A Twofer: Obama Throws Wes Clark, Moveon Under the Bus

by: Matt Stoller

Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 13:55


Part of Obama's consolidation of the party is his consolidation of message.  Today, he took two more steps towards his goal of centralizing all power through his internet-infused post-partisan machine.  First, he's just gone after one of the top surrogate for Congressional Democrats in 2006 in the country, Wes Clark.  Clark made an honest observation, that John McCain has no executive experience in national security, and though his heroism in Vietnam deserves respect, it is not a substitute for experience.  Obama's spokesperson denounced the comments as impugning McCain's patriotism.

Meanwhile, Republicans tied Clark's comments to Obama anyway, alleging that Obama put him up to it.  In addition, Obama rebuked Moveon in his speech on patriotism, bringing up the Betray Us ad and saying how everyone should respect military service under all circumstances.  Moveon was not in the news, Petraeus was not in the news, Obama simply chose to bring this up today in his speech on patriotism.

Obama's consolidation of the party amounts to a desire to eliminate all vulnerable competing power centers, and this includes Moveon and Clark.  Obama can't tell the big donors behind Moveon to close the spigot, because there are no big donors behind Moveon.  Obama can try to sideswipe the group by communicating directly with Moveon members through the media and through his own internet operations.  I wouldn't be surprised to see Moveon take a hit in donations and activism for this, but then, it's possible that the membership is frustrated over FISA and the opposite will occur.  He can undermine Clark by damaging his reputation, taking Clark's comments out of context and then using a straw man to pretend like Clark had attacked McCain's service.  Media Matters documents that this is not what Clark said, but Obama's imperative is not to the truth but to increase his own range of action within the party.

Obama has done so, hurting one of the top Democratic PACs and outside groups, and one of the top Democratic surrogates.  He has also reduced his own range of actions in the general election and shouldered more of the burden on to his own campaign.  

UPDATE:  Meanwhile, the Please Vote Against FISA group on MyBarackObama is up to 4700 members, in only four days.

Matt Stoller :: A Twofer: Obama Throws Wes Clark, Moveon Under the Bus

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
A Twofer: Obama Throws Wes Clark, Moveon Under the Bus | 109 comments
Really (4.00 / 3)
The bus above, the road below . . . getting to be a daily occurrence anymore.

I'm not surprised by Obama's response . . . it's wussy and feeble and weak.  Pretty much par for the course for this campaign.

God . . . could we really screw up another presidential campaign?

Yes (4.00 / 8)

God . . . could we really screw up another presidential campaign?

This has been another edition of simple answers....
[ Parent ]
"could we really screw up another presidential campaign? " (4.00 / 5)
Yes, We Can!

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
troublingly so (4.00 / 1)
even i who through the primary though Obama ran a very smart campaign is absolutely dumbfounded by statements by Obama in the last 5 days. Not because of moving center, but because he's doing so in such a moronic way. I mean, does he really think MoveOn is going to stay clammed up if he keeps wacking at them while simultaneously selling us out on FISA and Clark? This is just dumb. He's on his way to an easy victory and yet he's doing things to raise chatter around his trustworthiness. This is just stupid. He should be doing things to focus the media on his "kick out the status quo" campaign. really, wow, so dumb.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Yup (0.00 / 0)
It was his seeming ability to campaign well, and stay ahead of the spin machines (while spinning his own, its the currency of the realm after all) and basically come off looking like a trustworthy person.  I pretty much figured he'd be a disappointent in the end, but Hillary Clinton (and John Edwards, for that matter) are ALREADY disappointments (from my perspective) so Obama was at the head of the (thinned) pack.  Not a ringing endorsement, but it gained him a few bucks and another chance to point to "small donors".

In isolation, each of these incidents (caving on FISA, supporting the death penalty, dissing Clark, mouthing the right wing frame on the anti-war protests, and going out of his way to slam Move On) might be a fairly small thing, together they are like a portrait.  Thing is, practically all of them could have been handled in a more politically adept way, that is, in a way that reinforced the idea that Obama practices a "new" politics.  (maybe its "recycled" politics, but everything old is new again).  The FISA issue was the killer for me (not supporting Clark a close second) because, as I've posted elsewhere, he could have used those issues to bolster his "change" campaign, evoke trust, while attacking the GOP and John McCain.  But he blew it. Big time.


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

[ Parent ]
In the words of my drill sergeant (4.00 / 3)
Obama is giving me a case of the ass.  

The Open Left team is about growing the progressive grass, seeding the next crop of politicians, well I am with you.  Because this stealth bomber of a candidate is making my &%*(^% hurt.

So I am just blowing off this Presidential election.  The military industrial congressional mediatainment big pharma complex wins either way, as usual.  

So the big question is, how do we get someone with some real populist/progressive credentials in the white house??

Post on that shit!!!!

I agree. (4.00 / 5)
Most progressives placed no demands on Obama before falling in love with him during the primary season. So, there should be no surprise now that he has revealed himself as a big-business, global free-trading, race-baiting  right-of-center politician who believes that the common wealth should be used for the private good.

If Obama isn't responding positively to netroot "pressures" before he gets their votes in November, why do netrooters believe he will listen after they give him their votes in November? This logic is not only madness, it is counterproductive to the fulfillment of real a progressive change.

Many people here don't like to hear it, but the truth is that the only remedy of last resort citizens have to hold presidential candidates accountable is not to vote for them.

Less important is who wins the White House than signaling to future presidential and legislative candidates that there are consequences for those who betray their bond with voters.

The prize is not in defeating Republicans, but in growing a party less inclined to capitulate to Republicans and fulfill the their anti-progressive policy goals, like the pro-corporate bankruptcy law, the privatization of Medicare, the criminalization of buying pharmaceuticals abroad, the needless revisions to FISA that shreds the 4th amendment and covers-up the Bush administration's illegal, warrantless wiretapping activities, the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, allowing Republican presidents to stack the Court with judges who threaten Roe, and so on.

