Good Post (4.00 / 1)

Needed to be said.

Further, I know that I will try to find ways to work directly with the Obama campaign during the general election, even as I am criticizing them.

I think that is what we are all hoping you and other progressive bloggers will do.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 14:42:33 PM CST

I assumed that you were responding (4.00 / 4)

to inane establishment media hit pieces such as this one, and to the even more inane right-wing media sources that they take their cues from, and not to other bloggers:

January 5, 2008,  4:57 pm
No, They Really Weren't Netrooting for Him
By Chris Suellentrop

What does Barack Obama's victory in Iowa mean for the prominent activist bloggers in the Democratic Party who call themselves the "netroots" - many of whom have spent the past year either dismissing Obama's candidacy (MyDD's Jerome Armstrong scoffed at Obama's "fake self-proclaimed 'movement'" in June) or being actively hostile to it (a common enough sentiment that it led the DailyKos poster with the puckish sobriquet "Mark Warner Is God" to write a sarcastic post titled, "Barack Obama will eat your children")?

"Here's a dirty little secret that the liberal blogosphere will probably try to flush down the memory hole in the coming weeks - they didn't like Barack Obama," writes The Weekly Standard's Dean Barnett. He later adds, "Obama incurred the wrath of the progressive blogosphere, and good God, a miracle occurred - he won anyway." Barnett then writes:

Obama showed indifference or even hostility to their agenda. His success reveals the liberal bloggers' lack of king-making ability. This particular emperor has no clothes.

A progressive blog-reading audience of roughly 100,000 people has alternately enthralled and frightened the Democratic party for a couple of years now. Obama either saw that foolishness for what it was, or was sufficiently committed to his principles that he refused to pander. If he paid a price at the Iowa caucuses for this "gamble," it was one he could afford. More likely, he paid no price, as the progressive blogosphere is deeply unrepresentative of the Democratic party rank and file. We learned that much last night.

In that June post at MyDD.com, Armstrong (the co-author, with Markos Moulitsas, of "Crashing the Gates: Netroots, Grassroots and the Rise of People-Powered Politics") agreed with Barnett's analysis. The netroots will not have "Obama's back" when the news media turns on him, Armstrong said. Obama's candidacy is "not a movement, but a candidate," he wrote. Armstrong complained that Obama "never aligned with the existing movement that began with Dean in '02, swelled for Wesley Clark in '03, led Dean to the DNC Chair and propelled the [Paul] Hackett and [Ned] Lamont candidacies."

But Armstrong also conceded:

Maybe I'm completely on the outside here, and Barack Obama, with [campaign manager David] Plouffe and thousands of others, are really creating an independent feel-good movement. One that has nothing to do with the fighting partisan netroots; so there's no way I would grasp it, much less feel a part of it, and I'll be sideswiped in surprise at Obama's victories. Maybe, but I doubt it. Obama's running a well-funded, traditional presidential campaign that's safely pointed toward finishing a strong second based on his personal appeal. I can see Obama getting a lot of points in the game, but never the lead.

Granted, Obama hasn't won the nomination yet, so Armstrong's argument could still prove correct. But if Obama does win, the netroots (at least as Armstrong and others define them) will have gone yet another cycle without a big victory to point to.

And if Obama goes to the White House, he'll have shown that such a victory can be achieved without the support - at least during the long phase known as the "invisible primary" - of the netroots.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

---

by: kovie @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 14:50:17 PM CST

You are right Chris .. (0.00 / 0)

and speaking for myself .. Edwards was and still is my first choice .. Obama is my 2nd .. also .. I like Obama .. I am glad someone that was against the war from the start is doing so well .. do I wish he's take some positions closer to Edwards? ... sure  ... but given the big picture ... hopefully if he is elected ... he'll move closer .. what's kinda funny is that if the blogosphere would be anti anyone .. it would be anti-Hillary ... just look at the poll numbers she gets at DKos .. those who thing the liberal blogosphere is anti-Obama are people who have their heads up their butt .. I do wonder how much Obama will embrace the blogs in the run up to the general .. should he win the primary

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 15:04:06 PM CST

The Blogosphere Is Anti-Hillary (4.00 / 1)

so much as it simply ignores her.

Those outside the blogosphere just don't understand how much more fundamental a repudiation this is.

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

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 16:43:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Grrr... That's "The Blogosphere ISN'T Anti-Hillary..." (0.00 / 0)

(can you believe I'm actually editing stuff as I massacre my own words here in background mode???... Yes, I guess you can, only too well...)

