Some Strikingly Harsh Words for Obama

by: Matt Stoller

Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 00:59


I'm noticing a trend.

Obama just hired a new senior advisor to handle 'rapid response', John Del Cecato, a partner at David Axelrod's firm.  The commentary from Josh Marshall was a withering 'Obama to launch post-1992 operation'.  And then, today, on the telecom bill and Dodd's hold, Markos politely noted that Obama has no credibility, that he's not even worth considering as a potential leader (not because he can't lead but because he won't).  Marshall followed up with a note on Obama's stance on the FISA bill titled 'Day Late and ...?', and Jane Hamsher called the move 'All Hat and No Cattle.'

This is a group that, by and large, wants anyone but Clinton to get the nomination, so the degree of toxicity here is fairly high.  It's a remarkable collapse in credibility, picking up speed recently at an accelerating pace.  It goes back to Obama's unreliable behavior during the Lamont campaign, his shrinking violet act during Military Commissions Act, and his constant chiding of the secular left.  This basically laid out his approach to movement politics, and his unwillingness to build a power base among people desperate to find some reason, any reason, to support him.

Obama might be able reverse this slide by leading on fights on media consolidation, civil rights, and just generally gumming up the works in the Senate.  And perhaps there's some strategy here, of African-Americans, young people and white evangelicals that I'm missing.

Still, the internet space was seen as a potentially significant base at a certain point.  And while Obama is doing pretty well online, I'm struck by the utter contempt with which he is held by these opinion leaders. 

There seems to be this sense of cynicism about Obama, and it runs deeper every day.  Rather than the campaign heating up after labor day, which is what I was constantly told would happen by the Obama people, the perception of Obama as a rudderless operator has congealed.  The gloves didn't come off.  I can't say I'm surprised.

I think this is a positive development, as it suggests the environment has become more difficult for those who will not lead.  Say what you will about Clinton, she has been leading on aggressive pushback against the right-wing media.  To put it in evolutionary terms, the 'fitness function' that selects for politicians is now prizing leadership more aggressively than rhetoric and money.  This shifting environment is very important, though it's not clear whether it's a permanent shift or whether the right or left will benefit more strongly.
Matt Stoller :: Some Strikingly Harsh Words for Obama

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Some Strikingly Harsh Words for Obama | 58 comments
Why do you think .. (4.00 / 1)
there have only been two sitting Senators to win the Presidency in like 150 years?  Almost everyone knows what a perfect caricature Senator Geary in "The Godfather" is.  As they'd say in the financial sector, the Senate is a lagging indicator of what America thinks.  They are too busy playing the Beltway game to lead.  Jane is right, so far Obama is all hat and no cattle.  Where is his leadership on any issue?
The Senate is not designed to be representative (0.00 / 0)
I don't buy the argument that it's difficult for a senator to get elected president. But I do think they're much more likely to be out of touch with the national mood, because the Senate was never intended to represent the national mood.

Its members used to be appointed by local power elites. They serve long terms, only requiring them to get a new mandate every six years. It's a body that runs on collegiality, rather than on representing one's electors. It's not supposed to be a  democratic body. It's much more aristocratic in character and it generally acts as an anchor slowing reform. Hell, if it wasn't intended to be an institutionally conservative body, it wouldn't be called the Senate, with all the associations that carries for any classicist.

And because elections for it are much less numerous and more expensive than for the House, because they're state wide and less frequent, it's going to be a very long and hard struggle to get the sort of Senate that will produce serious progressive change that isn't fatally undermined by too much compromise.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
I'm afraid I have no idea what you are talking about (4.00 / 2)
when you say Clinton has been leading an aggressive pushback against the right-wing media.  Most of the blogs I read fault Clinton for failing to lead on anything.  She's running a general election campaign already.  Say what you will about Obama, but claiming that somehow Clinton is winning the leadership sweepstakes makes no sense to me.
I saw Obama last Saturday (4.00 / 2)
It is hard not to like the guy when you see him speak. He doesn't say much that I disagree with, but I feel the emphasis is all wrong. Clearly he has put down his marker on the proposition that people are hungry for unifying leadership rather than partisanship. But he has been running a general election campaign for some time, despite not being the front-runner.