Glenn Greenwald said it best: "Telling Obama that you'll cheer for him no matter what he does, that you'll vest in him Blind Faith that anything he does is done with the purest of motives, ensures that he will continue to ignore you and your political interests."

[ Parent ]
Huh? (4.00 / 1)
"Most progressives placed no demands on Obama before falling in love with him during the primary season."

I think most progressives (at least on the net) were in love with Edwards (go check the dKos straw polls during the early primary season).  Obama became the default choice when it was down to him and Clinton.  I recognize a lot of the 'I told you so'-types around here were the ones pushing Clinton, which is sad because she would have likely been no better or potentially even worse so their words ring hollow.  

We didn't have a real strong progressive choice in the primary season (Edwards was a johnny-come-lately and Kuchinich has proven to be a lone wolf not a leader) and now we don't have a real strong progressive choice in the general.  We have to live with it, but acknowledge the fact that we have a lot of work to do.  

The most disappointing part of all this is that the progressive brand is getting damaged by centrists calling themselves progressives or by progressives acting like most Democratic politicians are progressive when they aren't.  Its sort of the reverse of the destruction of the liberal brand.  Liberal was demonized by pointing out the more extreme social positions that we liberals prefer as if that was the only part of the left's plaform, while progressive is getting damaged by being attached to center-right, pro-corporate politicians.

I'll take Obama over McCain and be pleased that we elected a Democrat, but progressives are in no position to place demands on Obama.

[ Parent ]
If you don't place demands upon Obama (4.00 / 2)
then you have no right to complain when he offends your progressive moral values -- especially when he flips on Iraq after his visit.
[ Parent ]
I dont why you say that (4.00 / 1)
While certainly not perfect, Clinton was far more progressive on Health Care and Housing Crisis. She came out before Obama for "Green-collar" jobs.

I think the thing that seperated her and Obama was the gas-tax which is obviously not going to happen. But generally she either matched or bested Obama in progressive domestic policy. In terms of foreign policy, ofcourse Clinton said she would 'obliterate' Iran - but then again Obama has now pledged to have an 'undivided Jerusalem' which is a pretty stupid pledge to make unprompted(which to make matters worse he has kind of wavered from).

Also guess who was one of 25 Senators who stood with MoveOn during that ridiculous Senate vote and guess who skipped that vote?

Nonetheless, this is pointless discussion.
Clinton's campaign is over. Obama, for better or for worse, is the nominee.

[ Parent ]
The way Digby explained it was (4.00 / 2)
"the netroots put out on the first date."

Like it or not, we're stuck with him now, but please, let's don't go through this again. Next time we have to at least make the candidates buy us, if not a ring, at least dinner.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
And we did not (0.00 / 0)
even get kissed first.  
[ Parent ]
"the netroots put out on the first date." (4.00 / 1)
That's not really true. Most of the netroots supported Edwards until he dropped out. When it came down to a choice between Obama and the war-voting DLC Clinton, what were we supposed to do?

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
Geez, I don't know (0.00 / 0)
make our support conditional?

At the point where there were two candidates in the race, we still had the chance to pit them against each other, and throw our support behind the one who gave us the better deal.

But too many people had stars in their eyes, and here we are now.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
conditional support (0.00 / 0)
Both candidates had ample opportunities to show progressive leadership. I didn't really see it from either one. At some point you have to make a choice based on all available evidence.

"here we are now."

I don't regret my vote. I still think the far-from-perfect Obama is better than a return of the Clintons for many reasons. Face it; we never end up with a perfect nominee. Howard Dean was the closest we got. The question is, what do we do now? I'm all for continuing to criticize Obama from the left. I'll help with get out the vote efforts and direct the limited contributions I can afford to putting in place a more progressive congress.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
What we do know is (4.00 / 1)
a) elect him
b) after he is elected, box his ears

Obama may not like us, but if he wins he knows he owes us at least a little something. He will have to throw us a bone once in while, at least until we get enough progressives in Congress to really get move things forward.

If McCain wins we get nothing.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Give me a break (4.00 / 1)
Look, I'm all for criticizing his campaign for its tactical decisions AND for giving him the business on his FISA non-leadership.

But this is so over-the-top that it's absurd. "Big-business, global free-trading, race-baiting right-of-center politician who believes that the common wealth should be used for the private good"? Uh, no. Seriously, race-baiting?

I have my own opinions of why Obama is doing what he is doing as of late, moving right for nebulous reasons. I happen to think he'll be a solidly center-left President once he's elected, but I could be wrong, and his current machinations and actions surely cast grave doubt upon that (then again, he has also put himself on the record as wanting to achieve three very important goals for progressives by the end of his first term). Obama will be judged by what he does once he's in the White House -- and only by working to elect a more progressive Congress can we put any pressure on him. Nothing more, nothing less, and that's true of any person in the White House.

He's running a conventional and cautious general election strategy, and, yes, he's showing that he doesn't mind pissing off an active portion of his base. But none of that makes me think that a former organizer for the dispossessed and a progressive state legislator and center-left US Senator has all of a sudden turned into Mitch McConnell or John McCain. He has proven time and again during the campaign that he does not believe in confronting directly the right-wing infrastructure or power centers, that he believes he can finesse his way around the lies and smears. We'll see, and I think he's silly to do so.

But to take these errors of tactics and decide to threaten to withhold a vote is beyond the pale.  

[ Parent ]
"Withhold" a vote? (0.00 / 0)
Odd phrasing.  Apparently Obama is entitled to votes.  He doesn't have to earn them.

Not a surprise, of course - he hasn't finished a single term in the Senate, he got the AA vote without promising them anything, progressive votes by opposing universal health care, and the anti-war vote by voting to fund the war.  The world just owes Obama.

[ Parent ]
Sloppily phrased, but I stand by the meaning (4.00 / 1)
We're down to a binary choice, Obama versus McCain. Anyone participating at OpenLeft that decides not to vote for the Democratic nominee out of anger that he's a conventional politician is cutting off their nose to spite their face.

