A Congress to Help Obama End this War

by: Matt Stoller

Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:23


So I've moved from neutral, to tepid, to a warmer embrace of Obama over the past six months for a whole variety of reasons.  It's everything from his recognition that a panel on the mortgage crisis needs to include actual includes consumer advocates to his promise to open up government to his speech on race.  I am not particularly fond of liberal internationalism at this point and I could nitpick this to death.

What our job as progressives should be over the next eight months is to help Obama win, and win as a progressive.  That means helping take his message and his candidacy and using it to build a whole generation of Democratic activists and office-holders who will sweep into power on his coattails.  That's why we're pushing Blue Majority candidates hard this week for the end of the quarter, and why I gave to four of them yesterday

If you can afford it, you should give as well.

We don't just need to elect Obama to change our Cuba policy, we need a Joe Garcia in Florida to win on changing it.  That is the only way to beat back Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  We don't just need Obama to end the war, we need Darcy Burner, Eric Massa, Donna Edwards, and Leslie Byrne to get elected with a mandate to get it done.  And we can't just talk about Obama appealing to all 50 states, we have to get progressives Gary Trauner and Charlie Brown elected in Republican districts.

The money we put up now is smart money.  The $50 you throw in for a candidate shows them that they are doing the right thing by running as proud Democrats on core progressive values.

So give deep, I guarantee you will be proud of the difference you make this cycle.  It's really a once in a lifetime chance.
Matt Stoller :: A Congress to Help Obama End this War

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
A Congress to Help Obama End this War | 25 comments
Great post (0.00 / 0)
I am going over to give some geld.

OT...Hillary wanted to block Nixon impeachment, the vetting continues

http://www.opednews.com/articl...

A process of elimination (0.00 / 0)
Where I stand at the moment is that Hillary Clinton pretty much eliminated herself from contention in recent weeks by her proven falsehoods regarding her position on NAFTA and Bosnia.

Rough and tumble electoral races are one thing but false assertions on the campaign trail that are disproved by videos, written documents and then the candidate's own retractions are disqualifying.

So I guess we have to support the far from perfect Obama by default since there is no one else who meets the minimum bar of integrity of being able to distinguish fact from fiction.

I agree with Matt that we have to see beyond Obama's presidential candidacy to the election as a whole. Most importantly, we have to elect a Congress that is going to translate our support into the progressive policies we want and need.

This will only happen if we progressives dig into our pockets and support progressive candidates around the country with the dough they need to win.

To the extent that Obama's momentum translates into enough coat-tails to elect a Congress that is controlled by progressives, the election will be a water-shed, realigning election even if Obama sits tight in his right of center slot to head off McCain's disingenuous efforts to appeal to Independents.

This is the winning ticket and strategy at this point.

Charlie Brown was at EENR Blog Last Night (4.00 / 2)
And did a live blog there.  Here's the URL if anyone is interested in reading the comments.

http://www.eenrblog.com/showDi...

EENR Blog is expecting more candidates to drop by and live blog as well in the next few weeks and months.  Edwards Democrats are more committed to getting better Democrats in the House and Senate.

I agree with Matt that if a Dem is in the WH (at this point it may be Obama, but who knows), we need a progressive Congress and Senate to help push the agenda.  And if McCain is in the WH, we need a progressive Senate and Congress to push back.  

All about division (0.00 / 0)
It isn't enough to suggest that the congressional races are starved for cash because of the attention paid to the presidential race.  Instead, you focus not on beating Republicans, but on "beating back" Schultz (a Democrat).  I've never seen anyone quite as divisive as the Obama supporters on the net.  

An important point (0.00 / 0)
Joe Garcia, Darcy Burner, Eric Massa, Donna Edwards, Leslie Byrne, Gary Trauner and Charlie Brown are all Democrats.  Running against Republicans.  This was a post about Democrats beating Republicans.
[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
but the article just couldn't resist taking a gratuitous swipe against a Democrat.