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

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 17:48:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

More importantly... (4.00 / 2)

And more importantly, it seems Obama has heard the complaints that were out on the blogosphere and responded.  (In other words, the netroots are working.)  He responded to the 'playing nice with Republicans' complaint a week ago and now includes his response in his standard stump speech.  (We've all seen, so no need to go find quote.)

Today I see over at Ezra's place he's responding directly to the issues often brought up here about the need to build a Democratic coalition, not just an Obama coalition:

Obama's speech underwent another subtle shift, too. There was much more emphasis placed on the word "progressive," a much more explicit recognition of Obama's potential meaning to a particular ideological movement. He spoke of "Independents who recognize that the current course we're on is not working, and are ready to form a coalition with Democrats for progressive change," chided the observers who said there was no way all these diverse individuals would turn out "for a progressive Democrat." I've not heard that word so oft-repeated at his rallies before. Indeed, the whole speech seemed the product of Obama's thinking about how he could use his political potency to shift the center in America to the left. "We will send a message," he said, "that we will not only end the war in Iraq, not only bring our troops home, but we will change the mindset that got us into that war in the first place." In some ways, it's that grandeur of ambition that separates Obama from Clinton Even before he said so explicitly, many progressives I know spoke of his ability not to change policies, but to change minds -- to do for progressivism what Reagan did for conservatism. Clinton, they agreed, was competent and well-meaning, but lacked that potential.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 15:05:41 PM CST

Thanks for your comment. (4.00 / 1)

It made me feel better about Obama.  I really don't trust him, but it would be nice if I was wrong.

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

---

by: dkmich @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 17:04:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This Certainly Is A Hopeful Sign (4.00 / 1)

You can only peddle hope for so long before someone else comes along and sells it cheaper.  You have to upgrade what you are offering people, so they're no longer satisfied with cheap promises.

If this is what Obama's doing, then the criticism has served its purpose, and Obama, by responding appropriately and non-defensively to it, has passed a crucial test.  (It's always much better to have candidates pass crucial tests before they're elected.)

It may be too soon to say for certain this is what has happened.  But it's a hopeful sign, and that's good.

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

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 19:01:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

God, let's hope so (0.00 / 0)

Obama has all the potential to fundamentally shift our country to the left and it's not just good politics, but good policy.  I read this great American Prospect piece on how one cannot blame poor policy implementation for the current failures of the Bush administration, but conservatism itself--and not just with foreign policy, but at home as well.

We need this for the good of the country.  C'mon, Obama: prove me wrong.

---

by: Patrickson @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 20:14:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

To Add (0.00 / 0)

I want Obama to prove me wrong, in that he's (as of now) a centrist when push comes to shove and I'd like him to have a progressive core/backbone and use that amazing power of his to persuade to shift the American political landscape.  Oh, and drop-kick the corporate lobbyists.

---

by: Patrickson @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 20:23:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Maybe Clinton and Obama are centrists (0.00 / 0)

because they're a woman and black. Edwards is progressive because he can be.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.

---

by: donna darko @ Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:50:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Tired of excuses for failure, (0.00 / 0)

regardless of whosem, what, and why

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

---

by: dkmich @ Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 04:27:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

reminds me of (0.00 / 0)

that lame conversation about who constitutes the 'netroots.'

I think there is a tendency for those who understand a traditional frame (in this case, that there can only be a few bloggers that define the entire sphere because there are really only a few pundits that define the traditional media punditry....) to try to apply that same frame to new media.

Anyway, good post.

---

by: ehofteig @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 15:16:37 PM CST

you heard it here first (0.00 / 0)

You hear it here first folks.  Chris Bowers' back hurt from carrying the weight of his people.  Just Kidding . ?

---

by: charlesdog12 @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 15:18:35 PM CST

What's the inverse of nutpicking? Look at all the acorns! (4.00 / 2)

You're using the aggregate content on community blogs which obscures what appears on the front page of these blogs. When the press says "netroots" they mean the front pagers, not the diaries. Straw polls, user interest, the long tail of blogs, and fundraising all have little or nothing to do with the opinion of prominent individual bloggers. Forget the stupid press about the "blogosphere" - individuals are still accountable for their own actions.

If you write online those writings get quoted back to you all the time. It's a competitive marketplace of ideas. If Blogger X is writing that candidate Obama is a moderate Republican and then President Obama governs as an effective progressive then Blogger X will either issue a mea culpa re-examining their thought process or get called out as a hack. If a President Obama governs as a moderate Republican, then Obama supporters will have earned being called naive by some prominent individual bloggers and have do their own self-examination.