He seems to recognize at last that he is behind, but even his mild criticism of Hillary is understated.

I was sitting with a friend who is also supporting Edwards, and we were both struck by how low-key Obama is during his stump speech. I see why that is appealing to some people, but it doesn't exactly get you fired up the way an Edwards speech does. I know I am biased, but seriously, Obama is very low-key. It's not that he sounds bored or unprepared--he just has a different energy surrounding him.

I can't explain why he has not led more in the Senate this year. It must be a deliberate strategy, but it seems crazy to me. It comes across as not recognizing the urgent need to combat the Bush administration.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

Aha! 'Fitness Function' indeed........ (0.00 / 0)
I finished The Origin of Wealth and look out!

I'm working on my post 'The Perfect Storm' which will, I hope, get folks thinking about networks, hierarchies and most importantly the power function.

Pop quiz how large is 2400,000, a measure of the Boolean network that is dKos 400k being the weekly viewers of dKos, and yeah I know there's 'controversy' about that number but so what. Even if the weekly views are only 50k in dKos's Boolean network, it's potential number of states 250,000, is far, far larger than all the particles in the Universe or the nanoseconds left before the 2nd law of Entropy gets everything.

I believe that the power of networks can help us advance our progressive agenda in ways not seen before. Similar to the exponential explosion in the economic fitness space starting in  1750 the introduction of the Internet to politics will allow exponential change in the political fitness space and....

We'd better be ready for that.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

Whoops.... (4.00 / 2)
left out the Obama part. I've seen him speak, in Oakland, and he is a skilled rhetorician but that's it. There's no 'there there' and he makes fatal, to my mind error, when he paints a picture of Americans all 'getting along...' No, Senator we are not going to 'get along...' big issues divide us and no appeal to our 'better nature' is going to paper over my opinion on torture as state policy vs. Cheney's. Nor should it politics is about conflict and the 'fitness function' not 'getting along'. That Obama seemingly does not get this is mystifying to me and it definitely makes him a loser.

As it should since at the heart he has no solutions to the problems we face.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
After further reflection... (0.00 / 0)
it seems clear that using pageviews as a 'node' in a the Boolean network I will call 'Progressive Fitness Space' is not correct. We should use 'progressive blogs' as our definition of node.

So how many of them are there?

Very hard to say but from what I've Googled a number around 1000 active progressive blogs would seem an okay number to start.

So  our Boolean network comprising Progressive Fitness Space would be 21000.

A pretty big number.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
After further reflection... (0.00 / 0)
it seems clear that using pageviews as a 'node' in a the Boolean network I will call 'Progressive Fitness Space' is not correct. We should use 'progressive blogs' as our definition of node.

So how many of them are there?

Very hard to say but from what I've Googled a number around 1000 active progressive blogs would seem an okay number to start.

So  our Boolean network comprising Progressive Fitness Space would be 21000.

A pretty big number.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Obama (0.00 / 1)
Obama is the biggest egomaniac in this race. His wife, his handlers are constantly touting how 'special', 'unique' he is. He's basically propped up by the white liberal elitists who have deep pockets.

This guy is a total bore. I don't even believe he's that smart. His speech is full of repetitive talking points. There's no originality, nothing. His knowledge on every issue is pretty shallow, you can see through it from his shaky debate performance and Q&A sessions.

He has raised tons of money online and drew big crowd in the beginning, which in turn has inflated his super ego. IMHO, he seriously believes he's a second coming. That's why he has completely dismissed liberal blogs and tried to establish some sort of Obama-centred online movement. It's a cult of personality.

This guy is a phoney and fraud.

you are way off base here (0.00 / 0)
No one gets to be president of the Harvard law review without being smart. His professors and classmates also attest to his intellect.

His problems on the stump and in the debates are (to my mind) the result of inexperience as a campaigner. He has not been through a long, tough campaign. His opponent in the Senate primary self-destructed, and his opponent in the general was a joke.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

[ Parent ]
But He Does Have A Problem That He Doesn't Know What He Wants To Do (4.00 / 6)
He wants to make things better without making anyone mad.