[ Parent ]
She deserves it (0.00 / 0)
There's no excuse for not wholeheartedly backing good Democrats against bad Republicans (and isn't that what we're here for?), and she had no problem supporting Ron Klein against Clay Shaw, so it stinks of hypocrisy as well.  
[ Parent ]
Missing the point.... (0.00 / 0)
The point isn't whether you like Schultz, or I like Schultz.

The point is that the post couldn't focus on defeating Republicans, without continuing a war within the Democratic party.

My personal view is that the left blogging community is becoming increasingly divisive and McCarthyite.  

[ Parent ]
McCarthyism is (4.00 / 2)
A witch hunt against those who aren't blindly loyal, with loyalty being the end goal.

The end goal of challenging Schultz and her philosophy of non-engagement is removing obstacles to building a better society.  We won't end the war if we don't replace Republicans with good Democrats, and we also won't pass meaningful health care legislation, move to clean energy or reinstate labor protections.

These are the goals - not blind, McCarthite loyalty.

[ Parent ]
I'll also add (4.00 / 1)
That the blogging community's problem with Schultz is that she WON'T work to defeat Republicans, which you claim is your first priority.

As someone singularly invested in defeating Republicans, don't you have a problem with a DCCC official who doesn't share your goal?

[ Parent ]
Except, as usual, (0.00 / 0)
it's not really that simple.  Schultz is working to defeat Republicans.  She just isn't making campaign appearances with the candidates that certain bloggers want her to.  That fits with my impression that the blogosphere is McCarthyite.  She's entitled to her own opinions, and can allocate her resources as she pleases.  The blogosphere wants a PUBLIC PROCLAMATION of support for a certain candidate from her, without explaining whether it will even make any difference, and without any regard for her personal opinion in the matter, or how she perceives it will affect her ability to do her real job, which is legislating, not campaigning.  Why should there be a cry for her to march out in public and salute a particular candidate if she believes it is against her constitutents' best interests to do so?
[ Parent ]
The difference in principle here (4.00 / 1)
Is the conflict between these two ideas:

1. Schultz, in her capacity of heading the Red to Blue program, should go all-out for every Democratic challenger, including those in her home state
2. Schultz should be able to work for some Democratic challengers but not others, at her discretion

You advocate #2.  Kos and others advocate #1.  That's not McCarthyism.  It is a legitimate disagreement - good divisive.

[ Parent ]
What position (0.00 / 0)
does Kos hold on the Red to Blue program? To the best of my knowledge he doesn't define its objectives.  If those who work with Schultz on the Red to Blue program had an issue with how she was implementing the goals, that might be legitimate.  But Kos just wants to dictate how others speak and think.  Schultz doesn't give lip service to his candidates, and so she must be brought down.  
[ Parent ]
re: What position? (0.00 / 0)
The position of constituent and citizen.
[ Parent ]
kanzeon's whole screed in this (0.00 / 0)
longwinded, bloviating thread is that no one with a "D" after their name can be criticized.  What utter horse shit!  By the way, kanzeon, divisive isn't a nasty word, believe it or not.  The concept that you have to support an elected official because they belong to your party works ONLY in general elections.  Following along mindlessly and automating your political decisions leads directly to the establishment of hierarchical paternalism--- whose most destructive exemplar at present is Repigism.  Feinstein is a Democrat. Reid is a Democrat.  Pelosi is a Democrat.  Should we let them do whatever they want, regardless of how abysmally bad their decisions are, just because they once won a Democratic primary?  kanzeon's attitude toward this is just another form of fanaticism.

Democrats are almost always better than Repigs.  But all Democrats are not the same, and progressives have perfectly valid reasons for wanting to replace Blue Dogs with progressives.

[ Parent ]
Leslie Byrne has a primary (4.00 / 1)
But she's still the best candidate, and needs the money before the primary.  It is not just about more Democrats, but better Democrats.

These folks are all worth supporting, and I have given to all of them at one time or another.  I do think that some need the money more than Darcy Burner (or Donna Edwards) at this point.  There are ways to show love and appreciation beyond giving money.