John McCain

---

by: joejoejoe @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 15:22:20 PM CST

He is second choice, BUT, that is different that being supportive of Obama (4.00 / 1)

I somewhat disagree here, with the conclusion of the title, while I don't disagree with most of your 4 supporting points.  But those 4 points don't mean that your conclusion follows. 

Certainly, in the case of Daily Kos, there were lots of anti-Obama posts.  And DEFINITELY, in the case of Jerome Armstrong, he particularly WAS anti-Obama, in nearly all his immediate trumpeting of any vague news story that cast a questionable light on Obama.

I'm glad that you and Matt got your own place, because the level of dishonesty and arrogance from Jerome made that joint, not nearly as much fun or trustworthy. (Which is a shame, cause I like the stuff Jonathan writes.)

I knew, KNEW, before reading the story linked above, that Jerome would be the one quoted.  I was right.  It was pretty obvious.

Nevertheless, I'm not contradicting your points in this post - Obama was clearly 2nd in choice for the netroots, Edwards being first.

Clearly though, 2nd that there are a lot of stories written which explain critically, why Obama isn't the 1st choice.

So there is - what 30-50% accuracy to the charge of Netroots being Anti-Obama?

Don't know what the percentage is, but there is definitely a "there" there, in the accusation.  Neither your conclusion, nor the article's conclusion, is right on this.  In reality, there is support for both contentions. 

---

by: JC @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 15:22:39 PM CST

My DD went off the deep-end... (4.00 / 1)

Not due to Jerome AFAIK, but due to the irrational campaign partisans who swamped it.  It's really turned into a crystallization of the worst aspects of Daily Kos in a more easily digestible (meaning smaller, not more palatable) portion. 

IMHO of course.  And I'm not sure there's much Jerome could have done to fix it except banning people willy-nilly.  I'm glad the smart discussion came over this way. 

---

by: telephasic @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 16:24:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Without a study (0.00 / 0)

Demonstrating the number of positive and negative posts on each site, this is all speculation.

OK, Jerome wrote a lot of anti-Obama stuff. Jerome is one guy. In fact, he is the third most frequent blogger on like the 14th most read progressive blog. That is one example from hundreds of front-page writers on the fifty or so most trafficked blogs.

And, as I said, without numbers on the percentage of positive and negative posts, it is all just speculation. 

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 16:51:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not speculation (0.00 / 0)

Many readers here have their own personal experience to draw on.  Now sure, there is sampling bias. But I can tell you as an Obama supporter I was left feeling angry many more times than pleased after reading MyDD whether it was you, Jerome, or Matt writing the post.  That said, OpenLeft has been much better.

And don't forget that even through there are many progressive blogs, DailyKos, MyDD and OpenLeft tend to have a lot of crossover readers, while links to other blogs tend to be more fragmented.  So, to some people those three sites represent "progressive bloggers", however unfair that characterization may be. And within that community, Jerome does have a loud voice.

---

by: BobbyWallace @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 17:10:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

A good argument (0.00 / 0)

that should, but alas probably won't, be picked up by a media outlet outside of the blogosphere. But I'm still struggling with the image of blog readers as "masses of rabid, flying lambs." Is that from a Breugel painting? :)

---

by: jeffbinnc @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 15:32:44 PM CST

Tough, but Fair (4.00 / 3)

Like the rest of the media, bloggers should be tough but fair.  As an Obama supporter, about 98% of bloggers that I know have been fair and about 97% sure have been tough.  That is OK.  People shouldn't complain about tough coverage, they should complain about factual errors or coded racism.

---

by: howardpark @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 15:41:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Please spare me, have you been reading Markos lately? (0.00 / 0)

It's quite revealing.  In a way the ultra liberal agenda is dependent upon maintaining a strong entrenched pseudo conservative enemy, much the way the war mongering neocon element in our government is dependent upon maintaining Al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalist as an enemy in order to maintain and justify their existence. It's a symbiotic relationship, where both elements depends upon and feeds off one another.

Both sides have developed a vested interest in continuing this divisive and destructive culture war, at the expense of the American people and at the expense of our nation. I call this supposedly liberal approach, predatory pseudo progressivism.

I'm a progressive, but I've come to realize that the whole thing has now taken on a life of its own, we've created a monster that would have us warring amongst ourselves to decide who is right and who's wrong, while Rome burns around us.  I have no respect for those who are willing to watch this country slowly self-destruct and go down the drain, so they can step forward in the wreckage of a once proud civilization and say, "see I was right."