You can look at my comment history and decide for yourself if I'm some Obama shill. My support for him in the primary was always a pragmatic support after my preferred candidates either didn't run (Clark) or didn't catch on (Dodd). I always thought he'd run a race that would provide better down-ticket support for our Senate map, and that he'd expand the playing field in a way that Clinton probably wouldn't. And, most importantly, he was and is better on the war -- nominating another Democrat that supported this war would not allow us to properly draw distinctions between our nominee and McCain. I still feel like those points hold true, and Obama is still speaking forcefully about beginning to withdraw troops once he's in office, and he's still talking about trying to get to universal health care, even if his policy particulars need some work.

I'm definitely not contributing to Obama this quarter, and probably won't be contributing any more money to him at all, instead focusing on progressive Congressional candidates.

I won't ever tell someone when they should or should not feel offended, and who they must give their cash to. But I have no problem calling out people for these types of over-the-top diatribes. Yours is in a similar vein. The choice we have is now Obama and McCain. McCain will keep this war going ad infinitum, and will continue the insane neo-con foreign policy legacy. He will continue the current fiscal policies (if he's to be believed). He will not do as much on global warming, or allow as comprehensive solutions to that issue, as a Democrat in the White House will/would. He will appoint terrible judges that will further erode our constitutional rights and liberties. And he won't do a damn thing on health care.

So, if you choose not to vote Obama, you're in essence voting for McCain's priorities. Sorry, that's the way it works. Hold your nose if you must, but understand the stakes.

[ Parent ]
The choice isn't binary (0.00 / 0)
I don't get this "binary choice" argument.  My ballot will have five or six candidates, as well as the choice to not choose a candidate and an option to write in a candidate.  That isn't binary.

Now, theoretically, for some people, voting for a third party or abstaining might create a risk of throwing the election to McCain, despite having more sympathy with Obama's priorities.  However, that is true only in states that aren't already effectively decided by election day.  Nader and the abstainers aren't going to tilt California for McCain. However, abstainers or Naderites can send a message in California - that Obama or the party has trouble with the base or the primary system.  If you live in Florida, the threat that your vote will help McCain is much greater.  That is the way it works: some votes count more than others.

For myself, I'm a puma sympathsizer in a blue state.  In November, when I cast my ballot, my guess is that Obama will be polling 8 to 12 points ahead of McCain.  If that's the case, and if I'm as disgusted at the Democratic party as I am today, why should I add to the Democratic party's popular vote margin?  My vote is not worth a great deal, but the only way to waste it under those circumstances, is not to vote my conscience and protest the party.  I don't think that I'm going to wake up in a twilight zone world on November 5 where my state, which has gone Democratic since Mondale, suddenly was in jepordy because I left my presidential choice blank.  

I can't for the life of me see how it's insane or suicidal not to vote for Obama, but people seem to be telling me that all the time lately....
 

[ Parent ]
I feel your pain. (0.00 / 0)
I could have written your comment myself four years ago after Dean lost. But I have come to the conclusion that we have a de facto two-party system. That's just the reality. The only practical strategy is "more and better Democrats." Hold your nose and vote for Obama, but put your heart and energy into electing better Democrats down-ticket. Give some money to run ads against Steny Hoyer:
https://actblue.com/page/fisa

Come on. You know that'll make you feel a little bit better. Just a little bit.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
What pain? (4.00 / 1)
I don't make decisions out of pain - I try to be logical.

If I don't like Obama, there isn't any reason I should feel bullied into voting for him if my vote isn't going to be added to McCain's total.

Why should I "hold my nose?"  Seems silly to me.

[ Parent ]
We have two choices. (0.00 / 0)
It is gravely irresponsible not to vote for the best option between the two choices we have. I am planning on prioritizing my contributions to ActBlue to bring a more progressive congress, but witholding your vote from Obama is crazy talk. Having said that, I find that I no longer feel comfortable talking up Obama to other potential voters. My heart's just not in it. That will probably change, but right now, I'm not bringing it up in conversations anymore. Pretty depressing.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
Have you read this? (4.00 / 1)
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...

Here's an excerpt

When I was younger, I voted, selfishly, for myself. In 1980, I worked on a collectivist "alternative" community newspaper. In the previous four years, Jimmy Carter had occasionally--even frequently--exasperated us. He was not all we wanted him to be. We particularly rended our garments over his little spasms of support for the gang governing El Salvador. We concluded that although Ronald Reagan was an obvious Monster--Californians, we had already lived through eight years of that Beast--we could not in good conscience support Carter. So our paper endorsed no vote, or a vote for one of the meaningless dick-around parties.

Yes, well: foolish youth. That was stupid, and it was selfish. We could smugly consider ourselves pure, which we did, but what we were really doing was withdrawing from the struggle to reduce suffering. There wasn't the slightest doubt that a Reagan presidency would inflict more suffering than a Carter presidency. Amid all the other beings on the planet, we were so privileged--so very lucky to be who we were, where we were, when we were--and it was not likely that we, callow know-it-all youth, would ourselves much suffer from the shitrain Reagan would bring. So, in our purity, through our neutrality, we were actually advocating that others who were not us suffer.

So I don't vote selfishly, for myself, any more. Instead, I vote like Ecclesiastes says: "joined to all the living." I vote for everybody.

A useful perspective, I think.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
"Most progressives placed no demands on Obama" (4.00 / 1)
I guess that depends on what you mean by "most." Plenty of progressives withheld support from Obama and supported Edwards, in spite of Obama being the only viable pre-war objector, precisely because he was not acting progressive enough.

If Obama isn't responding positively to netroot "pressures" before he gets their votes in November, why do netrooters believe he will listen after they give him their votes in November?

It's not like he was not responding at all to netroots pressure before. On the FISA issue he had promised to support a filibuster of anything with telecom immunity. That's why this is such a shoe in the nuts - because it is 180 degrees apart from what he promised the netroots during the primaries.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
By the time my state primary rolled around (0.00 / 0)
(Tennessee) Edwards was out. I was left with Clinton and Obama, and I chose Clinton because she stood up for MoveOn while Obama did not.

I saw this one coming even back then.

