One of the great things about Obama is he speaks... (0.00 / 0)

...the squishy language of independents... which makes it easy for him to present progressive ideas (i.e. progressive income tax) in a way that appeals to the majority of people.  In other words, he is able to sell liberal policies without people thinking that the policies are liberal.

This skill is extremely useful and valuable to the cause of taking our country back from the right wing mentality...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:51:25 AM CST

Like FDR (4.00 / 2)

Roosevelt was fairly moderate in how he spoke about policy, which was in pretty stark contrast with his actual governance.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

---

by: fwiffo @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:54:13 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not correct. FDR attacked the economic royalists. (4.00 / 1)

Speech before the 1936 Democratic National Convention

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

June 27, 1936

A Rendezvous With Destiny

snip

For out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital - all undreamed of by the Fathers - the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service.

There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small-businessmen and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer. Even honest and progressive-minded men of wealth, aware of their obligation to their generation, could never know just where they fitted into this dynastic scheme of things.

It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.

The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor - these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family, the capital of the small-businessmen, the investments set aside for old age - other people's money - these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in.

Those who tilled the soil no longer reaped the rewards which were their right. The small measure of their gains was decreed by men in distant cities.

Throughout the nation, opportunity was limited by monopoly. Individual initiative was crushed in the cogs of a great machine. The field open for free business was more and more restricted. Private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise.

An old English judge once said: "Necessitous men are not free men." Liberty requires opportunity to make a living - a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor - other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.

The royalists of the economic order have conceded that political freedom was the business of the government, but they have maintained that economic slavery was nobody's business. They granted that the government could protect the citizen in his right to vote, but they denied that the government could do anything to protect the citizen in his right to work and his right to live.

Today we stand committed to the proposition that freedom is no half-and-half affair. If the average citizen is guaranteed equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal opportunity in the market place.

http://www2.austincc.edu/lpatr...

FDR would be attacked today by Rs and the trad med as a left wing extremist.

---

by: Tom Wells @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:39:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You may be right (4.00 / 1)

My history on presidential rhetoric is not that good. I'd heard the argument that FDR spoke more moderately than he governed, but somebody  may have been blowing smoke my way.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

---

by: fwiffo @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:54:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I think it's a combination of (0.00 / 0)

both.  Sometimes more moderate; sometimes not.

In the 1932 election, he was more moderate verbally than he became later as he experimented with solutions to the Depression.  

---

by: Tom Wells @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:19:05 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Addendum (4.00 / 1)

Also, keep in mind that Roosevelt had substantial pressure from his left-namely a moderately functional domestic Communist Party, and "independent" socialists of several varieties which would later take shape in the Wallace campaign.  (Not to mention the Soviet Union and the "spectre haunting Europe".)

There is absolutely nothing comparable now-Nader (far less radical) having gotten less than 1% and McKinney and Greens having become a joke.

You want Obama to move left?

How about starting to organize a legitimate radical alternative to Obama and the Dems.

Some would argue that's the ne plus ultra.

---

by: John Halle @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:40:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I prefer a Popular Front (4.00 / 1)

with Obama.

EFCA and grow unions.  

There is activism and electoral politics.  Building a working class movement is key, a blue/green movement.

And it is part of a coalition with Obama.  

The "legitimate radical alternative to Obama" is fantasy.

---

by: Tom Wells @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 13:29:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Fantasies (0.00 / 0)

And expecting that organized labor will exert serious pressure on Obama, or any Democrat, it also fantasy.

As has been shown repeatedly for more than half a century.

---

by: John Halle @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 15:36:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Then we always lose. (0.00 / 0)

I've looked at this question for years.  Having been a member of the Green Party in 2000, I learned the futility of that route.

Perhaps no path will work.  But the one path that at least has a chance and that will make oridingary people's lives better along the way, is a Popular Front with Obama's reform capitalism.  

You're right.  It may not work.  But I am certain that the "radical alternative" path will fail.  This path may have a poor chance of working, but it has a chance.  And it will help working people's lives.  So I choose a Popular Front path with progressive capitalists.  

---

by: Tom Wells @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 15:59:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Roosevelt did not voluntarily move past his moderation (0.00 / 0)

Roosevelt moved because there were people in the streets.  There was an organized movement against evictions, there were sit ins by workers demanding union recognition that disrupted the economy, there were marches for jobs and food.

Without feet in the street, Obama will remain a coporate democrat (just ask Rahm Emanuel).  We need to mobilize and not let up.

I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November

---

by: LeeNYC @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 13:06:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

as now (4.00 / 1)

the extremists in this nation have always been on the right not the left, to think otherwise just shows ones own partisan extreme point of view.  

