well... (4.00 / 1)

don't think it is because they are fundamentally reactionary. They said bush should govern as a uniter with a small mandate, too. Those with no values don't understand when people disagree.

---

by: yoyoyo @ Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 05:47:08 AM UTC

:-) they understand disagreement as obstinacy (0.00 / 0)

---

by: seabrook @ Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 05:54:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Next moves are critical (0.00 / 0)

Because it seems timely and appropriate, please indulge me while I share a snippet of a comment I made yesterday:

Even in victory we've got our work cut out for us. The central question is this: with so many crises that need to be addressed, and so many fires that need to be put out (not the least of which is the one currently sending our Constitution up in flames), how do we approach taking back our country in a way that actually moves things forward? If we aren't smart, our victory could quickly deteriorate into a hopeless cat herding situation. And instead of millions of people with one big populist "weapon for change", we've got a million people running around in circles with butter knives.

The irony is even with a solid majority, we'll still be swimming upstream against an incredibly powerful current - not the least of which are the Blue Dogs and their assorted hangers on. Obama win or lose, we need to start thinking seriously about post-election strategy.  

---

by: Oaktown Girl @ Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 08:21:22 AM UTC

The New Majority (0.00 / 0)

I've found this past week's discussion of whether 60 votes will give people a stroke because there's no gridlock or not to be entertaining. Even if we get 60, we still got Lieberman, and he don't count as a Democrat in any upstanding man's book. Hell, even if we had 62, we know how undisciplined our dems are when it comes to solidarity.

I'm going to face it now that, come January, we won't have a default working filibusterproof majority in the Senate. That's fine.

They'll have to prove they can govern anyway, and that comes all in good time. Until then, let's drop a shoe on the House, the Bachmans and Schmidts and Musgraves, sweep em out, and start over in 2009.

(what a fucking disappointment the House Judiciary Committee has been since 2007)

---

by: citizen @ Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 09:46:14 AM UTC

Leadership (0.00 / 0)

I'm not saying anything new here, but I'm going to say it anyway.

The way Congress has performed since the 2006 election, I don't hold out much hope that any kind of coherent progressive agenda will not come from there, especially under Reid and Pelosi. That's not because they wouldn't want to, but rather because they lack the comptence to pull it off.

Leadership will have to come from Obama. Despite being inaccurately labeled by the right as "the most liberal member of Congress," Obama will be more of a pragmatist and where pragmatism favors the progressive position, progressives will have success. I expect to see some of that on big things like health care, taxes and the Supreme Court, but not so much on other things, like national security and some social issues.

Would having 60 seats in the Senate help? Absolutely. Does having 60 seats in the Senate mean that it will be a progressive cakewalk? I don't think so.

My point is, no matter who gets elected in Congress, Obama will set the agenda. He's a pretty good politician, so I think he will get his way a lot of the time. However his way is not always the progressive way.  

---

by: PaulC37943 @ Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 11:53:15 AM UTC

New here - first comment (0.00 / 0)

I've noticed the same thing on TV. Almost imperceptibly, but degree by tiny degree, people like Chris Matthews - someone who I've always disliked - has begun sounding "reasonable" to me. I've noticed others on TV doing the same. There's a shift going on; they've put their fingers in the wind and decided that IN ORDER TO KEEP THEIR JOBS they'll begin modifying themselves. The funny and odd thing to me is this: After noticing the change in their behavior, its very easy to forget that they'd ever been any different. No memory, no history, no pain.

---

by: stinky @ Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 14:58:55 PM UTC

Welcome, stinky! (0.00 / 0)

(Hmmm...that's an odd sounding greeting no matter how nicely I try to phrase it!)

---

by: Oaktown Girl @ Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 16:53:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I pointed this out repeatedly (0.00 / 0)

(here and here) and was roundly excoriated by a frontpager for so doing.

The Democrats are more deeply in thrall to big business than they have ever been, and Obama appears to be willing to go along with whatever the corrupt, corporate-dominated Congressional leadership decides. That's why Wall Street Republicans like David Brooks and George Will are backing him.

They want business as usual in Washington, and if Obama puts one foot wrong--if he tries to push anything but the tiniest and most superficial kinds of reforms--they're going to rip into him ten times worse than they did to Bill Clinton.

Obama knows this, and he is willing to play along. So we should not expect too much from him, and we should figure out how to build influence independent from him.

---

by: limpidglass @ Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 22:18:06 PM UTC