Sadly, when MoveOn put the question of whom to endorse up for a vote, the majority of members chose to ignore the disrespect Obama had just given them, and they voted to endorse him.

C'est la vie. All I'm asking is, I hope we can learn from this experience and not repeat it in the near future because it really sucks.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
"she stood up for MoveOn while Obama did not" (0.00 / 0)
Either I missed that or forgot about it. Care to refresh my memory with a link or brief description of what you're talking about.

Either way, it's not hard to figure out why a progressive group would support the candidate who opposed the war before it started over the one who voted for it and continued to defend that vote.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
Here's a link (4.00 / 1)
http://tpmelectioncentral.talk...

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Tack to the left (4.00 / 2)
I just noticed Obama formally came against the anti-gay marriage amendment in California.  Technically, this is a tack left from his official position.

So, yeah.

...

Ok, back to smacking around Obama for his other moves to the right.

That took him long enough!! (4.00 / 2)

[ Parent ]
That's not really a tact to the left as much as the status quo (4.00 / 2)
A tack to the left would be supporting full right to marry like say Gov Patterson does. This is just saying- states get to decide, and I m not even favor of constitutional amendments since the state representative process decided.
[ Parent ]
That's not really a tact to the left as much as the status quo (0.00 / 0)
A tack to the left would be supporting full right to marry like say Gov Patterson does. This is just saying- states get to decide, and I m not even favor of constitutional amendments since the state representative process decided.
[ Parent ]
Sure. (0.00 / 0)
Now that the issue polls much better and no longer requires a modicum of political courage.
[ Parent ]
Urrr.. (4.00 / 4)
I woke up trying to be positive about the campaign. Even donated money.

Remember when Obama said when he skipped the vote on the bill condemning Move On. It looks even more feeble now.

This amendment was a stunt designed only to score cheap political points while what we should be doing is focusing on the deadly serious challenge we face in Iraq. ... By not casting a vote, I registered my protest against this empty politics.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

But back then that issue was foisted on him. This time he's going out of way to blast Move On.

And instead of distancing himself from Clark, he should be having a sit-down with him to try to figure out what to say about Iran before, you know, Bush attacks.

This is what's really worrying me. Chris Hedges:

The failure by Barack Obama to chart another course in the Middle East, to defy the Israel lobby and to denounce the Bush administration's inexorable march toward a conflict with Iran is a failure to challenge the collective insanity that has gripped the political leadership in the United States and Israel.

Obama, in a miscalculation that will have grave consequences, has given his blessing to the widening circle of violence and abuse of the Palestinians by Israel and, most dangerously, to those in the Bush White House and Jerusalem now plotting a war against Iran. He illustrates how the lust for power is morally corrosive. And while he may win the White House, by the time he takes power he will be trapped in George Bush's alternative reality.

http://www.truthdig.com/report...

Don't you get the feeling that he (4.00 / 3)
loves the left of the Democratic Party?  We are the leg of the triangle he needs.  As you and Chris pointed out, he may want us to critcize him, so he can say he "stood up" to the left.  

I guess this means that Clark will not be the VP nominee. :-)

And moveon (as well as any popular progressive movement not under complete domination or specifc control of the Obama campaign) should wither and die.

So frustrating.  (Some of this may be because of Rev. Wright.  Obama appears to believe that he must repeatedly prove his "patriotism," within the Republican framework of patriotism, instead of redefining it as he did in his 2002 speech against the AUMF.)   (Greenwald's post today identifes the flaws in that approach.)  

But no matter how rightward (described by pundits as the "center") Obama moves, he still is better than McCain.  

If he signs the Employee Free Choice Act, we can help unions grow.  Real change is 10 years away, but that is key.

What you are doing, however, Matt, is also necessary.  Keep real progressive ideas alive.  The ideas must be there when the time comes.  The criticism on issues is necessary to show there is another way.

Meanwhile, the right and center/center-right fight for control of America.  In that struggle, the center or center-right is preferrable.   So we must support Obama, but do it with open eyes.  

We also must build a democratic left in America.  There is much work to be done.

the time is now (0.00 / 0)
So we must support Obama, but do it with open eyes

and shut mouths?

Sorry, this is pathetic.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

[ Parent ]
No, I don't say with (4.00 / 3)
"shut mouths."  Indeed, I have been attacked by people for saying that we should criticize Obama's policies when they are wrong.  I am quite critcial of his rightward moves.  I do not see how you get "shut mouths" out of my comment.  My mouth is not shut.  I am complimenting Matt for crticizing Obama's rightward moves and think we must call out Obama on it.  But I also think we should support Obama over the alternative.  That's all I'm saying.

Obama is better than McCain and there will be more space to build a democratic left for the future under Obama than under McCain.

[ Parent ]
except nobody here is saying we shouldn't ... (0.00 / 0)
... support Obama over the alternative.  If that's all you're saying, you're not saying much.  Yours is a typical "chill out" post.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...
[ Parent ]
Another fucking Dukakis (4.00 / 5)
It's pretty clear his nerve has failed him.  He figures it's his election to lose, so he's going to play this by DC rules.

I'm just waiting for Shrum to sign on to the campaign.

I get the feeling (4.00 / 3)
that someone could ask Obama about McCain's position on abortion, and he'd praise his service to the country.
This blog has turned into (4.00 / 1)
a non-stop bitchfest.
Well (4.00 / 9)
it'd be good to make it through the day without a rightward move by Obama.

What's his Tuesday look like?

[ Parent ]
Welfare Reform (0.00 / 0)
His new ad touts his support for welfare reform, something he criticized Bill Clinton for.

During a 1996 interview with the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Obama could not conceal his disappointment in his fellow Democrat. "Bill Clinton? Well, his campaign's fascinating to a student of politics. It's disturbing to someone who cares about certain issues. But politically, it seems to be working," said Obama.