How about adding Annette Taddeo (FL-18)?  Bill O'Neill (OH-14)?  Neither has a primary.  

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
It's about more than races (4.00 / 1)
It's about the right races.  More and better Democrats is the unofficial motto of the leftist blogging community.

There's good divisive and bad divisive.  Demanding that the chair of the Red to Blue program actually fulfill her duties is good divisive because it calls out a negative force within the party.

[ Parent ]
That speaks volumes, doesn't it? (0.00 / 0)
Divisive is good when I do it.  That's standing for principle.  Divisive is bad when someone else does it.  That's causing fights for no reason except blind partisanship and capitulating to the poisonous culture of Washington.

Sounds strangely Bush-like, to my ears.

[ Parent ]
No it's not (0.00 / 0)
"Blind partisanship" is letting principles be swallowed by devotion to the Democratic Party.  I think that's the real problem with the "culture of Washington": letting Jay Rockefeller press for telecom immunity just because he's a Democrat.

It has to be about principles first.  I mean, why be involved in politics if you're not fighting for principles?  Causing fights for your principles is okay, even if you're fighting within your own party.  If standing up for what you believe in ends up being divisive, then that's good divisive.

For example, if you disagree with me on a matter of principle and we argue about it, then you are being good divisive.

[ Parent ]
The problem with this... (0.00 / 0)
is that it is entirely subjective.  Everything time anyone chooses a fight, he or she will declare a principle.  Then a certain group of voters will agree with the fight is over principle, and another group will decide it's politics as usual.
[ Parent ]
This will happen if we are intellectually dishonest (0.00 / 0)
Which we don't necessarily need to be.
[ Parent ]
um (4.00 / 1)
The comment was about Schultz's position on Cuba, which hurts millions of Cubans and denies thousands in Miami the right to visit their families.

Sometimes policy disagreements happen within the party.

[ Parent ]
Confusion on my part: (4.00 / 1)
I'm not sure if you're arguing in bad faith, or if you genuinely just don't get it.

More and BETTER Democrats. Why would we spare the head of Red to Blue when she refuses to do her job and back Dem challengers to the hilt?

The Democratic Party is a big tent, but that doesn't mean everybody should pretend we all get along. Firstly, that's absurdly impractical, secondly such a policy will never be observed by the Shulers and Borens of the party and thirdly there are serious disagreements on important issues.

Debbie Wasserman Schulz generally votes the right way, but she isn't committed to removing entrenched Republicans whose policies are harmful to America and the wider world and replacing them with Democrats who can establish a lasting progressive majority. The blogosphere is committed to that aim. It's a fair disagreement and there absolutely no reason to pretend it isn't there.

And for fuck's sake, stop trying to remove any remaining meaning from the term McCarthyism.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
This household rebate - all $2100... (4.00 / 2)
...goes to Darcy Burner, et al and their Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. NO SHOPPING!!!

We need to set Nancy Pelosi free, replace those Blue Dogs, build a new results oriented Senate (hormones, maybe?), and move on to new challenges. With either McCain or Obama in the presidency, Congress will need to take the lead and that means new faces with real values and the ability to produce results for the common good on day-1.
 

Exactly (0.00 / 0)
With this in mind I started the Obamajority last night. I forgot to post it on OL but here is the kos post:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

I added Rick Noriega, Darcy Burner and Patrick Murphy for a start mostly to send a Iraq related message. Rick be the first person in the Senate who had actually served in the Middle East, Murphy sent a message in 06 and we need to keep him and Darcy will bring her leadership.

Joe Garcia has a great post on Cuba up at DWT and I hear rumors that he will be livblogging here tomorow? He will probably be among the next roll-out of canidates. Obama and Garcia also make a great team:

title=

I think canidates who send a real message are the ones we need to be focusing on. Garcia, Burner, Massa, Edwards, Noriega, Trauner, Brown, Tom Perriello and others.

For anyone interested in the DWT post here it is:
http://downwithtyranny.blogspo...

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

A Congress to Help Obama End this War | 25 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