You may indeed be right, but if we destroy our society in the process of proving it, then I submit that you have lost your way, and missed the point of progressivism entirely.  If the survival necessitates conciliation and compromise, that's what you do.  Especially when the alternatives simply aren't practical or desirable.

Obama 08, genuine progressive progress

---

by: AaronBBrown @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 15:41:48 PM CST

Theat's your whole argument? (0.00 / 0)

Your entire counter-argument is "have you been reading Markos lately?" I read Markos every day, as I have for the last five and a half years. I fail to see what your argument proves, except that you think a general characterization of one person's writing, without providing any quotes, somehow proves that the entire progressive blogosphere is an ultra-liveral, anti-Obama force.

You didn't present an argument. Rather, your generalized characterization of the blogosphere as one the work of man, and without any supporting quotes, proves my point.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 15:46:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Picking and choosing the obvious retorts? How about this Chris? (0.00 / 0)

"A significant part of the NetRoots, including many of the largest sites, embraced a distinctly critical tone against Obama, particularly when it came to the language of post-politics and reconconciliation that Obama espouses.

This segment has been in great alignment with Edwards (considered by many the candidate of the NetRoots.) 

As such, and given the louder megaphone (by blogging standards) of the larger bloggers, there is a distinctive pro-Edards, anti-Obama in the largest netroots sites(in the sense of being the preferred candidate)."

Is that a bit better? 

You didn't respond to my earlier comment, or to kovie, or to joejoejoe.

Which are more balanced, I think, and make good points that you should be responding to.

---

by: JC @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 16:09:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You Miss The Most Basic Point (0.00 / 0)

That being dubious of a strategy is not the same as being hostile or opposed to a person using that strategy.

Unlike the old media, the blogosphere is thick with specifically documented arguments, which are fundamentally arguments about ideas, rather than arguments with people.

Totally different reality.

In fact, my part in this has been to repeatedly affirm that there are much greater affinities between right and left, but that they lie with the grassroots, not the elites.

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

---

!!!?

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

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 18:13:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Quotes, Please! (0.00 / 0)

Such broad, sweeping accusations surely call for some sort of evidence.

"Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence."  Yadda, yadda, yadda.

If you're going to claim that Markos is the devil, you'd better provide at least one snapshot of his cloven hooves.

Otherwise, to be quite frank I have no clue what you are talking about.

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

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 15:57:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

reading Markos lately (0.00 / 0)

When you asked if we've been "reading Markos lately," I assumed you were going to make the point of how the past couple days he is been far more positive towards Obama than a week or so ago.

Then I read the rest...  Sorry, can't agree.

And this is coming from someone who's been waisting too much time lately defending Obama from much of the blogoshere.

There have definitely been some major overreactions by many mainstream bloggers, lately.  The worst was claiming Obama "attacked" Gore and Kerry, which required standing on your head and reading Obama's quote backwards to reach that interpretation.

But that's ok.  Democrats shall not attack other Democrats or our own liberal philosophies has been one of the mantras of the blogosphere.  Everyone fears another Lieberman so we hold everyone's feet to the fire to prevent it.

But Obamamania (Obamania?) is catching.  There is no doubt the blogosphere will support him should he win, and this time with even more enthusiasm than for Kerry.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 16:15:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Dude!! ... get over yourself!! ... (4.00 / 1)

if you paid attention .. you'd have figured out that Edwards and Obama are Kos' picks(which one is first? .. no clue!!) .. I think most of the lefty blogostan look at Obama and want to get on that train .. the question we all have .. is can he deliver on that promise .. that's the chance you take electing any president .. but we all have high, high hopes for him

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 16:26:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I absolutely agree. (4.00 / 1)

The editorial is off base.  Edwards and Obama were the netroots top two picks with a preference for Edwards.  Lots of speculation and squabbling between the two camps in the diaries, but the overall concensus across the boards was absolutely Edwards and Obama.  There was no campaign, just the top two picks.

The progressive bloggers have filled an information vaccuum for me.  I can't say enough how much I appreciate it.  I regularly read 3 - 4 political blogs a day, and this blog is one of them.

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

---

by: dkmich @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 17:26:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

There's Another Facet To This (4.00 / 4)

Which is recognizing that criticism doesn't mean you don't like someone or are opposed to them.

Just to put things into perspective:

I don't think I've ever written a diary critical of Hillary Clinton.

She's not worth it.  Snarky comments, that's it.  But I also despise those who say they won't vote for her (thereby assuming she will be the nominee, and they will be screwed, so in pre-emptive retaliation, they will screw the party instead--and by "party" I mean millions of people who feel just as frustrated as they do, but have made a slightly different call.) So I would support Clinton if she were the nominess, but I don't even think it worth my time to write a cricial diary about her.