Link

[ Parent ]
shit fire (0.00 / 0)


Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Headdesk (4.00 / 3)
You know, the only reason I even initally had Obama "tied" in my preferences with Edwards (Edwards was 1A, Obama 1B, amoungst the Big Three) was because I thought, haha, that maybe, just maybe, Obama wouldn't pull this kind of bullshit.  And throughout the primaries, that thought was vindicated: he stood firm on his opposition to the stupid gas tax holiday, he stuck to his guns on his position against mandates in health care (he was wrong, imo, but he didn't back down, and I can respect that), and did a decent job fighting through stupid bullshit "journalism" a la the ABC debate, etc etc.

Since then... well, fuckberries.  I'd like to be able to go back and support my congressman for reelection, but hell, Sestak has been god-awful in these two years and I just don't care.  Maybe I can get involved in laying the groundwork for the run against Specter in 2010...

Sad note: Bob freakin' Casey has had more guts in Congress, according to Progressive Punch, than either Obama or Sestak.  Sure, he's had his disappointing moments, but he's performed well beyond my admittedly low expectations.  I'll have to remember to drop him a thank you note sometime.

Obama and MoveOn (4.00 / 2)
the behavior you reward is the behavior you get. Obama voted to censure MoveOn, Clinton voted against that. MoveOn endorsed Obama.

Why should Obama respect MoveOn? MoveOn doesn't respect itself.

Obama deliberately skipped (4.00 / 1)
that vote.  Clinton voted against it.  Both are centrists, though.  It's not like Clinton would not be making moves like that.  And that is the problem.  
[ Parent ]
Actually, There's A Chance She Wouldn't (4.00 / 3)
She's got a long history as an establishment Dem, and doesn't have as much to prove in the way of loyalty.  Plus, she really does have a record of fighting Republicans.  Not all the time, sure.  But rather sharply when she gets into it.

So, while I'm under no illusions about her as a progressive figure, she might well be less hostile to us than Obama has suddenly shown himself to be.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
That would be ironic. (0.00 / 0)
I agree that she showed a fighting spirit.  Obama likes to fight the left to show people that he is not a liberal.  Perhaps she would have worked for our support instead of triangulating against us.  Hard to know, but you may be right.

 

[ Parent ]
But Paul ... (0.00 / 0)
she was fighting .. because Obama had backed her into a corner ... that's the problem .. only when backed into a corner .. does she show that fighting spirit ... would she have shown that spirit if she had won Iowa and NH?
[ Parent ]
Better someone who fights (4.00 / 1)
when backed into a corner than someone who curls up into a fetal position.

But hey, my number one and two choices got knocked out already. Obama is what we're left with and that's who I'm voting for. Not because of who he is, but because of who I am.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
I know what you are saying .. (0.00 / 0)
but the point was .. since Obama won Iowa ..  he's had the upper hand .. now .. he doesn't necessarily have the upper hand(especially with the media's love of McCain) .. so we'll see how much of a fighter Obama is
[ Parent ]
I voted for her (0.00 / 0)
for that reason alone.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
It's Amazing! He's Actually MUCH Worse Than Clinton (4.00 / 4)
I had thought there was a chance he'd be better than Clinton, despite their almost identical posture on policy, simply because he wasn't so entrenched and so indebted to past mistakes.  But ever since clinching the nomination, it's been one demonstration after another that he's relentlessly driven to out-triangulating even old Bill, the biggest triangulator of them all.

Why doesn't he just get it over with, and choose Lieberman as his VP?  That'll show McCain and the DFHs at the same time!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

Hagel. (0.00 / 0)
That will be the final move.  A "real" Republican.  
[ Parent ]
I've been dreading that and think it is too entirely possible (4.00 / 1)
It will give all the Clinton Democrats the ecuse they are looking for to stay home and, I as a progressive Democrat will have to take a barf bag with me to the polls in Nov.
[ Parent ]
Well all this makes (4.00 / 1)
Nunn look like a possibility, doesn't it?
[ Parent ]
The Georgia strategy. (0.00 / 0)
Nunn or Hagel, which is worse?
[ Parent ]
Hagel (0.00 / 0)
Nunn is better because he's too old to run for president after Obama.
[ Parent ]
Nunn is a raging homophobe (0.00 / 0)
I don't care what you stand for, but being a homophobe should disqualify you from being on the Democratic ticket.

In fact, homophobes shouldnt be allowed to call themselves Democrats.

[ Parent ]
Branding above all (0.00 / 0)
I don't see him having the guts to pick Nunn either; he's's too old and entrenched and lacks Obama's vapid vibrancy.

Nunn would require a level of conviction that Obama hasn't yet evinced.

[ Parent ]
Ha (4.00 / 2)
Vapid vibrancy. Maybe Justin Timberlake wants the gig.
[ Parent ]
In fact (0.00 / 0)
In his speech today Obama sounded a lot like Webb.

That's who I think he might pick.

Meanwhile, some of those in the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties reacted not merely by criticizing particular government policies, but by attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself -- by burning flags; by blaming America for all that was wrong with the world; and perhaps most tragically, by failing to honor those veterans coming home from Vietnam, something that remains a national shame to this day.

The bit about Vietnam is a Webb mantra.  

[ Parent ]
WTF is he talking about? .. (4.00 / 3)
Failing to honor returning veterans how? ..  he's just reinforcing the same bullshit we've heard over and over .. the same bullshit Republicans love to peddle
[ Parent ]
Ok (0.00 / 0)
Prove to me that this particular bull shit is wrong.  I know it is exaggerated, but I don't think it is wrong.  While in general we've done a great job on the left of honoring the troops that our fighting in a war we disagree with, even recently on this site I'll occasionally read a comment that thinks the troops themselves deserve some blame.

People are human, we do dumb stuff like that.  We should be glad we've learned from our mistakes.

Obama continues on in the speech getting to the heart of liberalism:

As I got older, that gut instinct - that America is the greatest country on earth - would survive my growing awareness of our nation's imperfections: it's ongoing racial strife; the perversion of our political system laid bare during the Watergate hearings; the wrenching poverty of the Mississippi Delta and the hills of Appalachia. Not only because, in my mind, the joys of American life and culture, its vitality, its variety and its freedom, always outweighed its imperfections, but because I learned that what makes America great has never been its perfection but the belief that it can be made better. I came to understand that our revolution was waged for the sake of that belief - that we could be governed by laws, not men; that we could be equal in the eyes of those laws; that we could be free to say what we want and assemble with whomever we want and worship as we please; that we could have the right to pursue our individual dreams but the obligation to help our fellow citizens pursue theirs.