Calling this "naive" would have been an understatement 30 years ago.  After a generation of October Surprise, Iran-Contra, Whitewater, Florida 2000, Iraq, Swiftboat Veterans, Terri Schiavo and Katrina, it's just downright delusional.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
His largest strategic error (4.00 / 1)
I couldn't agree more with the assesment that Obama wants to make things better without making anyone mad.

And I honestly wonder how he thinks this works.

Sunday night, I was talking with my dad, who has divergent political views (and knowledge, understanding, and dare I say vision, thereof).  We ended up yelling at each other, and we're related - he's my dad! - over some notions of politics.  The words "truth be damned" came out of his mouth.  People on the right are not going to compromise, they'll hate us because we're not them, and there will never be a unity government.  At best, you can get a 75% consensus, but you won't do it with mealy-mouthed vagaries and plattitudes.  Those kinds of things are vagaries and plattitudes for a reason - they've been tossed into the rhetorical air a million times and nothing has been delivered, and people know it.

Obama has a ton of growing up to do as a politician AND as a leader. 

[ Parent ]
A a lawyer (0.00 / 0)
I wonder sometimes if people really understand what an achievement it is to be elected EIC of the Harvard Law Review.

It is an immense achievement.  There is no way he can be anything but brilliant.

[ Parent ]
No excuse (0.00 / 0)
Then he has no excuse for the way he has behaved as a Senator.

[ Parent ]
High expectations (4.00 / 3)
I think people get upset at Obama because he could have been something really great.  When he first announced, the sky was the limit.  He had all the buzz.  But he squandered it. And that pisses people off.  With Hillary, it's the exact opposite. Most people had low expectations. So she is building support as people start to say, "she's not so bad afterall."  With Obama, it's still "what could have been."
And who set those expectations? (0.00 / 0)
The post Matt refers to lays it all out (emphasis mine):

That is the Obama campaign in a nutshell - low level chatter and huge spikes that come after TV appearances and leaks from insiders.  While Obama has real grassroots support, his campaign is a conversation being driven from the top.[...]

My sense is that the way Obama's going to be marketed is as an old media style campaign, with lots of big dollar donors purchasing infrastructure pieces in Iowa and New Hampshire.  Obama is a Daschle-Lieberman style politician, an insider who loves comity and dealings behind closed doors.  His campaign will keep his supporters very firmly on the outside of the war room.  That's not necessarily a bad strategy, but it is to say that Obama's campaign is going to be played out in the old media space and not online.  This is not people-power, and we will be kept largely in the dark.  Remember that Obama's national brand was born in at the DNC Convention in 2004, the most old media top-down environment there is.  It was a beautiful speech that was totally unhelpful to John Kerry's campaign, but it did make everyone feel good and it led Obama to believe that TV mass appeal is the path to power.



[ Parent ]
I think you're misrepresenting kos (4.00 / 4)
And while Obama is doing pretty well online, I'm struck by the utter contempt with which he is held by these opinion leaders.
Markos just said in an interview this week with Josh Marshall that he had ruled out Edwards because of his public financing decision, that Dodd would would be his favorite but he's not viable so it would be a wasted vote, and that that leaves Obama (for whom aside from yesterday, he's actually had some pretty glowing coverage this week).

It's a process of elimination, but it's hardly the "utter contempt" you project onto him in your post.

As for "Say what you will about Clinton, she has been leading on aggressive pushback against the right-wing media," this is probably a little strange, given that Hillary Clinton is in bed with the right-wing media, most especially Rupert Murdoch (who is happily a donor).  It's a little game they play with one another.

One Million Strong --- Join up!

Utter contempt (0.00 / 0)
was actually Matt's utter contempt for Obama which he's chosen to project onto other "opinion leaders".

I'll just turn on Fox news if I want more biased reporting.