My opinion of Obama is substantially higher.  But between him and Edwards, I think it's much easier to recognize Edwards' flaws and shortcomings.  Obama's are much more difficult for folks to comprehend, and this can be very dangerous.  The tendency to read your own desires into a candidate is virtually universal, but Obama clearly invites this more than most, and it's positively dangerous not to try to check this tendency.  After all, that was one of the key enabling folliers of the Republicans with Bush.  Which is not to pretend for a moment that Obama is comparable to Bush--but our attitudes can all too easily become similar to those of his supporters.  That is always the danger with any leader, especially one who seems to tower over any other choices.

In short, what I am opposed to is thoughtlessness.  And that's a stance I happily share with those Chris listed above.

Anyone who doesn't understand this has never written--or debugged, which is the same thing--very much code.

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

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 15:47:21 PM CST

it works both ways (4.00 / 1)

I sincerely believe that a progressive agenda won't really be enacted without some progressive politicians who exploit this tendency in non-progressives.  Perhaps that is too cynical an attitude for some to countenance.

When I compare Edwards to Obama, I see Edwards as the safer candidate and Obama as the more "high risk-high reward" candidate. I'm not risk-adverse and I see the potential upside of an Obama presidency outweighing the potential downside, but I can understand why some people would want to go the safe route in politics.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 16:01:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, Different Folks Will Take Different Risks (4.00 / 1)

I don't have the sense that I know what the reward would be, other than Chris's non-white/non-Christian coalition.  But a coalition without a cogent sense of itself is always in danger of fragmentation and exploitation.  So just embodying the coalition is not enough to answer my question.

If I knew where we were going, I'd be much more inclined to take risks to get there.

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

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 16:36:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Revealing and mobilizing the progressive coalition that already exists (0.00 / 0)

Here's an initial stab at defining the "new" coalition I believe Obama is trying to build:

The coalition is comprised of the substantial majority of Americans that hold progressive views on most (but not all) important issues, including a significant percentage that have become wary of the Democratic party/establishment--especially young voters and also including various stripes of independents and even some Republicans who can no longer stomach their own party but have an entrenched aversion to the vision of Democrats that they've developed over many years. 

This coalition could also include a (growing) portion of the religious Christian community, especially those who are more inspired by what Jesus said and did versus the fire & brimstone God of the Old Testament and modern-day right-wing political fundamentalist preachers and politicians.

On the issues, I don't see differences among the candidates large enough (or relatively unfavorable for Obama) to add any relative negatives that outweigh the benefits his candidacy appears to bring in terms of expanding, inspiring and mobilizing a progressive coalition. 

This coalition would be further empowered by implementation of Obama's proposals for "open government" that was far more accessible to citizen review and input.  Though Edwards seems to be very progressive on tech and Internet issues, I'm not aware of him proposing specific "open government" steps comparable to Obama's.  For me, this is a very big and important plus for Obama, and suggests to me that he really understands the potential role of technology in political and national reform.

While I think this logic and strategy is very compelling, I can understand harboring doubts about whether Obama has the personal attributes to pull this off as the "leader" of such a coalition. 

I'm not free of such doubts myself.  But, as I've begun to study him more closely, those doubts are getting smaller not bigger, with the possible exception being that the media's influence will help turn the groundswell of support for Obama into something truly idiotic, disempowering and trivial, just as it has done with most every "social movement" it has covered. 

The other thing I'll be watching for is how well Obama responds to the adulatory attention he's getting and, assuming it comes, the blowback he'll receive at some point(s) from various quarters. 

My sense is that he probably is grounded, skilled and savvy enough to handle this reasonably well (and to move up the learning curve without fatal errors). 

And given what he aims to accomplish, that ability (actually a mix of different abilities) will be key, not only to his success in the primary and general election, but to the success of what I believe is one of his key goals--to achieve a long-term progressive realignment that moves well beyond a 51/49 split of the popular vote and an environment in which DC Republicans remain able to destructively game the legislative and electoral systems without feeling enough public pressure to threaten their political survival.

---

by: mitchipd @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 17:41:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Whatever comfort I was gaining,,, (0.00 / 0)

A coalition of the religious is not good, and there is a huge difference in the candidates.  Obama is an insider just like Clinton. I think it is funny that people want change; and yet, they are voting for those same people who keep funding the war, keeping their powder dry, and passing more trade deals.

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

---

by: dkmich @ Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 04:40:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

If you knew (0.00 / 0)

It wouldn't really be a risk.