I haven't read or seen the whole speech, yet.  But what I've seen is pretty good.  Obama has given me many things to complain about recently, but so far, this speech isn't one of them.

[ Parent ]
I don't have (4.00 / 1)
a huge problem with it especially if he doesn't repeat the lie that people "spit on" the troops, although it's telling and maddening that Webb, Obama, et al seem to reserve their harsh judgments for anti-war protesters and not the criminals responsible for the war.

Speaking of which, is this idea of getting past the sixties, dissing the so-called "counter-culture?"  

[ Parent ]
Getting past the sixties (0.00 / 0)
Vietnam really F$%ked up a generation.  As a kid I always thought it was the left that never got over Vietnam, but as I  grew older I realized the right was even less over it.

But we always get back into:

Obama, et al seem to reserve their harsh judgments for anti-war protesters and not the criminals responsible for the war.

You just can't bring up anything without getting into the same cycle of debates.  To me, this kind of reaction is just the same as when we complain about, say, torture or Abu Ghraib and the right gets mad we aren't complaining more about the bad guys.

It is ok to recognize when your side did something wrong without always going 10 miles to point out the other side is wronger still.  We understand this when discussing US and the World but easily forget when it is left versus right, unless it is clearly a criticism from the left.

[ Parent ]
So Many Lies, So Little Time, Eh? (4.00 / 1)
Speaking of which, is this idea of getting past the sixties, dissing the so-called "counter-culture?"

But he told us he admired Reagan!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Some aspects of the "counter-culture" deserve to be dissed (0.00 / 0)
Its not like those were some kind of sacred times.

The "student movements" did some good, but they also created a negative aura around anti-war protests that still linger until this very day. The violence that was employed (burning cars, vandalizing ROTC buildings, and such) ostensibly to end violence, was a negative legacy that keeps on giving.

I'm not defending Obama here.  His statement simply buys in to the right wing frame.  That is, its not thoughtful or constructive. It was not the street protesters that dissed the returning vets, it was the US government that disrespected them by not considering them "veterans" because, officially, there was no war in Viet Nam, just a "police action". My point is that many of the "60s radicals" that I've come across in my life can't even take the smallest bit of dissent that their's was the last true American revolution and they will shun you for questioning such.



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

[ Parent ]
Wait a second .. (0.00 / 0)
Not only because, in my mind, the joys of American life and culture, its vitality, its variety and its freedom, always outweighed its imperfections, but because I learned that what makes America great has never been its perfection but the belief that it can be made better. I came to understand that our revolution was waged for the sake of that belief - that we could be governed by laws, not men; that we could be equal in the eyes of those laws; that we could be free to say what we want and assemble with whomever we want and worship as we please; that we could have the right to pursue our individual dreams but the obligation to help our fellow citizens pursue theirs.

Equal in the eyes of the law?  So telecoms should be above the law?  That's what he was saying last week.

[ Parent ]
third anti-obama post in a row (0.00 / 0)
Fair enough, right, but I think your energies are misfocused given that it is four months until the general election.  Time for y'all to take a deep breath.  Time to remember that your words and tone have a real effect and consider what that effect is likely to be.
And Obama's don't? .. (4.00 / 5)
why did Obama bring up MoveOn today? .. there was no reason to .. so you could say the same about Obama .. why doesn't he think about what effect his words have ... last I checked .. 3 million people belonged to MoveOn.org .. that is an awful lot of voters .. voters that Obama needs if he is going to win
[ Parent ]
I hope . . . (4.00 / 3)
the effect will be to pressure the candidate into stop softening or outright reversing his positions from the primary.  I'd suggest it's my responsibility as a voter, particularly after he scored a lot of votes prior to these reversals.
[ Parent ]
Obviously Obama Doesn't Think So (0.00 / 0)
Time to remember that your words and tone have a real effect and consider what that effect is likely to be.

He doesn't give a fig about us.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I think . . . (0.00 / 0)
I would agree.  He knows that progressives have nowhere else to go now that he's the nominee.
[ Parent ]
I think we are conflating two issues (4.00 / 1)
I don't see Obama's recent dissing of MoveOn's Betray Us ad or Wes Clark's comments as a power play. There is, I think, a power play in progress, but his reaction to these lil' scandals has more to do with the very justified fear that the media will run with the controversy than report positively on his campaign. Dissing them is very likely to make the gaffe narrative die a quick, deserved death.

His cut-the-pr-cancer-in-the-early-stages mindset that has been quite successful at getting rid of these gaffe scandals in one news cycle. Samantha Power, Jim Johnson, and now Wes Clark's comment.  

He has to operate in the present media environment, which feeds on any gaffe or unwise statement. And yes, Clark's statement was way stupid.  He should know better. Maybe there is fundamental merit to questioning the stellar narrative of McCain's military record, but what tactical good can possibly come of it? Will McCain's image be dented at all? No. Too many people will react too quickly, and those increasingly bizarre independent voters will just be put off. Clark is a gaffe machine, lest we forget. Remember him saying, in September 2003, that "on balance," he would have voted for the war resolution? He may have won the nomination had it not been for that.

Though I am a member of MoveOn, donate to them, and  post-FISA, am more likely to donate to MoveOn than to the Obama campaign, I say the organization created its own goddamn image problem with that Betray Us ad. Yes, I know that the ad only repeated comments made by active-duty generals quoted anonymously in the NYT, but generals can call a general a Betrayer. Unless said general has been seen, on video, advocating the violent overthrow of the government or swerving to hit puppies, MoveOn just is not going to get anywhere good by calling a general a betrayer of anything. That they were too stupid to think better of it before they ran the ad speaks to the need for a new powerhouse org. I wish Russ Feingold's Progressive Patriots did more than raise money. Ah well. MoveOn is all we got, so I am standing by them.

