Under the Bush

by: Matt Stoller

Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:52


Jane Hamsher covered Elizabeth Edwards, now Taylor Marsh is covering Obama's reaction.

BRIAN WILLIAMS: The MoveOn ad, General Betray-Us? Do you think it's counter productive?

BARACK OBAMA: You know, I probably, if they had asked me, would have suggested that we focus attention on George Bush, the commander in chief. I mean, my assessment is that General Petraeus is playing a bad hand as well as he can.

Clinton, by the way, did not attack Moveon, but turned this on Giuliani.  Richardson did good messaging as well.  Actions like these, if they reprssent a pattern, might be one of the reasons Richardson and Clinton are gaining strength.  If you attack the people who you are wooing, it's hard to gain votes.

The key narrative of the last seven years is betrayal.  In this episode, Clinton and Richardson gets this, but Obama and Edwards somehow do not.  And here's Wes Clark, with a different but equally effective response, going around Petraeus and making a larger point about the military.

Testifying before Congress last week, Gen. David H. Petraeus appeared commanding, smart and alive to the challenges that his soldiers face in Iraq. But he also embodied what the Iraq conflict has come to represent: an embattled, able, courageous military at war, struggling to maintain its authority and credibility after 4 1/2 years of a "cakewalk" gone wrong....

At the same time, the United States' top generals must understand that their duty is to win, not just to get along. They must have the insight and character to demand the resources necessary to succeed -- and have the guts to either obtain what they need or to resign. If they get their way and still don't emerge victorious, they must be replaced. That is the lot they accepted when they pinned on those four shiny silver stars.

Criticizing Petraeus, as Moveon did, was necessary.  But insiders are deeply unhappy with the base for demanding that they do something.  That's why Edwards and Obama, Frank Rich and Mark Shields, and John Kerry got deeply upset.  Here, after all, is Steny Hoyer apparently talking to an attendee at a fundraiser.

Hoyer never really did answer how he planned to expand Democratic numbers while funding the war, but did comment that "I know the base is mad at us - and I'm mad at the base." When he tossed that off, I inquired "Because.....?"  He basically said the base has unrealistic expectations in terms of ending the war, and the Dems can't de-fund it because doing so would anger the moderates they need to win more seats in '08.

The desire to pander to war. to overlook the betrayal of our republic by its leadership, is extremely strong in DC.
Matt Stoller :: Under the Bush

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Under the Bush | 12 comments
7 years of betrayal is right! (0.00 / 0)
There has been a flurry of articles on this topic recently--here is the best one I have seen so far--from George Lakoff--the guy who brought us Don't Think of An Elephant!
http://www.rockridge...

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  
honestly you sound desperate (4.00 / 1)
Obama, who has branded himself in the popular mind as "the guy who had good judgment about Iraq," is losing strength because he responds to Moveon by blaming Bush over Petraeus (albeit in a mildly weaselly fashion); while Clinton is gaining strength because she is redirecting fire from Petraeus to Giuliani? Get real..

It's also hilarious that you are blasting the "insider campaigns" of Obama and Edwards, when Clinton's campaign is up to its eyeballs in war-hawk insiders and Clinton's entire campaign is predicated around "Staying the surge." Either the primary electorate is remarkably, even willfully uninformed, or the primary electorate is not antiwar.

i don't get that logic, j (4.00 / 2)
the electoral is deeply antiwar. it's a fact to say that the candidates are often not. what do the two have to do with each other? unfortunately, not much at this point.

The desire to pander to war. to overlook the betrayal of our republic by its leadership, is extremely strong in DC.

it's fiduciary. the warmongers and oil industries have billions (of taxdollars) to toss around. we don't. the price of people working in a medium sized company town pales before the cost of some of their other endeavors. buying or fnfluencing the lives of a relatively small group of people is easy, and the system is currently ordered to favor that.

you're going to crucify me for this, but i agree with obama, and the previous poster. bush is to blame, one puppet or another is just icing on the whole sick cake. the theme isn't "betrayal," it's "cronyism" or "spending your taxdollars." betrayal is too loaded to be useful, and the 'meat' of this story is mostly beltway capital being traded. in the end, there is no such thing as bad pr and moveon gains from this. what the candidates gain or lose or say is less important.

This is absolutely correct! (0.00 / 0)
Even I know, and I don't live there, that D.C is  awash in Military Industrial Complex cash. Oceans of it in fact. This is why we see no movement from the Democratic Party on withdrawal. Too many people are 'getting paid' from the Treasury for our elected legislators to oppose the gravy train.

We in Free Left Blogistan need to blog about and expose this issue. An issue which to me is The Issue right now. Eisenhower was spot on and we've been feeding this monstrous cancer for decades since he warned us to the point where it is now destroying our society and our government.