One potential reward that I see is Obama creating a landslide with coattails to the degree that neither Edwards or Clinton are capable of providing.

I do question the ability of progressives to rise to the occasion and provide direction for the coalition that Obama might built, but I think that says more about the leadership abilities of the current class of progressive politicians than it does about Obama's campaign.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 18:17:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The conspiratorial asshole in me is wondering if it's all just Peter Daou. (4.00 / 1)

Meaning, a stray comment that someone left somewhere (I honestly can't remember where) indicated that the Hillary campaign (Edwards too, but especially Hillary) was extremely good at feeding these "Obama is using right-wing frames" arguments to the big bloggers over the last four weeks before Iowa.  Things like "Ohmigod Obama said trial lawyer" got blown up into front page posts on every blog.  And the particular argument that Obama was "running from the right" or "attacking from the right" (as opposed to the much older argument that his fuzzy bipartisan rhetoric was worthless or worse) might have been created and pumped up by Hillary's people, and the distinct tilt away from Obama that happened in the last two weeks might have been due mostly to the fact that Hillary's people were really good at working this angle with the bloggers.

One, this doesn't apply to Open Left.  Stoller and Bowers have each had their own peculiar and very-well-developed rationales for evaluating candidates for months now. 

Two, it isn't necessarily a bad thing.  What it means is that Hillary and Edwards were working the netroots hard, which is to say, communicating with them deliberately and continually, while Obama was not.  That's a choice on his part and he's not really an innocent victim if he suffers for it.

Three, it would be damn interesting to know how much of an effect this actually had.  If Obama had next-to-zero netroots outreach and that's why he 1) never locked them up early and 2) lost them late, that would be interesting.  I don't think Obama could ever have locked up the bloggers or the readers early, because his postpartisan shit is just not our shit.  And he was probably likely to be second to Edwards online all along, because Edwards for his own reasons speaks the fighting words we like to hear, and Obama for his own reasons doesn't.  (As BooMan pointed out, combative black people tend not to go too far.)  So this outcome was probably likely regardless of outreach.  But if Hillary and Peter Daou kept the netroots from directly attacking her much, and got them to directly attack Obama somewhat more than they were likely to otherwise, and Obama elected not to fight back on the same terms in the same arena, that's interesting I think.

---

by: texas dem @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 16:38:12 PM CST

There were nine primary candidates (4.00 / 3)

  And all of them drew at least SOME support from prominent Democratic bloggers. Obama was one of them.

  What, we were all supposed to unequivocally worship at the altar of Barack Obama from Day One? We're Democrats. We're a big tent. We have different tastes in what makes a strong candidate.

  Do we criticize Obama? Absolutely. We criticize his strategies, his statements, and his actions when we feel they're counterproductive to the goal of gaining a progressive Democratic majority in Washington next year. And we have good reasons to -- DLCitis is a proven election LOSER. And we want to WIN.

  But it's a long, long way from "Obama's reinforcing right-wing narratives on Social Security and we really wish he'd stop" to "Obama sucks and we'd never support him".

  I'm excited about Barack Obama. He's a unique, vibrant, dynamic candidate. And Lord knows we need anything BUT cookie-cutter candidates. But I reserve the right to criticize him when he makes a misguided statement or policy proposal. That's what debate is all about.

  I am an Edwards supporter. I thought his statement on Clinton's episode yesterday was callous and chauvinistic. Will it make me stop supporting him? No. But I support him. I don't idolize him. Neither do I idolize Obama.

  Blind sycophancy is for right-wingers.

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

---

by: Master Jack @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 16:39:37 PM CST

my opinion (4.00 / 1)

I think no small part of the frustration with the "frontpagers" on OpenLeft, MyDD and DailyKos is that they all tried to claim that they didn't support anyone. Then, at the same time, they would all write posts that were clearly and substantially biased for or against particular candidates.  Edwards in particular got more positive posts, but it was all the anti-Obama posts, especially on MyDD that really upset the Obama supporters, myself included.  If it was pointed out that the posts were biased, the comments were always some variation of: (1) "here comes the Obama apologists" (2) "Great diary, you really tell the truth like no one else does" (3) "I criticize all candidates if they step out of line" (with no evidence or discussion of frequency) (4) "Obama supporters are sheep.  Excitement for a candidate is bad." (5) "How could I be biased, I haven't endorsed"

Bloggers do best when they serve as fact-checkers, keep relevant stories alive that would die in the mainstream press otherwise, and share insights into process or tactics.  They are not kingmakers and will never be.  Sure there is a small group of people that read blogs and get caught up in the support for one candidate or another, but they are few and far between.  Most blog readers are intelligent, well-informed, and politically active individuals who are quite capable of both seeing through disingenuous attacks and making up their own mind. 