[ Parent ]
Ah the Iraq Strategy (0.00 / 0)
Blindly reject all criticism as biased and vindictive; continue to fiddle.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.
[ Parent ]
Dodd supporters make Nader voters look like realists (4.00 / 3)
Nice posts on the lack of courage of Obama by bloggers who are pumping up Chris Dodd as the savior of the party. Now THERE'S a brave stance. I like Chris Dodd, Chris Dodd was my Senator for most of my adult life, my neighbor down the street goes to church with Chris Dodd, he's a fantastic guy. He's got good people, he's a good candidate, and it still didn't work. It happens in politics. He'll be lucky to be viable in a handful of precincts in Iowa. He's not winning jack.

Last 4 Iowa polls - (via Pollster.com)
Dodd 1%
Polling w/Other 2%
Dodd 1%
Dodd 1%

Last 4 NH polls - (via Pollster.com)
Dodd 2%
Dodd 2%
Dodd 1%
Polling w/some other candidate <5%

These 'opinion leaders' should grow some balls and stop pretending Dodd is winning anything other than Miss Congeniality and either pick a horse in the running in the Democratic field or admit they don't want to take the heat from the other candidates. Do you want to know where Dodd is on Iraq, the Dodd that supporters like BTD say is 'leading on Iraq now'.

HARDBALL, 9/14/07:

Asked what it takes to get a timetable for withdrawal by Chris Matthews.

DODD:  And while it's not a majority, at this point-you're going to have to get a super-majority to overcome a veto.

http://www.msnbc.msn...

The exact same thing as Obama. Harsh realism. No 'not funding'. Nothing other than a realization that Congress isn't getting it done. Meanwhile I hear over and over online that 'Dodd is leading now on Iraq'. Well fucking fantastic. Where was he in 2002 when Republican Lincoln Chafee in the state next door was getting it right?

http://time-blog.com...

My nephews have gone from playing with Yu-Gi-Oh cards as young kids to being teenagers with military recruiters in their high school in the time since the '02 Iraq War vote. The 'opinion leaders' should pull their head out of their navels for a minute and look at the big picture and not the order in which press releases reach their inbox. This shit is deadly serious and too many people are acting like an online version of the DC chattering class, repeating each others ideas back and forth until they become a kind of unreality. I doubt 5% of Democratic voters know or care about the order that these positions get released yet the timing takes on some kind of oracle meaning on blogs. It's ridiculous.

Dodd's hold on the FISA bill is the bee's knees and a sign of leadership. Obama's hold on vote stealing SOB & FEC nominee Hans von Spakovsky? Conveniently forgotten two weeks later even though YOU posted about it on this very site.

As for your 'utter contempt' gross overstatement - here's a video of Josh Marshall and Markos Moulitsas talking about Obama thats about 3 days old - both men use favorable terms.

http://www.youtube.c...

Markos (7:18): "I do believe strongly that the issue of judgement is important and Obama clearly showed better judgement on the Iraq issue."

Then Markos slams Obama for missing the Iran vote as though it's equivalent - that his CAMPAIGN isn't as good as Clinton's, not the candidate, but the campaign. Markos admits he'll probably vote for Obama in California as does Greg Saunders in the critical Huffington Post piece that Markos. Newsflash: Obama isn't the savior. Newsflash #2: Markos and Greg Saunders are still both likely to vote for Obama.

http://www.huffingto...

To me, it's ridiculous voters with a platform like Markos and Saunders are acting like The Princess and the Pea with Obama. I'm probably going to vote for him, but let me slag him as a disappointment durig the primary so I'm more likely to get Hillary. That's just fucking brilliant.


John McCain

Yeah really (0.00 / 0)
What kind of idiot would consider voting their conscience? Especially in a primary.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.
[ Parent ]
anti clinton demographic (4.00 / 2)
This is a group that, by and large, wants anyone but Clinton to get the nomination

While it would be useful for Obama to get such a group it is hardly the demographic he needs to win.  Obama's main problem is in the large demographic who like clinton.

To me Obama looks remarkably tone deaf for the bloggers.  My guess is that he initially tried to reach out to them and then realized that his easy going can't we all get along style of politics is the exact opposite of what the big name bloggers want and decided to focus on Iowa instead.

Obama hasn't been completely supine (4.00 / 3)
He did put a hold on Hans von Spakowsky the other day. It's been his rhetoric, which doesn't seem to fit with current reality and is going to alienate prominent progressive bloggers more than anyone, that is getting him most of the bad press.

Whatever way you look at it, however, he hasn't come remotely close to meeting expectations. Partly this is because said expectations were so very high, but mostly this has been because he just hasn't done very much significant and not related to fundraising since he announced.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

anyone but hillary... (0.00 / 0)
obama, edwards, biden, we've got to rally around someone.  the problem with hillary is that it's abominably disingenuous to put someone in the white house who knew full well what would happen the second we set foot in iraq, an yet voted for the war "with conviction" that it was "in the best interest of our nation." this puts it better than i could:

Hillary knew
direct youtube link

We don't have to "rally around" anyone. . . (4.00 / 1)
at the presidential level.

Movement building does not only occur there, in fact, there are some very good arguments to say the opposite is true.

Why rally around campaigns and people you can't believe in, when there are better options elsewhere, and our time and extra energy are not all unlimited?

Where else to turn?

Here, maybe:  http://www.actblue.c...

I blog at www.firedoglake.com.

[ Parent ]
Does Obama Really Have A Significant Grassroots Constituency? (4.00 / 1)
I think Obama has created a myth about himself, namely that he has mobilized a genuine grassroots constituency.

He has not so much mobilized such a constituency as he has appropriated the wishful thinking of voters looking for a candidate who is not Hillary.

His demonstrated inability to actually put together a platform of policies that could generate a groundswell of enthusiasm from any significant cross-section is undeniable.

Has he actually proposed any break-through policies on crucial issues that are truly original and resonate with the aspirations of any significant segment of the American people?

Not to my knowledge.

Hillary has monopolized the debates and the media with her sophisticated wonkishness. She knows just what to say on just about all the issues, leaving Obama without any fire power, sunk in his own naive platitudes.

The only candidate in the top three who has identified himself with any really significant outside the box issue that does justice to our deepest aspirations is Edward's preoccupation with economic justice.

Most Americans want everyone to have a fair shake and know that in the U.S. today the rich and the super-rich are making off like bandits leaving everyone else in the lurch. At least Edwards has the courage to attack head on the issue of income inequality and the growing social and economic divide that is threatening our country.

What has Obama or Clinton had to say that rivals Edwards in this regard?

[ Parent ]
I rally for barack (0.00 / 0)
I like to rally around a candidate and my guy is barack. I also like the 'idea' of a having a beloved president.  i believe that it would be good for the country to rally around someone that they loved and looked up to.  this community may never feel that way about obama but i think he has the potential to be a beloved president.  and that i think would be good for america. 

i also think that he would be the most progressive president in my life time (and my life is half over). but that argument falls on deaf ears around here.

[ Parent ]
Obama deserves the harsh words (0.00 / 0)
He really has run a lackluster campaign.  Democrats and many Independents want change, but they mistook Obama's pledges for change to mean a shift to policies that might actually help them instead of a change of not campaigning against your opponents.  Now that it is apparent that he can't win unless he attacks his opponents he has has made several awkward swings and lost his credibility.

He didn't offer any policies that excited anyone and therefore left Edwards with the constituency who is willing to take a little progressive policy over mostly nothing.  He could have sewn up the rabid anti-war constituency but instead of making himself the candidate of a more peaceful future he has spent all his time pointing out the past mistakes of Hillary and Edwards.  He is showing little to say that he will necessarily do things in the future much different than his opponents.

In this election the only hope anyone had of dethroning Hillary was to come out strong and create a buzz.  Obama did that, but then didn't follow through with anything that made his candidacy so completely different from his opponents that his support could weather the inexperience he has shown on the sound bite front.

True. And All So Obvious (4.00 / 1)
But whenever anyone would point this out, Obama's posse would jump all over them.  Instead of seeing this criticism as a valid early warning that ought to be heeded.

True believers are there own worst enemeies.

I truly believe that.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
I thought yesterday was silly (4.00 / 2)
All this, over a stance that Obama himself assumed a few hours later? 