Bottom line: we should not be anything but glad that Obama has the sense to distance himself from gaffe narratives that eat up his press. Until the media reform movement succeeds at changing the way media cover Presidential campaigns, we should not blame candidates for having to appear better than the other side.

But was it really a "gaffe"? (0.00 / 0)
Accepting it as such is, IMO, fundamentally a mistake.  Clark didn't just bring it up out of the blue.  He said it because Bob Schieffer specifically equated McCain's experience in getting shot down with the experience of a much higher-ranking officer who's had the responsibility of deciding when and where to drop bombs in wartime.  Clark was making the point that these two different types of military experience are not equivalent to each other as qualifications to be president, and when Schieffer came back by explicitly equating them, Clark merely responded to what Schieffer was saying with a different emphasis.  I don't think it's fair at all to call that a "gaffe."  I also don't agree that it was the equivalent of Samantha Power's comment, which really was a dumb mistake (calling an opposing candidate a "monster").

Regarding MoveOn, I do agree that the whole "Betray Us" business was stupid.  On the other hand, I agree with Matt that there wasn't much reason for Obama to bring it up out of the blue today when no one's talked about that ad in months, but (back to the original hand) I agree in a general sense that he's right to distance himself from it.

[ Parent ]
Don't want to get semantic, but yes, it was a gaffe (0.00 / 0)
I would define a gaffe as a public statement that anyone in politics should know will generate more bad publicity than good.  There is just no way to have anything but crap come of saying "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." It sounds  tacky, and you should know the pushback will be furious.

The context you mention only highlights Clark's mistake. Jeez, all the guy has to do is punt a comparison to McCain and talk about his wonderful experience being NATO commander and running a modern-day war.

[ Parent ]
So what should he have said? (4.00 / 1)
In response to Schieffer saying: "Can I just interrupt you? I have to say, Barack Obama hasn't had any of these experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down."  What would have been the right response from Clark?

The problem is that Schieffer was being an idiot.  Clark talked about the sort of military experience that McCain didn't have by way of talking about that kind of experience that Clark himself had.  Clark was obviously prepared for Schieffer to ask "but Obama hasn't had that experience either" by responding that Obama isn't the one running on his service record (and Clark did give that response).  But Schieffer was a tool; right after Clark had explicitly contrasted those two different levels of military service in terms of qualifications for running for president, Schieffer turned right back around and equated them again, as if Clark hadn't just talked about that exact point.    

[ Parent ]
What should he have said? (0.00 / 0)
Schieffer was being an idiot. When Schieffer said Obama has not "ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down," Clark should have just repeated that McCain's the one running on his service record.  
[ Parent ]
So You're Not From The "Tie One Hand Behind Your Back" School of Politics (0.00 / 0)
You're from the "tie two hands behind your back" school of politics.

Good to know.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Gaffe machine (4.00 / 3)
Gaffe: when a politician tells the truth

Yea, Clark is a gaffe machine all right, with that whole truth telling and all.  I'll be damned if I ever live to see the day where our politicians keep telling the truth all the time.

[ Parent ]
The unforgivable sin (0.00 / 0)


Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
It Was No Gaffe, You Ninny! (4.00 / 2)
OTOH, accepting the rightwing spin that it was a gaffe--now that's a gaffe of major proportions.

Only, now we're seeing quite clearly, that so far as Obama's campaign is concerned that sort of gaffe is a feature, not a bug.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
For the record, (4.00 / 3)
MoveOn and Wes Clark were two of Lamont's biggest supporters in his primary against Lieberman (while Obama was MIA for Lamont in the general election, after publicly endorsing Lieberman in Connecticut during the primary).
I think Obama should be smacked down (verbally) (4.00 / 3)
Obama seems to be trying to set a new record in disillusioning supporters. Although I don't think much of Clark, I think Matt is exactly right when he writes of Obama acting to:

"undermine Clark by damaging his reputation, taking Clark's comments out of context and then using a straw man to pretend like Clark had attacked McCain's service."

Rather than worry about what Obama REALLY means and REALLY intends, why not be outspoken against him, while still pointing out that he's superior to McCain? We shouldn't expect Obama to be fearless if we're going to cower in the corner, ourselves.

I say, smack Obama down, verbally. E.g., MoveOn can have an ad saying something like,

"MoveOn continues to support Obama for President, and we firmly believe that he will make a far better President than John McCain ever will. However, we make no apologies for our General Betray Us advertisement because yada, yada, yada."

As for Clark, he can say

"I continue to support Obama for President, knowing full well that he will be a far better President than John McCain could possibly be. However, the Obama campaign has falsely interpreted my comments on Face the Nation to be impugning John McCain's character. A careful listening to my remarks will show that this charge is baseless. I await an apology from the Obama campaign."

One of the most disgusting things about the Democrats in Congress is their spinelessness. We should use what opportunities we have to send messages to both Obama and Congress that we DON'T WANT COWARDICE IN OUR LEADERS. Obama's treatment of Clark was dishonest, and probably cowardly, also.

I realize that nobody wants to hurt Obama's chances to win, but bleating like a sheep means sacrificing pressure on ALL of the '08 campaigns for a significant move in a progressive direction. I say, better to make an example of Obama, while still not giving any significant advantage to McCain.

Are we men (and women), or are we sheep? If you answer "sheep", I say "ba-a-a-a-a-h !"

:-)

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

Another thing that MoveOn could do is to challenge Obama to a debate (4.00 / 1)
Perhaps "debate" is not the right word. Positions that are more or less the same may not be worth debating. For those issues, the debate can morph into an interview.

Issues where Obama and MoveOn DON'T agree are those they could debate. E.g., General Petraeus' testimony.

Even if Obama turns down the debate (which is what I expect), he'll still get the message not to take progressives for granted, and progressives who are inclined to demoralization will get the message that they need to do more than whine and wait another 2 years - instead, they need to aggressively pursue their agenda between elections, and not put all their eggs in a single electoral basket.