---

by: pc @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:53:57 AM CST

Brokaw was being an idiot again this morning (4.00 / 4)

Tom Brokaw as using a county-by-county map of results to proclaim that the country was a center-right nation, which pisses me the hell off. Someone that age should well enough versed in civics to know that votes aren't parceled out by acreage.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

---

by: fwiffo @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:57:07 AM CST

most of the acres are empty (0.00 / 0)

just like Brokaw's storehouse of bright ideas.

---

by: T Maysle @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:58:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not as dumb as you make it (4.00 / 1)

Obama ran by not being as extreme as Hillary & Edwards on health care, by voting for FISA & retroactive immunity, and by twisting arms for the $700 billion bailout.

The "largest progressive mandate" was by less than 6% of popular vote (meaning a 3 point shift theoretically would shift it, though of course Obama/Axelrod did an excellent jobs of slicing & dicing electorate demographics and the specifics of campaign states.

There is still a good portion of Democratic representatives who are Blue Dogs, and some who aren't (Jim Webb?) aren't terribly progressive still.

In short, there seems to be a small mandate of some sort for Obama to do something, but we're not quite sure what it is, and he really does need to be careful in how he pushes forward. That doesn't mean do nothing, nor not do anything progressive, but analyze the lay of the land. Bush proceeded as if he had a huge mandate, and succeeded in pushing through much more than he deserved. If Obama can get away with that kind of chutzpah (and wants to), more power to him. But he still needs to understand what the hurdles are and deal with whatever repercussions. Pretending however that there's a huge sustaining progressive majority however is a bit premature. Lieberman did in fact come back and win as an independent, much to our dismay.

---

by: Desider @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:09:18 AM CST

It will take time.... (4.00 / 1)

...we've had 30 years of Republican political dominance.. Obama's the kind of guy that is perfect to transition us leftward without people realizing it.  I think we're going to have a good 4 years!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:15:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I guess Joe Klein has been converted (4.00 / 3)

Obama was quite the opposite. Unlike Bill Clinton, whose purpose was to humanize Reaganism but not really challenge it, Obama offered a full-throated rebuttal to Clinton's notion that "the era of Big Government is over." He was a liberal, as charged. But the public was ready, after a 30-year conservative pendulum swing, for activist government.

Link    

---

by: towner @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:15:40 AM CST

We must push Obama to the left. (0.00 / 0)

He wil triangulate off of us.  Therefore, we need a very strong left just to keep him left of center.  

---

by: Tom Wells @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:34:42 AM CST

Random hangover thoughts (0.00 / 0)

What the fuck is going on in Oregon?

As much as I was nauseated by the center-right shit on Morning Joe, there was a pretty interesting discussion that Obama's victory wasn't really post-racial so much as it was post-1968. Of course, that completely undercuts the "center-right" narrative, which Pat Buchanan seemed to recognize. Obama is basically liberalism all-grown-up.

What the fuck is going on in Washington state?

It's interesting that the anti-choice ballot initiatives got killed last night, which IMO, pretty much ends the abortion debate in this country.

On the other hand, the anti-gay ballot initiatives won everywhere. I really didn't think that was going to happen in Florida, where 60% is required. But I did see an awful lot of "Yes on 2" signs in the African American communities where I was canvassing. It's quite possible, and sad, that Obama's coattails got Prop 2 in Florida and Prop 8 in California passed. It will probably another generational leap to get to marriage equality. I wonder if Obama will use his stature to try to fix the African American homophobia problem.

What the fuck is going on in Alaska?

An interesting contrast in the Obama campaign was a contrast between the mass of amateurs and volunteers involved in the process, and the extraordinary professionalism of the people at the top. Just look at the graphics and videos produced by the campaign. The branding is better than most Fortune 500 companies.

What the fuck is going on in Minnesota?

It looks like Nate Silver's model nailed it. He picked every state right except Indiana, which is one he expected might defy his model because of the Obama ground game. He was damn close on the national margin, and he even got the relative closeness of the states right, Florida being closer than Ohio, North Carolina and Missouri being nail-biters, etc.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

---

by: fwiffo @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:38:53 AM CST

Fwiffo, I know you mean well, but..... (4.00 / 1)

I wonder if Obama will use his stature to try to fix the African American homophobia problem.

I know you mean well when you say this, but homophobia is not an "African American problem," it's an American problem, and as a gay black man, I do get tired of people pretending that black people are more homophobic than anyone else. Yes, there's homophobia within certain sections of black communities, but it's quite insulting to expect black people -- more than any other race or ethnicity in this country -- to somehow be pure and morally superior to such things than others. Black folks are flawed just like everyone else, and if Obama's looking to solve any problem or advocate on behalf of gays, grandstanding and chastising black people as a whole just to please certain whites that he's an exceptional black man compared to the rest is not going to solve a damn thing. (Especially when Obama's a walking contradiction in regards to gay rights in general.)

Black people are staunchly Christian for the most part, so that's the reason why there's this bias and antipathy towards gays, but black people's homophobia is just a reflection of the larger culture, and to put this solely at the feet of black people is extremely unfair and disingenuous.  