It could just be that the campaign is fine functioning on a 24h cycle, but just isn't interested in providing the kind of instantaneous, hour-to-hour updates that the blogosphere seems to demand to keep itself entertained throughout the day.  And the same ahistoricism that Matt Bai decries in terms of anything pre-1998 -- to the extent that the criticism is true at all -- is certainly true when Obama's hold on the von Spakovsky nomination a few days ago gets completely forgotten during the hours in which folks are waiting for him on FISA.

You know what else people are forgetting?  Dodd's 26-year Senate record.  If they ever knew it at all.  On what has he led when he *wasn't* running for President?

OT (4.00 / 3)
I wanted to share one of the better pieces I've seen describing Obama's relation to partisanship, from pastordan at Street Prophets.

http://www.streetpro...

John McCain

[ Parent ]
Everyone should read your link (4.00 / 3)
I've read "Audacity of Hope" and that is why I support Obama.  What has happened to us that we no longer recognize this kind of honesty?

We claim we crave a real, live human being, but when we're faced with one, we want vapid, superficiality instead.  We want a warrior on a white horse.  We want a fantasy that doesn't exist.  We want Hollywood and then we accuse Obama, when he's not Hollywood of being Hollywood.

We're one screwed up bunch.

Great diary from pasterdan.  THanks.

[ Parent ]
Oh man.... (0.00 / 0)

We claim we crave a real, live human being, but when we're faced with one, we want vapid, superficiality instead. 

You can cut the irony in this statement with a knife.....
[ Parent ]
I read The Audacity of Hope (0.00 / 0)
  And I'd vote for the guy who wrote it in a heartbeat.

  Anyone seen him? There's someone named "Barack Obama" campaigning around, but he bears only a fleeting resemblance to the author of the book.

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
not quite (0.00 / 0)
Obama didn't say he'd put a hold on the bill.
[ Parent ]
It only takes one Senator. (4.00 / 1)
Having multiple Senators declare a hold doesn't make the hold last any longer, and Reid still plans on floor debate for November. 

According to Kagro X, 60 votes can overcome the hold, and I have a feeling there are enough spineless Dems out there to ensure this gets a vote.  I think the best we can hope for is a separate roll-call vote on the immunity issue, but I have a hard time imagining there not being an extension of FISA when all is said and done.

[ Parent ]
changing your argument (0.00 / 0)
You wrote that Obama adopted the same position as Dodd a few hours later.  He didn't.  We could argue as to the symbolic merit of a high profile Senator like Obama putting another hold on the bill, and yes, there are often multiple holds on bills, but that's not the point here.  Obama didn't take the same position as Dodd.  Maybe that's the right call or maybe it's not.  But he didn't.
[ Parent ]
Substantively, it's the same. (4.00 / 3)
Both oppose the bill, and I find logically unsustainable the prospect of Obama simultaneously opposing the bill yet opposing Dodd's efforts to block its consideration.

What's interesting, as well, is that no one yesterday expected Clinton to take a leadership role on this.  We just know it's not in her nature -- and yet, the blogosphere has really yet to take her on during this whole year to the extent it's questioned the progressive candidates.

[ Parent ]
Adam (0.00 / 0)
What you wrote is factually incorrect.  As you know, rules matter.  A hold is not just a statement of opposition.

Please concede that what you wrote was in error.

[ Parent ]
Rules do matter (4.00 / 1)
And all a hold does is add the 60-vote requirement to the bill's consideration.  Reid still expects this will be taken up in November, and it's spineless Dems like him who will ensure it happens.
[ Parent ]
Still, to be fair (0.00 / 0)
It's not *exactly* the same, insofar as Obama hasn't outlined the procedural steps he's going to take to make it happen.  His calculus is going to be different from Dodd's in terms of how much time he's willing to spend off the campaign trail to pull it off.
[ Parent ]
What I sense (4.00 / 2)
is that the blogsphere leaders were late to endorse anyone, and are now believe that they must reconcile themselves to Hillary. 

Hillary's strength has surprised them. 

This is in part why they are angry at Hillary's opponents.  They believe that they have failed.

Hillary is not a progressive.  The Clintons' entire careers are based on triangulation. 

This will not be well received here, ande is not directed at anyone at openleft, but I do not understand why people like Markos have waited until it is almost too late to take sides in the nomination fight.

Hold out for Gore (0.00 / 0)
The netroots, although they don't like to admit it for sounding foolish, were holding out for Gore.  I think the guys at the top, like Markos, were taking their cues from their readers, who weren't going to be corralled into supporting anyone of these nonprogressives when Gore hadn't ruled out running entirely.  Its very ironic that Gore's "I'm not running but you never know" approach has served to significantly strengthen HRC, serving essentially as a huge distraction and road block as HRC went about shoring up elite support and building a media consensus of her competency and inevitability.  HRC will not govern as a progressive and apart from embracing some of Gore's agenda on climate change, her policies will diverge considerably with what he claims is his vision for how to get America back on track. 

[ Parent ]
because they want to be a part of the establishment (0.00 / 0)
and on the winning team. It's fear.
[ Parent ]
Ha Ha (0.00 / 1)
Host unlimited photos at slide.com for FREE!

Host unlimited photos at slide.com for FREE!

Senate Speak, etc. (4.00 / 1)
One very big reason that Senators are not elected President is that most of them don't talk like the rest of us.  They speak in short hand about legislatioin and think about legislative details rather than general, overarching themes.  Of course, a smaller subset launches into the buddy buddy collegiality.

John Kerry was inept as a national campaigner because he spoke like a Senator.  I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it.  He was iffered a free swing or two at Bush in the debates but refused to swing at him even after being the victim of frontal character assaults.  Name a time when Bush lied.  Oh yeah!  Nope, calling someone a liar is against the Senate rules both written and unwritten.

John Kennedy was elected precisely because he was a bad fit as a Senator.  No mealy mouth language from him or failure to attack, thank you.  And he's the only one during the "modern era" when Senators were elected by direct popular vote.  That's less than 100 years,btw.  The first state to approve direct election did it in 1907 and the Constitutional Amendment didn't take effect until 1913.  Before that Senators were elected by the state legislatures.  (Lincoln actually won the popular vote against Douglas but lost on a legislative district-by-district scheme that sounds to my hear akin to the electoral college).

agree and disagree (4.00 / 2)
The harsh words for Obama are fine.  But I don't buy for a moment your last paragraph.  Hillary Clinton is effectively running as the former vice president, and they always succeed in the primaries.  Clinton, after all, has plenty of money and rhetoric, more so than leadership.



New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

Writing on the wall for a while... (4.00 / 3)
Cheers Matt,

This is not surprising at all. Barack Obama is a unique figure. He's likely the most charismatic Democratic to emerge on the national scene since Bill Clinton, he's articulate, extremely intelligent and has a remarkable ability to connect with people. The fevour of his supports is completely understandable.

However, and this I feel was obvious from day one, he was simply not ready to run in a presidential primary. Obama has many fine qualities, but election experience is not one of them. He won his senate seat under about the most favourable set of circumstances a politician could ask for. Compared to the madness of a general election, it's like comparing a lap in the pool to sidestroking across the English Channel in November.

Obama has taken off the gloves, so to speak, against Clinton, and failed to land a blow. Between that, cautious senatoral vote wrangling, and an inexperienced campaign already showing the signs of strain, I can't see how Obama can reasonably be considered a potential candidate. It's sad since it's not a criticism of the man himself. He jumped in too soon, without the experience or the organization that you need to maintain a campaign at this level. The fact that he hasn't been able to translate huge financial expenditures into any momentuem is an indication of it.

The swinging of people like Markos, Hamsher, and even Chris Bowers into a more positive view on Clinton is actually a mirror of his general strategy; let them use the pre-conceptions to approach her, tackle them head on and drag out at least a grudging level of aggravation. The most common statement I've been hearing is "I don't fully support Clinton, I don't think she's a progressive but... she's running the best campaign/she's sounding the most crediable/she's making the Republicans look like fools/etc."

People are attracted to the 'toughness' of a candidate; their percieved ability to keep going under adversity and even better, to fight back and score points while under fire. That narrative is Clinton's right now. Obama, unfortunately, is rapidly earning the narrative of 'not ready'.

The Elites Are Calling Our Bluff (4.00 / 1)
The fact that Obama has failed to embrace the open source style campaigning of the netroots is proof that the elites don't think our support is worth very much.  The Party donors and elites are heavily supporting HRC, with some support for Obama as well.  Obama's team is betting that to advance himself (as a VP candidate or a continuing rising start in the party) the boost in support by embracing the netroots will cost him more than it will help him.  And in a cold calculating way, he's probably right.  As the netroots we need to continually search for and nurture the candidates that not only support the same policies we do, but like the "way we do business," that is, bottom up, grassroots style.  That is the only way we can ever forge a relationship with our leaders that doesn't invovle us being a disposable interest group that can be carved in or carved out of the coalition depending on the personal goals of the aspiring leader. 
As an Obama grassroots... (4.00 / 2)
...supporter...

...I think I can speak for many of us that the Obama campaign has been very open to dialog and two-way conversation with its supporters.

They may not be doing an especially effective job of outreach to A list bloggers that already viscerally oppose Obama, but they have demonstrated numerous times that they are more than willing to work cooperatively with grassroots supporters all across the country.

What's the Point?

[ Parent ]
Deeds, Not Words (0.00 / 0)
I am disappointed that Obama's actions have in no way matched his rhetoric and his rhetoric these days is, quite frankly, lagging substantially behind the curve. To be successful in national politics, your rhetoric needs to be about 3 inches ahead of public opinion, and your actions need to be about 1 inch behind it.

As of yesterday, I am seriously considering jumping ship and going with Dodd. The time for good words has long since passed. It's what the candidates do that counts.

Obama needed to take bold stands (4.00 / 1)
The FEC hold is good, but a little too insider politics.  Nobody really pays attention to the FEC.

But Telco Immunity, and Warrantless wiretapping are prime issues that can win public attention.

My take is that Obama is not willing to go all in to win this.  He's biding his time for future races, and avoiding burning his bridges.  He's still hoping Hillary will stumble or some other lucky break will put him on top, but he's not going to take any substantial risks to get there.

Dodd will see a bump from this hold move, but since he isn't seen as viable it won't be as big as Obama would have received for the same action.


Every politician (4.00 / 1)
has his or her nitch.  Obama's is voting.  It's always been one and it's near and dear to his heart.  Obama looks after you when he pays attention to the FEC.
[ Parent ]
sure (0.00 / 0)
and I am praising him for it, but it's just too insidery for it, or moves like it to garner him the nomination.

Of course it's entirely possible that Obama could ruin himself by taking bold stands on netroots popular issues, who can say for sure.  I only know he's not taking risks, and when you're in second and fading, that's not a winning strategy.

[ Parent ]
Why isn't voting rights a netroots issue? (4.00 / 2)
In the grand scheme of things, which is going to improve citizens' lives more -- defeating silly voter ID laws to restrict the franchise and fighting against deceptive election practices, or making sure telecom companies can get sued?
[ Parent ]
Obamarama (0.00 / 0)
As a lifelong resident of chicago, i knew the moment that he hired that hack Axelrod, that there would be no there there.
Bold stands to shake-up the race (0.00 / 0)
Bold Stands:

Pledge that all american military will be removed from Iraq before your term is completed.

Pledge no residual forces in Iraq. Residual forces in the region would be okay but not in Iraq.

This is for both Edwards and Obama.

[ Parent ]
Obama and partisanship (4.00 / 1)
Obama craves the approval of people like Joe Klein, the "pox on both houses" crowd. I smelled this about him early on and it completely turned me off.

He is basically running as an independent. His main argument is that both parties are to blame for the current polarization. As if Bill Clinton/Al Gore/John Kerry were as vicious and vindictive as Newt/Delay/Bush/Rove/Frist and the rest of the right wing jihadists. I have seen nothing in him that would convince me that he has it in him to do battle with the VRWC, much less defeat them.

Some Strikingly Harsh Words for Obama | 58 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.

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