BTW, why any progressive Democrat has not joined Progressive Democrats of America is beyond me. (http://www.pdamerica.org)

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

[ Parent ]
Message I sent to Obama (4.00 / 3)
First FISA...then Move-On...now Clark. What happened to "change"? This isn't change. This is the old politics, all over again. Who next will be thrown under the bus?

My wife unwrapped my Obama baseball cap, and our yard signs today. I told her I am too disillusioned right now to be willing either to wear the hat or to put up the signs.

By acting as a political hand puppet rather than a professional soldier General Petraeus did betray our nation. It was OK to take Move-On to the woodshed about having been too blunt in their choice of language. But that reprimand should have been paired with acknowledgment that when military officers use their rank to try to manipulate domestic politics, that is much worse. Move-On attacked General Petraeus. General Petraeus attacked our constitution.

When General Clark said--and not for the first time--that having one's fighter plane shot down does not qualify one as an expert on foreign policy, he was inarguably right. When he said that doing time as a POW does not qualify one as a foreign policy expert, he was also inarguably right. It might give one credibility as a parachutist or a prisoner, but it gives one no credibility whatsoever as a foreign policy expert.

General Clark did not demean McCain the man, let alone his suffering. To the contrary. He simply said that McCain's foreign policy cred should be judged, not by his having been shot down four decades ago, but by the knowledge, the honesty, the consistency, and the appropriateness of the policies and rationale for those policies he is advancing right now. If he wanted to make fun of McCain, he'd have said something about not paying taxes or not knowing the difference, even now, between Sunni and Shia.

The test of character is to be willing to reject what a friend says or does without necessarily rejecting the friend. Stand up and show us the character that led us to follow you in the first place, Sanator Obama.

Those who don't read good books are no better off than those who can't read them. -Mark Twain

MoveOn dry up?! as if (0.00 / 0)
it will be Obama's donations that will be sharply down by August. and then everyone will point back to this week and say he sure was stupid running his mouth the way he has.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
I can't believe yall are surprised. (0.00 / 0)
Think about it.  There is only one party in this country -- that of the filthy-rich.  I'll call them the Filthies.  They wear a variety of labels, but Filthies they are.  They attached themselves to the Republican party a while back  and, over the course of a few decades, they pumped it up and then sucked the life out of it, slowly.  Like a leech.

And it's a dead party walking -- and what does a parasite do when it kills its host?

It starts looking for a new host, people.  Do you think George Soros and the upper-class smug white collar types who are behind Obama and this complete overhaul of the power structure of the Democratic party are doing this for their own good?  Please.  They owned and controlled the Republicans for decades, until they killed the host.  Now, they found a new host.

First order of business, as this article states: kill off all competing support systems.  That way, the host is entirely beholden to the new parasite.  You're wrong when you say it's just MoveOn and Clark, though.  You know what the first competing power system it needed to kill was?

THE FUCKING CLINTONS, PEOPLE.  You hated their asses so bad, and they were the only competing power structure within the party that was big enough and powerful enough to put up a struggle against this new infection.  No, they weren't perfect, but it's like sickle cell being bad for you, but not as bad as malaria.

And you all fucking killed off the sickle cell gene, and now you're gonna die of malaria, you dumbshits.

They did it nicely, though -- after getting the shit scared out of them by Howard Dean, the Filthies realized two things, as well as realizing that they had nearly sucked the corpse of the Republicans dry and it was time to find a new home.  Those things were:

1) There are a lot of batshit people in the Democratic party who are desperate for some sort of revolution that they can say they were personally responsible for, and
2) There's BUTTWADS OF MONEY floating around there!

So they found a candidate, a good puppet they could talk up -- someone who was arrogant enough to be bought and sold by them as long as they blew enough sunshine up his ass, and someone who was "different" enough to appeal, a shiny object.

Problem: the next one in line for the throne was a CLINTON!  One of those competing sickle cells that could interfere with a complete host takeover.  And she was coming up about eight years too soon for them to have their puppet ready.  So they shoved him forward a little too early, and it's showing.  He's not ready, he's tottering a bit.  Not too badly, because they could always call his rank unreadiness part of his unique outside-the-Beltway charm.

But it's working.  The Filthies have come in, managed to establish themselves by getting rid of the women, gays, Latinos, working class whites, Jews ... you name it.  It's only rich white people now ...

... oh, and black people, who are momentarily useful from a marketing perspective.  By the time they realize they're just going to be shining shoes for a new master, the parasite will probably have latched on for good.

In five years, you won't even recognize the Democratic party.  And it'll take your typical dim-witted, cloth-bag-using, natural-living, tree-hugging, swirl-bulb installing liberal a whole lot longer to realize that people like him or her shouldn't be voting Democrat anymore.

Have fun, yallz.  And remember, there's soldiers in that horse!  Don't take it inside the city gates!

Sorry, but as a Clinton supporter, this pisses me off.  Thanks.  Thanks a lot.

The one (4.00 / 1)
outstanding characteristic of a right-wing fanatic is the inability to keep things in proportion.  For example, it's more important that there are Arab Muslims who want to kill Americans than that there are a couple of oceans between most of them and us.  No sense of proportion.

I'm not saying or implying that you are a right-wing fanatic.  But it's obvious that you're losing your sense of proportion.

Obviously, the corporate class has to try to take over the Democratic party at least as a short-term alternative to rehabilitating the Repig party.  But they haven't done it yet, and many of us are determined to prevent them from ever doing it.

I hope you feel better after that tirade (and no, I have nothing especially against a good tirade every so often). But things are not nearly as awful as you seem to think, though they are awful enough.  The progressive movement is alive and well, and this site is actively nurturing it.  We may get muddled at times, but we are steadily growing in strength, and we WILL be reckoned with.  So cheer up.

[ Parent ]
Really? (0.00 / 0)
I'm not saying or implying that you are a right-wing fanatic.

Might generous of you.

But it's obvious that you're losing your sense of proportion.

Funny how when people say that, I'm proven right a few months later.  Mm-hm.

Talk to you in December.

[ Parent ]
A Twofer: Obama Throws Wes Clark, Moveon Under the Bus | 109 comments





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox