34:31 PM UTC

Yes, that's a reasonable explanation! (4.00 / 1)

We all know that power corrupts, and this may really be just another case of this. However, for a politician that ran on the promise of "change" and who pretended to take on the corrupt elites, this still is surprising. Who would have thought that Obama would turn out to be just another hypocrite, and so soon?

---

by: Gray @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 15:16:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Surprising? (4.00 / 3)

Honestly, Gray, I don't think surprising is the right word. From the beginning of his political career back in Chicago, his path to power has been a strictly utilitarian one. The charisma part was carefully cultivated, and presented to the power brokers long before it was ever unveiled to the people -- and in a very different form at that.

I took -- and still take -- Dreams from my Father as an honest book, perhaps more honest than anything he's said or done before or since. If you read it carefully, what you discover is not only his need for acceptance on his own terms, but more remarkably, a finely-honed understanding of what it would take to become the focal point of other people's projections, and the discovery, almost belatedly, that doing so was in fact the path to his own goal of acceptance.

And what did he plan to do once he was finally standing on the west front of the Capitol building? Something grand, something vague, something symbolic. Beyond that, I'm not sure even he knew -- that's undoubtedly why he needed Rahm Emanuel.  

---

by: William Timberman @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 15:34:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Surprising for me, Will. I can be a bit naive sometimes... (0.00 / 0)

...and I usually take someone's arguments at face value (unless I see a contradiction). I'm just not one of those guys who always assume they're lied to. And I haven't read DfmF yet, so I had no clue.

---

by: Gray @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 15:39:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're too modest, Gray. (0.00 / 0)

Of all the adjectives that cross my mind when I read your comments, naive isn't one of them. Honesty isn't the same thing as naiveté, after all, except on the Rove/Emanuel merry-go-round.

Smart people and politics are as immiscible as oil and water, and as unstable in close contact as nitroglycerine. Small wonder that attempts to emulsify them are at best temporary, and at worst a danger to children and dumb animals.

No need to apologize for wishing it were otherwise. Most sane people do.

---

by: William Timberman @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 16:00:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I truly think it's for the same reason he is reaching for bipartisanship... (4.00 / 2)

He doesn't want a left agenda passed. He wants to reach out and get republican votes to have a scapegoat ready when the mandate hammer comes down to buy crappy insurance he's promised the insurance company big-wigs. And likewise, if he crushes primaries that would further support his agenda, his agenda would get passed. Simple. So the only reason that backs up all his actions is that he is really further 'right' out of a need to please big money.

---

by: justsaying @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 15:28:54 PM UTC

Part of it's his nature, part of it's our system (0.00 / 0)

His nature has always been consensus-based, and our system generally does not like outsiders and challenges (not that Romanoff or Sestak are exactly these grassroots champions, though you could argue Tasini is).

---

by: Terran1212 @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 15:39:40 PM UTC

Let me answer this question by asking another (4.00 / 4)

Sirota writes:

As I point out in the column, strong Democratic primaries - and more generally, the threat of strong Democratic primaries - makes Democratic legislators feel more nervous about defying the president's Democratic agenda, for fear of losing a nomination fight...

Based on this history, it's obvious that contested Democratic primaries would help President Obama tackle what clearly is his most challenging legislative obstacle in a Democratic Congress: No, not converting legislatively irrelevant Republicans, but instead, corralling recalcitrant Democrats.

And yet, the president is doing exactly the opposite - using his power to try to crush those primaries instead of, for instance, simply staying out. Why?

Why do you assume that Obama has a "Democratic agenda"? As soon as you throw away that assumption, the seeming paradox of Obama's behavior disappears.

* * *

At least by the standards of anybody outside Versailles, gutting the Fourth Amendment with FISA reform, tossing a few trillion to the banksters, normalizing torture, and bailing out the health insurance companies hardly constitutes a Democratic agenda.

So why would you assume that Obama has a "Democratic agenda"? Obama as a Versailles agenda.

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

---

by: lambert @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 15:48:39 PM UTC

As Bill Maher said last summer, (4.00 / 3)

the Democratic Party is the new Republican Party.

And Obama is the new Bush.

I suspect that Obama's actions demonstrate his intention not only to obstruct all progressive legislation, like a health care reform bill with an authentic public option, but also to use the Democratic Party's organizational apparatus and corporate fund-raising capabilities to create a political juggernaut to obstruct the emerging progressive majority's takeover of government.

So where does this leave progressive activists and voters?

BTW, I am near completing the first draft of what I am now calling "The Progressive Voter's Guide to Building Winning Voting Blocs and Political Parties". It explains how progressive activists and voters can use the Interactive Voter Choice System to work inside or outside the two major political parties.

If any of you Open Left readers are willing to read the draft (which I will post online) and give me your input and feedback, please email me.

Since it's a pretty complicated subject, I will greatly appreciate any help you can give me.

Nancy Bordier is the author of Re-Inventing Democracy: How U.S. Voters Can Get Control of Government and Restore Popular Sovereignty in America. The book can be read free online by clicking here.

A prototype website illustrating how the Interactive Voter Choice System works can be accessed at Citizens Winning Hands.  

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 16:13:56 PM UTC

Is Obama in over his head? (0.00 / 0)

I don't intend this as a criticism of Obama as a politician or as a man; I think he's extremely smart and capable--at least as qualified for the job as anybody he ran against. But we should acknowledge the possibility that the presidency itself has become such an incredibly complicated job that no one person is actually able, in our time, to successfully enact policy preferences in the face of the various entrenched political, cultural, and bureaucratic obstacles s/he faces.

Who was the last president who was actually able to change the function of the national institutions themselves, the way Obama implied he wanted to? Maybe FDR, but most of his changes were extemporaneous responses to the demands of the situation, rather than elements of a predetermined program, right?

The political system powerfully resists the kind of change implicit in the legislative options favored by progressive activists. So powerfully that electing the right president (even if s/he really is the right president) is not nearly enough of a change to make a difference.

Has Obama mislead the voters? Has he been co-opted? Has he faltered in the face of resistance that was stronger than he thought? Probably a little of all of those. But the agency for change rests with us, not with him. We have to work for that change by supporting him when it's appropriate, by opposing him when it's necessary, and by assessing him critically at all times.

For a president to actually enact the kind of change we want, he would have to seize a degree of personal power similar to that of a Caesar or a Lenin. I don't want that kind of change, even if it begins in the interest of my own political desires. (And no, I don't think we're headed down that road right now). I don't think any of us do. But that means we have to maintain pressure on all the other levels of power in our society to promote the changes we want, including all three branches of the federal government, state and local governments, the press, education, the arts, etc.

That means supporting progressive challengers to the machine candidates. And it means writing columns that criticize the president for supporting machine politics. But it also means resisting the urge to personalize politics, because doing so distracts of from the larger forces at work--forces of which the president (like us) is both victim and agent. Resting our hopes in another person, even if he occupies a powerful political position, is a recipe for disappointment and despair, and we can't afford that. Making political change happen is a grind, and we have to be in it for the long haul. Despair is an enemy.

---

by: FearItself @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 16:29:10 PM UTC

Why? (4.00 / 2)

And yet, the president is doing exactly the opposite - using his power to try to crush those primaries instead of, for instance, simply staying out. Why?

Because his loyalty is to incumbency, of any kind. Incumbency is THE HIGHEST value. EVERYTHING is secondary to being the incumbent, because it is almost always a guaranteed sinecure.

No elected official wants there to be ANY change in ANY of the conditions which they perceive to have been active or even marginally instrumental in their election. That's why incumbents fight to restrict voters' rights, to curtail loosening registration requirements, etc...

In the mind of the incumbent Pol, if any incumbent elected official can be successfully challenged, it means by implication that they themselves could also be successfully challenged, and that is anathema! NOTHING is more important than being re-elected...especially before one has the opportunity to fully feather one's nest--a la Ted Stevens. If  you play the game and stay around long enough, you'll leave the Congress a very rich person.

---

by: konopelli @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 17:16:48 PM UTC

Tester's folks move for a rule change in Montana (4.00 / 1)

Sen. Jon Tester (D) openly acknowledges in The Uprising, the contested 2006 Montana primary made him a stronger candidate - and had the party deferred to the D.C.-backed candidate in that primary, Democrats would almost certainly have lost the general election.

So now that Jon's in power, the powers that be pushed and got a change in the rules of the Montana Democratic Party, David.
The MDP can endorse or financially support the incumbent against a primary opponent.  I voted against it, but it was one of those things they snuck in and packed the "Aye" side of the aisle.  

No funds of the MDP shall be expended for any candidate for office prior to the primary election with the exceptions of (1) proven incumbents who have consistently demonstrated support of party issues.

Oh and "except in the case of proven incumbents", the State central committee can't endorse anybody in the primary.

They came up with some cockamamee compromise that I didn't think meant much and I can't find right now, but you ought to check it out.

I said to other county chairs that it seemed the opposite of democracy to me.   Hmmmmm?  Ya think?

---

by: FeralCat @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 17:21:32 PM UTC

On the Colorado primary situation... (0.00 / 0)

...are there any non-DLC candidates? I've asked this before, but so far no answers.

---

by: nasrudin @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 18:40:25 PM UTC

Are there more than (0.00 / 0)

the two examples you cite in your article?  Feels to me like there's a lot of extrapolation happening that might not be justified by only these two cases.

---

by: ccarollo @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 19:47:55 PM UTC

Lust for Power- Actions reveal Intentions (0.00 / 0)

David's article is clearly summarized in the title, "Why Is Obama Trying to Crush Primaries That Would Help Him Overcome [what he claims to be] His Legislative Obstacles?" After giving us no answers, he concludes, "...I also think there are some other forces at work."

If we dwell on the question, we know that when people act in what appears to be illogical behavior, and we dismiss insanity as the cause, we must assume hidden reasons. Politics are riddled with secrecy and backroom deals and hidden objectives driven by power. He who has the power, calls the shots. Because there are powerful people who between them compete with each other, the only possible stable solution is a group or a club of power, with a long term agenda that spans beyond any one lifetime.

We know Obama has retreated from his original position on many issues. The same "WHY" has to be asked here. Does Obama know that he has shifted, and does he know why? Yes, to both, if we are to grant he has a highly rational intellect. Thus, his actions are the results of his intentions, which, no doubt follow his own private agenda. So why does a man betray his own ideals (if we are to believe that "Dreams of My Father" are his true ideals? The answer has to be behind the screens and veils of power plays, beyond public view or understanding. What we do know is that the power brokers of the world are those who have the power over money, and how it's created and distributed; and there can be no doubt that beyond public view, these powers are running their own agenda on the President, the Nation, and the World.

Should we hope that Obama has a "check-mate" gambit he will deploy at some right time in the future, regardless of personal risk? Even if we hope so, we can't be sure he will or that he can even win with it.

Our path as progressives becomes clearer as each day goes by. We must continue to expose the irrationalities in the political system, and their promoters. But we must also have a multi-pronged strategy. We must have or form strong alliances to continue to bring more and more justice to the system, regardless or despite what promising actions might be being taken by various other progressive groups.

One thing is clear, Power has a single-minded goal and agenda behind which to rally. That maybe a good reason why the opposition seems to be ever so much better organized. Progressives on the other hand, continue to drag their feet around a multiple issues that don't always meet on the same grounds. Conservatives have a clear idea of what they want to conserve; it's there and visible. Progressives have no commonality on something that does not yet exists; and it seems difficult to get that established.

But there is common ground. We have an ideology of justice and public benefit. All we need now is to create formal alliances to show our numbers and our intentions.

A National Progressive Alliance, is the only viable solution.

http://www.openleft.com/diary/...

---

by: boldhawk @ Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 07:32:13 AM UTC