---

by: BobbyWallace @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 16:42:49 PM CST

good post (4.00 / 1)

Debunking this dumb meme NOW is important, especially considering I have to assume that if Obama wins the nomination, Versailles will sing in harmony that it's a massive loss for the destructively partisan and single-minded progressive blogosphere, which bitterly opposed him every step of the way.

Shades of 2006, where, if I remember correctly, the big winners were not Democrats, but moderates, conservatives, and glorious bipartisanship.

---

by: dave marley @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 16:59:12 PM CST

I think it might be pessimism about Obama's chances (0.00 / 0)

When reading blogs, I got the feeling that progressive bloggers tended to feel that the Obama bubble would burst.  After all, Howard Dean once seemed to have unstoppable poll numbers and look how he ended up.  We still see that sentiment with some bloggers who think that Obama will wither under a full frontal assault from the Republican noise machine.

It feels like the progressive blogosphere downplays Obama's political chances some times.  Reporters probably interpret that as the sort of non-negative negativism that they hear from political operatives.  It's an assumption that progressive bloggers use the same code-speak of the D.C. establishment.  (Cue someone commenting on the Versailles consensus.)

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 17:05:46 PM CST

Not Personal (4.00 / 1)

The thing that stands out to me about this netroots/Obama lovin' question is that its very very easy to confuse the person with the strategy and political stances.

For instance the other week when Markos took Obama to task about using right-wing talking points- that could be said to show that kos was anti-Obama, right?  Honestly that's an understandable intrepretation even if it happens to not be exactly true, the truth being that kos likes (if I remember) Dodd the most and is undecided between Obama and Edwards at this point.

I guess its easy to take criticism of a stance or tactic as criticism of a person.

Another thing that probably gets people to thinking that the netroots is anti-Obama is the fact that so many of the front pagers here or on kos or at MyDD or FDL etc. are real political junkies and political junkies tend to be more cautious in their projections than the average citizen.  As a consequence, now that Obama has the big Mo on his side theres the tendency of many people to say he's all but won the nomination and presidency and political junkies saying "not so fast my friend!" serves to just rile the other folks up and gets them to accuse you of being anti-Obama.  Sometimes you can't win for losin' but hey you guys- the front pagers- have to accept that type of backlash. (I notice that The Fix gets the same backlash.)

A final word is that regardless of how you, Chris, or any other of the major front pager bloggers care to define the liberal blogosphere, you guys and gals are the face.  Doesn't make any difference that there are thousands and thousands of us writing behind you off the front page or on other smaller blogs; you are the prominent ones.
That's not gonna change anytime soon, just like the fact that now that the presidential primary season has started its overwhelmed most other political stories on this website.  The blogosphere is not an non-hierarchical place thouh its less extreme than most.

All of which is to say- keep writing what you want. A TON of what you write is bound to be misinterpreted regardless of what you say. If the rest of us don't like it we'll go away.  If we like it- and we do obviously- we'll stay.  Me?  I love it here even when I disagree with some stuff that is written.

---

by: Taran @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 17:06:17 PM CST

Very Astute All Down The Line (0.00 / 0)

Maybe you should send those guys a crib sheet?

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

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 17:51:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I speak for the "others" (0.00 / 0)

Chris, you may not speak for the liberal blogosphere but I do. I say that all of the liberal blogs are against Obama. Seriously, it should be noted that whoever is perpetuating this meme only furthers the idea that Obama is appealling to all those "indipendents." Although factually incorrect this helps the idea that he's creating a new coalition. Which he is, it's just not with the odious independents but new Democrats. 

---

by: pallewog @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 17:08:53 PM CST

frontpagers vs diarists (0.00 / 0)

To me whats interesting is the fact that Obama has a lot of support on the netroots, but not nearly as many frontpagers. 

The Obama frontpager on Openleft for example was run off fairly quickly after she posted some reconciliation stuff. 

I think its an example of the fact that Obama's style doesn't work as well over the blogs where being rude and unreasonable tends to be easier.

Though the forums I have seen seem to tend to favor Obama.  So I think it is the style of the software that matters.

---

by: Astera @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 18:05:16 PM CST

Details (0.00 / 0)

To me the most telling, under-reported detail of the Iowa caucuses was this: Entrance polls showed that among returning caucusers, Edwards won. Obama won because so many new caucusers voted, and so many of them supported him, that it tipped the scales in his favor.