You can read more about what I'm talking about here:

Military Keynesianism: What is that and why should I care?

Bush and Cheney are in a sick way irrelevant to this. We have allowed a system devoted to mass murder for profit to be created from our fears.

Time for this to change. In fact, I believe that unless we halt this diversion of our resources to the military our society will fail.

Many are seeing the cracks opening beneath their feet already.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
The dems can forget about it. (4.00 / 1)
The democrats, including the leadership and the designated "front-runners" are all pandering to the "moderates". They are looking to the election in '08.
Very moral.

First of all, the percentage of Americans who want the war ended now is well beyond the ravings of some fringe group.

The dems are talking and acting like helpless little lambs.
They are afraid to "de-fund" the war - as are candidates like Obama and Clinton - because they don't want to anger "moderates"? I don't think so.
They don't want to de-fund it because they belong lock, stock and barrel to the same corporate interests as the Bush republicans.

We will have to exert tremendous pressure on the government as a whole if we expect to be able to move these cretins.

I wouldn't care if government operations were brought to a halt - the way Newt Gingrich did it.

There is no other issue. Our moral stature, our economy and our safety all depend on getting out of the hell we have created.

Hillary was not directly asked about her view of the MoveOn ad (4.00 / 1)
She smartly handled Ghouliani's blast at her.  I despise Hillary the War Hawk, but in this particular case she quickly deferred from giving her personal view of the ad and attacked Ghouliani.

Obama and Elizabeth Edwards both were directly asked for their view of the MoveOn ad.  While I support the MoveOn ad, I can understand why Elizabeth Edwards opposed it.  She comes from a  military family.

I have a question (4.00 / 2)
Why is it ok for activists to criticize politicians but it is not ok for politicians to criticize activists. I mean, I'm not against criticizing politicians (I often do myself) and I completely agreed with Jane's post about Elizabeth Edwards, who I normally like very much, but this statement by Obama doesn't seem that harsh to me nor does it seem like he is regurgitating right wing frames. He just says he would have suggested that they do it differently. Is he saying that there is no place for MoveOn? Do you believe that there is a place for politicians to criticize the tactics of activists? If they write on blogs, but not talking to reporters? But anything written on a blog could be picked up by a reporter, so how is that different?

With that said, I agree that Obama could have given a stronger response.

What I Don't Like About Obama's Answer: Hypothetical Subjunctive Mood (0.00 / 0)
What really grates about Obama is his constant retreat into the subjunctive mood in the form of hypotheticals, often in the guise of aspiring pundit.  And here he does it once again.  Why does he do this?  Even if I happened to agree with him, it's just a terrible way to speak for someone in his position.  You can't be any kind of leader, much less a transformational one, if you constantly duck out into hypotheticals via the subjunctive mood.

There's nothing wrong with hypotheticals.  To the contrary, Bush's utter inability to consider them is one of his greatest failings (it's right up there in the top 100 or so). But first you have to establish a clear, commanding position.  Declarative statments.  Take a stand, dammit!  Then do nuance. 

"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 ]
The Idiot 'LeaderSheep' of the 'Democrat' Party's total lack of.... (4.00 / 1)
....understanding of what is happening on the ground is clearly shown by Hoyer's amazing comment:

He basically said the base has unrealistic expectations in terms of ending the war, and the Dems can't de-fund it because doing so would anger the moderates they need to win more seats in '08.

Honestly, does this clown read the polls. If he does they must be the ones the RNC commissioned. With stupidity like this the Democrats could very well screw-up 2008.

Just pathetic.

Somebody send him the memo!

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

Necessary? (0.00 / 0)
It was "necessary" to label Petraeus a betrayer? MoveOn has the right to do whatever they like. But it wasn't necessary, and in fact the ad was a complete and dismal failure in terms of achieving achieving its intended objectives.
How Do You Know??? (4.00 / 1)
How do you know it was a dismal failure in achieving its indended objectives?  How do you even know what those objectives were?

The fact is, the Dems flubbed this one when they agreed to it.  And they were about to flub it squared.  MoveOn moved in and said, "Hey! Here's what you should be talking about."  And apparently, they are just getting warmed up.  They are getting ready to lean on the betrayal theme hard.  They've already launched an attack on Guiliani with the betrayal theme, and they've got more to come.

And really, for those who say, "Well, they shouldn't have gone after Petraeus," I say, "Why the hell not?"

It's the Karl Rove thing, rememeber?  Attack their supposed strength.

"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 ]
Elizabeth Edwards is not John Edwards (0.00 / 0)
Unlike the Clinton, the Edwards are two separate people. She speaks her own mind and doesn't speak for him always. They don't always agree. Not the same person. Separate.
Under the Bush | 12 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox