your general observations may have merit, but the example you use (4.00 / 2)

is pretty weak.  

first off, obama is pretty much right that he doesn't need acorn's help w/ voter registration and turnout (at least, relative to previous democratic campaigns).  so there's the whole telling the truth thing going on here.  

also, the trumped up accusations against acorn are possibly the biggest drag on obama's support at this point.  for him to refuse to denounce them is actually pretty major.  saying he doesn't need their help isn't functioning here as a 'dig' against them, but rather as a way to say "i'm not beholden to acorn."  if the blue dog caucus was getting slammed on CNN, i imagine obama would be quick to say that he wasn't beholden to the blue dogs as well....

in this case, i'm really not convinced that obama could be playing 'glue politics' with acorn any more than he is.  he's not piling on, but simply maintaining his distance.  

 

---

by: seabrook @ Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 19:38:46 PM UTC

"The trumped up charges" (4.00 / 4)

see, even you have to admit the charges are false. When someone lies about your allies, you are supposed to stick up for them. This is very basic. Unless they aren't your allies. Unless you don't want them to be your allies.

This is the same thing we have seen with Clark, with MoveOn ... Obama does not stick up for anyone to his Left, even when they are the ones doing the most to help him.

I'm glad he is winning, but we are going to have our work cut out for us if we hope to push him in a progressive direction.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 19:58:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

MoveOn ran a dumb ad (0.00 / 0)

I know that ad is really popular around here, but calling the current general a traitor was just politically moronic. Especially since subsequent events have shown that violence went down pretty dramatically under the rule of Petraeus.

Clark's problem was that he went off message and said "getting shot down and captured doesn't qualify you to be president". Yes, he was led on by Bob Schieffer and yes his statement is basically true, but it was also easy to interpret as a diminishment of McCain's service. The Obama camp doesn't want the election to be about McCain's service, and they really don't want it to be about whether McCain's POW time was heroic enough to make him a good leader. Clark's statement was politically tone-deaf, and I say that as a true blue 2004 Clarkie.

As far as the lies about ACORN, you have to realize that it's not cut and dry. There is voter registration fraud here, even ACORN admits that, and so it would sound ridiculous for Obama to stick up for them and say they did nothing wrong. He did ACORN a favor by elaborating on the charges and pointing out how they are different from real voter fraud.

---

by: existenz @ Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 20:07:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So What? (0.00 / 0)

I agree that the Move On ad was politically tone deaf.  I said so at the time.  But if a major right wing group, the equivalent of Move On, ran a stupid ad, what you would hear from Republicans would be statements like "I don't agree with the ad, but General Petreus invited the criticism when he acted as a partisan agent for the President rather than as a bipartisan military advisor."

As for the Clark stuff, Good God, if you aren't willing to  take on your opponent's strongest asset in a completely fair and rational manner...

Let's just say that the Democrats aren't always going to have the luxury of running against a doddering, erratic opponent who represents a party that is in the process of losing two wars, running the economy into the ground, and embarrassing the country internationally.  They might want to learn how to fight back at some point.

BTW, Obama didn't have to agree with Clark's statement -- although he should have.  But he allowed the perception to exist that Clark -- one of the most qualified and popular Democrats in the entire country -- had killed his V.P. chances by making the statement.

At the very least, Obama's team should have made some informal statement that Clark was still on the short list -- even if he wasn't -- just to prove that Obama wasn't going to let the Malkins or the Villagers dictate who he picked.

Obama is developing quite the reputation for never getting anybody's back.

---

by: space @ Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 20:36:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, they didn't. (0.00 / 0)

They told the truth about Petraeus, like Clark told the truth about McCain.

Unfortunately the truth is hopelessly outre in Versailles, and like it or not Versailles is Obama's basic orientation.

But don't take my word for it. He is about to become president, and you will soon see for yourself.


Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 21:14:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

huh? (0.00 / 0)

"even you have to admit the charges are false."

of course i do!  what makes you think i wouldn't?  i would even go further, and point out that not only are the charges false, but they are also part of a coordinated racist/classist scapegoating effort by the right, and that they signal a disturbing trend in our political culture towards a form of right-wing populism that could potentially be very dangerous.  

you say: "when someone lies about your allies, you are supposed to stick up for them."  in general, i agree with you.  but not in the context of a national political campaign.  why not?  because if this is what candidates did, their opposition would be able to majorly damage them just by serially attacking their (relatively unpopular) supporters, and forcing them to go off message every two days in order to defend groups that are unpopular.  imagine if, for the next 3 weeks, obama was spending all of his time on television defending, in succession, jesse jackson, moveon, dems facing criminal charges, bill ayers, acorn, his most radical supporters (i.e. social democrats, certain anarchists and marxists), reverend wright, jay z, etc.  

that is not a winning formula, to say the least.      

---

by: seabrook @ Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 20:41:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Then I guess we just disagree. (4.00 / 1)

For years I have watched how the Republicans hang together, no matter how bad any Republican behaves the others always stand by them. And it seems to have served them well.

Republicans behave like wolves -- an attack on one is an attack on all. But Democrats behave like deer, attack one and the rest put as much distance between themselves and their wounded fellow as they can.

At least, we used to, I think we are as a whole getting better. Except for Obama. He is a transitional figure not in the sense of being the first of a new kind of Democrat but in being the last of an old kind, the cautious, pro-corporate centrist more eager to befriend Republicans than tangle with them.

We will do better next time.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 21:21:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

yeah, we do disagree. (0.00 / 0)

"For years I have watched how the Republicans hang together, no matter how bad any Republican behaves the others always stand by them. And it seems to have served them well."

do you really believe this?  if the GOP had distanced itself from Bush about 5 years ago, they might not now be facing minority status for a generation.  

also, you haven't addressed my specific argument about national campaigns.  we don't necessarily disagree in all cases -- in principle, i think dems should stand up for their allies and members.  but a campaign is different, because the question is always: "what message are we putting out today, and how will it help us win over undecided voters."  if a campaign reflexively defended unpopular allies from attacks, they wouldn't ever be able to control their message.    

---

by: seabrook @ Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 21:30:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well it gave them about a forty year run. (0.00 / 0)

I would like for our team to have a forty year run.

But I really don't see why a campaign is different, to my mind a campaign is the only arena that matters, anyway. Maybe we disagree on what attracts undecideds. I think it's not policy, because if they understood policy they wouldn't be undecided. I think undecideds are more susceptible to character arguments than partisans, because partisans are always going to think their candidate has a good character no matter what they do. And loyalty is a matter of character.

I'm projecting here because I'm not an independent, but if I were I would look at the parties and think, the Republicans are sons-of-bitches but they look out for one another, so if I go with them maybe they will look out for me, too. At least some of the time. The Democrats are nice guys but soft. They might mean well, and have some good ideas, but they've got no fight in them, so they will never see any of those good ideas through to completion. What's the point in backing them?

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 21:52:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

i don't find your arguments plausible... (0.00 / 0)

i suppose it is possible, but there are a lot of assumptions you are making, many of which seem counterintuitive to me.  if obama came out guns blazing in defense of acorn, or the other groups i mentioned upthread, the counterattack about his 'judgment,' 'radical views,' and 'character' would be massive.  in terms of what indys respond to, i'll take the evidence of obama's skyrocketing poll numbers ahead of speculation.  

regarding the well-worn argument about 'weak dems,' i think there is a big difference between standing up for yourself (something kerry didn't do, and something obama does well), and standing up for people who may or may not be your allies, or who you are being associated with, justly or unjustly.  if you have limited associations with someone, there is no reason to think you would gain points with undecided voters by standing up for them.  but more importantly, in my view, is the question of opportunity costs.  for the sake of argument, let's say that obama would break even in terms of votes he would gain and lose by defending acorn (i think this is generous; i think he would lose votes...).  even so, he would be losing votes that he could have won by talking about the economy, or healthcare, or mccain's erraticness, or whatever.  

about GOP success or lack thereof:  firstly, they haven't been in power for 40 years. they didn't gain a congressional majority until the 1990s (in the eighties, they had a majority in the senate for 6 years).  and now the dems are back in the majority.  the presidency is a different story, but even there, we have had two presidents in the time period you identify, and are almost certainly about to have another.  the conservative movement is basically dead, while democrats are on the rise across the board.    

but again, i don't in principle disagree with you about standing together and standing up for allies.  i'm talking about strategy in the context of an electoral campaign.  so yeah, dems should stand up for their allies when they are attacked (where are the incumbent dems on acorn, we should be asking).  but in the context of a campaign, it would be suicidal to reflexively stand up for groups you are being associated with, even if you had little to know connection with them.  

---

by: seabrook @ Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 22:17:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

typo: know/no (0.00 / 0)

---

by: seabrook @ Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 22:18:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maybe it is this cultural thing again. (0.00 / 0)

What I am describing is a very white trash thought process, which is nonetheless the way a lot of people think in this country. It's tribal, and visceral.

It goes back to, why are the Republicans attacking ACORN in the first place? To flush Obama out, to show what he is made of. The audience is the undecided voters. The subtext is, "He won't defend his friends, who have put themselves out to help him, therefore why would you expect him to defend you?"

And ACORN is his friend, like MoveOn, like Clark.

Let me ask you a forinstance. What if you were running for Congress, and the Rude Pundit endorsed you on his blog, told all his readers to vote for you. Your opponent finds out about that and demands you renounce the Rude Pundit because he is so, well, rude. Would you do it? Do you think it would help you or hurt you?

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 22:43:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

i don't agree about why acorn is being brought up... (0.00 / 0)

it isn't to 'flush obama out.'  it is to scapegoat black people, and associate obama with 'dangerous' poor black folks.  the point isn't to show that obama won't stand up for his friends, but rather to associate obama in white voters' heads with scary black people.  in other words, were obama to stand up for acorn, he would basically be contributing to the logic of the smear itself  ('look, mccain would say, obama is in cahoots with a criminal organization... you can't trust him....).  now, if obama could singlehandedly change the majority of peoples' views on acorn, he could maybe turn this attack on its head.  but he can't -- not with silent dems and a media on the attack.  maybe if a bunch of dem congresscritters and bloggers pushed back hard on this, and if the media showed a willingness to take a different tack, obama would have more room to maneuver.  but as it is, you and matt are basically asking him to try and singlehandedly salvage the wrecked reputation of an organization that he actually has very little to do with in the middle of the most important election of our lifetimes.... why would he take the risk?  why, from the perspective of our future, should he?

in terms of your forinstance: in short, i wouldn't renounce rude pundit, but i also wouldn't hold a press conference with him at my side.  i would try and say: 'look, the GOP is trying to attack me because some random ass blogger supports me.  it that all they've got?  seriously?  maybe it is all they've got, since they don't seem to have any answers for x,y,z crises.  i do have answers -- here they are...."  

sounds like obama, no?  the point is that rude pundit (or acorn) really shouldn't be the issue that the election turns on, one way or the other.  they are a diversion, and the more obama buys into the idea that they are a legitimate 'issue' of the campaign, the less able he is to hammer mccain on the real issues.      

---

by: seabrook @ Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 00:31:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I would say (0.00 / 0)

"The Rude Pundit is an intelligent, passionate man, who loves his country very much and I am honored to call him my friend."

Not like Obama at all, but it is the kind of talk that could rebuild the New Deal coalition and bring the white trash back to the Democratic Party to stay.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 01:37:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama "doesn't need" help (4.00 / 1)

Throughout the campaign, I've been hearing this: he doesn't need help from the bloggers, he doesn't need help from ACORN, he doesn't need help from whomever is the current target.

At some point, I wonder if he might regret not treating those who stood with him with a tad more respect than he seems currently comfortable giving to those who don't.

---

by: edgery @ Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 20:13:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"mostly laudable defense" (4.00 / 1)

is at the front of the post.  So why do commenters here pretend Obama did not defend ACORN?  Is it ignorance or something else?

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 20:45:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I didn't take it so harshly (4.00 / 2)

This sounds more to me like supreme confidence in the campaign's GOTV rather than a real put-down on ACORN. Yes, he put some distance between himself and ACORN, but in a "my widget factory is awesome, I don't rely on and frankly don't need the help of other widget makers to succeed" way. You can't expect him to say he needs ACORN or that ACORN is a necessary part of his victory.

In the presser he actually defends ACORN against the sham "voter fraud" charges, pointing out that because some hired help wrote in Tony Romo's name doesn't mean Tony Romo will come to vote in Ohio. And instead of signing onto the Danforth/Ruddman vote fraud investigation b.s., he sent back a letter smacking the Republicans for vote suppression.

Regarding how Obama has ignored progressives and played glue politics with conservatives, that doesn't really explain some of his far left votes in Illinois. Would he have voted against the Born Alive Act if it weren't for NARAL and Planned Parenthood? Or those votes against tougher crime penalties that Republicans are trying to drag up? Would he have said he's in favor of decriminalization of marijuana if he was trying to keep progressives at arm's length?

I know you can come back with FISA, with the Cheney energy bill, etc. but I don't think you should interpret Obama's conciliatory temperment and political pragmatism as a sign that he dislikes progressives. He just has his own way of getting progressive shit done -- and winning this election is the first step.

In "Audacity of Hope" he discusses the fights over the Supreme Court.  He points out that while he opposed Roberts and Alito, elections have consequences and SC appointments is part of that.  If Democrats and progressives want to win all of those little battles, they have to win elections first. No filibuster will make Bush put a moderate on the Supreme Court, no filibuster will bring us national health care.  

It's all about winning elections. Which is exactly what he is trying to do here. Forest vs. trees.

---

by: existenz @ Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 19:59:43 PM UTC

he's since repudiated support for (0.00 / 0)

decriminalizing marijuana.



This is a Test of the Emergency Free Speech System. This is only a Test. In an actual Free Speech Emergency, I'll be locked up.

---

by: Ben Masel @ Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 20:33:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

can we all just get with the fact that (0.00 / 0)

1. Obama is a ninja.

2. Obama is going to win this election, despite the fact that the "netroots" doesn't super love him like they loved Dean and Clark.

3. He's not only going to do better than any Democrat has in years, he's going to DIWB (do it while black.)

4. Obama is a ninja.

5. Matt's point, which is valid, is not "hey Obama, let me tell you how to run your campaign." It is, rather, "hey OpenLeft: look what happens when Democrats get elected."

6. And furthermore, "so, let's maybe think a little bit about how to raise our expectations of ourselves, and ask things like 'how do we as progressives/liberals/leftists/liebrals/&c. fit in to the next four, eight years of American politics."

7. Point five is pretty important. Point six, if we are smart, we will start discussing now in between cheering for the end and trying to nail some more seats for people like Burner.

8. Points one and four are just so cool. Point three is like the bit in a Harrison Ford movie where Harrison Ford does that kind of like "that's how cool I am" facial tic.

---

by: sdedeo @ Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 21:20:38 PM UTC