So to me this "frontpagers vs diarists" split is really just reflecting the split, so to speak, between "returning caucusers" and "new caucusers". The frontpagers-- more or less by definition, right? It takes awhile to build a blog-- are people who've been into this for awhile. They've been following politics at least long enough to have been blogging the 2006 elections and almost certainly 2004 as well. They're dedicated to a particular idea of what the Democratic party should be-- the idea everyone finally converged on in 2006, say. The returning caucusers love Edwards. He does, and says, almost everything someone supporting that particular idea of the Democratic Party could want. And although this may not influence their decisions, most of these "returning caucusers", at least in the blogosphere, probably know who Joe Trippi is and have a specific awareness of what he is doing at this moment.

The diarists-- i.e., the readerbase-- are, well, a bigger proportion of them are probably "new caucusers". They're, well, new at this. Little symbolic, or historical things-- like what mirrors a relatively obscure political spat about Social Security from 2005, say-- will maybe not weigh as heavily on their minds. They're probably less clear on a specific conception of what the Democratic Party should be, and probably more clear on the idea that they don't like the Democratic Party they've been seeing-- a Democratic Party more represented by the Harry Reids and the John Kerrys, than the Howard Deans and Nancy Pelosis-- and they want something different. Obama makes a good case at promising that.

Maybe the "returning caucusers" have invested more into the John Edwards vision of the Democrats-- they've put a lot of effort into one particular vision of the Democratic Party, and maybe it's hard to accept anything that goes against that vision even if it's a good idea. Or maybe the returning caucusers just care more in general, whereas the new caucusers lack commitment and haven't really thought about, say, social security as much as they should have. The difference between these two groups is so slight it can't possibly be described as "generational"-- on the blogosphere we're talking about, have you been involved for two years or five years, heavily involved anyway. But the change in perspective from whether you were coming in four years ago versus now is significant, and I think you can see that in the blogosphere just as you can in the returning vs new caucusers results in Iowa.

Just a guess.

---

by: mcc @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 19:31:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Two kinds of blogosphere denizens (4.00 / 2)

What I am about to write contains no concrete facts. It is based on my own anecdotal evidence and I'm not even going to try to convince you that it's reliable or statistically significant.

With that said, I'd suggest that the fundamental division between partisans of Edwards and Obama was in their attitude towards the concept of a movement.

Edwards supporters appear to put the idea of the movement above the candidate. They're more likely to be strong advocates of economic justice and long-term realignment. Many of them take a very broad historical viewpoint, and it seems to be mostly the Edwards-aligned members of the blogosphere who are likely to namedrop FDR or LaFollette.

Edwards appeals to this group partly because he's all about the core constituencies, especially organised labor. He embraced the progressive netroots apparatus that grew up out of Dean's campaign. His use of ActBlue, though it appears to have screwed him slightly, was a sign of his interest in infrastructure.

With Obama supporters, I get the impression that the candidate embodies the movement. It's about sudden change, it's about new demographics coming of age, it's about a new generation helping to fix the mistakes of previous ones. There's less emphasis on nuts-and-bolts organisation, more on boots on the ground and optimism.

To oversimplify grossly, Edwards embraced the organisations that grew out of the remnants of the Dean campaign. Whereas Obama has tried to create the Dean campaign 2.0. The tension is unsurprising - one is about consolidation of gains and expansion upon them. The other thinks that one big push will do it and that it does not necessarily have to build on previous gains.

Of course, this analysis doesn't cover everything. I still haven't figured out where Clinton supporters fit - they may not even be a single typological category. In addition there was movement between Obama and Edwards - both of the models I've tried to summarise have attractions and the actions of the campaigns influenced straw polls heavily (McClurkin etc).

And Dodd's meteoric rises and falls in the straw polls demonstrates that a) support was fluid and rather fickle, b) nobody has a monopoly on outreach to the media and c) attitudes in the blogosphere cannot survive contact with an utterly different world outside our computer screens - all Dodd's oxygen here couldn't make him catch fire on the campaign trail.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 18:33:36 PM CST

Dodd's rise and fall (0.00 / 0)

was a thank you from the masses.  Otherwise, I agree with everything you said. 

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

---

by: dkmich @ Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 04:48:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Working the Refs (0.00 / 0)

I've always thought a lot of the "anti-Obama" charges was just that (Plus good ol' fashioned anti-Clinton paranoia/hysteria).  It works.  Even I started holding my fire when co-workers of mine, who supported Obama, started shrieking, "You're a Hillary supporter, aren't you?!"  Uh, no.

---

by: Patrickson @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 20:00:26 PM CST