---

by: Preston @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:05:05 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Statistically speaking (0.00 / 0)

Black people are measurably more homophobic than the population as a whole--at least at this point in time in American history.  That's a fact established by these and previous election returns, and by plenty of polling data.

I don't really disagree with your underlying point, though.  There are heroes and villains of every color.  And race is not the best prism through which to view the problem.

It can be a useful part of the discussion, though, if we're talking about how to be effective reaching new hearts and minds for the amendment rematch in 2? 4? more? years.  Getting rid of prejudice is going to stay on the progressive agenda, and African Americans are a major constituency of the progressive coalition, so the topic is unavoidable.

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 15:01:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Can you cite this study that you're referring to, because I would really like to read it for myself. (4.00 / 1)

For a study/poll to suggest that blacks are measurably more homophobic than the vast population as a whole doesn't pass the smell test with me, and this is coming from someone who has a history of being discriminated by black folks because of my sexual orientation. I still find this whole "blacks are bigger homophobes" meme to be pure sophistry, polls rare if ever tell the whole story.

Furthermore, I'm getting very tired of black people being pigeonholed, that black folks are a cancer or a problem that needs to be treated. This is extremely condescending and such paternalistic treatment should be stopped if there are people who are looking to understand black people. I hear the same thing regarding other beliefs as if black people are some homogeneous group with collective beliefs and practices: blacks are more anti-Semitic, blacks are more sexist, blacks are more materialistic, blacks are more prone to crime, etc., etc. There's much diverse opinions about many subjects among black people, but to simply stamp blacks as a group being bigger homophobes, leaving it at that doesn't tell the whole story. All the grandstanding by Obama ain't going to change a thing if the American people as a whole aren't addressed about this being a national problem, not just an isolated black problem. If homophobia is a problem among black people, it means homophobia is a problem in the dominant American culture, because it's the dominant American culture that influences much of black political thoughts and beliefs.

Finally, you're right, as progressives, homophobia should be challenged, but progressives shouldn't treat it as a problem that blacks solely must overcome first in order to reach this progress. There are many key constituencies who I'm sure poll pretty high in its displeasure about gay marriage (perhaps based on religious beliefs), no reason to focus this mainly on blacks when there could be a broader conversation about homophobia.

---

by: Preston @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 15:47:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Again, hungover (0.00 / 0)

So I guess that didn't come out how I meant it. You're right, it's not fair to pigeonhole blacks that way, and you're right that homophobia is a big problem that isn't confined to any one demographic.

But both pre-election polls and exit polling show that blacks supported Prop 8 at higher rates than the public at large, and certainly at much higher rates than other demographics in the Democratic coalition, which is why it seems conspicuous. It's certainly possible that it is just a correlation with religion, and not one with race.

It's also pretty sloppy thinking on my part to expect Obama to have some sort of magical powers of influence. He's not a messiah.

Mostly I'm just venting frustration with the huge setback that Prop 8 represents, so I'm just wishing somebody could do something about it. I understand why politicians don't want to come out in favor of gay marriage - yesterday proved it's still unpopular with a lot of people, even in California. But that leaves a huge lack of leadership on the issue.

I'm not gay, and I'm not a minority, but I see it as a civil rights issue and I have such a hard time understanding why the majority of the public doesn't see that, even many groups who've been through civil rights struggles of their own.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

---

by: fwiffo @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 16:33:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You read things into my comment that aren't there. (0.00 / 0)

I.e. "Black people are a cancer" (!?)  I really am just talking about poll numbers and precinct totals here, the same as I might for Oklahomans or Southern Baptists.  I'm not pushing subtle (or unsubtle) racial narratives.

What can we do to make the broader conversation about homophobia more comprehensive and more effective?  That's where I want to be headed.

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 16:56:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Bush Mandate (0.00 / 0)

There's no doubt about it, this was a vote against, by the red-state folks who gave the victory to George Bush, it was a rejection of blue-state America. It was a rejection of their values, their attacks on the president. ... And the idea, it seems to me, that somehow the folks who won should now surrender part of whatever mandate they have to the folks who lost -- I can tell you, what we're hearing on this panel, people out there in red-state America are finding it very offensive."

Pat Buchanan - Discussing the Bush Mandate 11/3/04

The hair-pullers and teeth-gnashers won't like it, of course, but we're nevertheless inclined to call this a Mandate. Indeed, in one sense, we think it an even larger and clearer mandate than those won in the landslide reelection campaigns of Nixon in 1972, Reagan in 1984, and Clinton in 1996.

William Kristol - 11/15/04

http://mediamatters.org/items/...

The very same people who argued for the Bush mandate, will now argue against a Progressive mandate.  The dance continues...
 

---

by: Kane @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 13:00:05 PM CST