Why It's Important to Note that Obama is NOT Liberal or Progressive

by: Matt Stoller

Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 19:52


Over the past few days, I've been pushing out an idea through the media that Obama is not a liberal or progressive.  I think it's an important point to get out there, and even though I am a supporter of Obama and a liberal, I do not think it really suits Obama or liberals to consider him one of ours (this was true for Hillary as well, who like Obama is fairly centrist).  In a post called the Immunity Hysteria, ardent Obama supporter Larry Lessig mocks Obama supporters who thought that Obama was a strong liberal:

You can't read Obama's books, watch how he behaved in the Illinois Senate, and watched how he voted in the US Senate, and believe he is a Bernie Sanders liberal. He is not now, and nor has ever been. That's not to say there aren't issues on which he takes a liberal position. It is to say that the mix of views he actually has and has had doesn't map on a 1970s spectrum of liberals to conservative. He is not, for example, "against the market," as so many on the left still make it sound like they are. He is for same-sex marriage. So if you're upset with Obama because you see him shifting, you should actually be upset with yourself that you have been so careless in understanding the politics of this candidate.

Obama is not for same sex marriage, but aside from that, Lessig is correct.  Obama has a mixture of views and should not be characterizes as a liberal.  Consider:

Matt Stoller :: Why It's Important to Note that Obama is NOT Liberal or Progressive

  • Obama agrees that states banning late term abortions is perfectly reasonable, and that mental health exceptions shouldn't just be about women feeling 'blue'.

  • Obama believes that the FISA bill legalizing warrantless wiretapping and granting immunity to telecom firms that engaged in criminal activity was a good compromise.

  • Obama wants to expand the size and budget of the Pentagon.

  • Obama believes that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization.

  • Obama believes that promising to rewrite NAFTA was just overheated campaign rhetoric.

  • Obama wants to keep residual troops in Iraq to fight terrorism.

Now there are many liberal policies that Obama believes in as well.

  • Obama is seeking universal health care.

  • Obama is seeking 7 days of paid sick leave all across the country.

  • Obama's current position is that he will end the war in Iraq by removing combat troops, and that he will engage Iran in aggressive diplomacy.

  • Obama is a strong advocate of net neutrality, universal broadband, and a diversified media structure.

  • Obama supports the Employee Free Choice Act and wants a more progressive tax code.

I could list more on both sides of the ledger, but you get the point.  He is not a right-winger, but he is not particularly liberal.  And that's the kind of government to expect him to bring in 2009.

As a liberal who thinks we are in a crisis moment in our politics, I believe that this kind of government is destined to run into serious troubles, much as this centrist muddle of a Congress has dropped to an approval rating of 9%, worse than the GOP Congress of 2004-2006.  You cannot nibble around the edges of our deep systemic problems.  There are conservative solutions to our problems, like more drilling, war, a surveillance state and depression, and there are progressive solutions, like an end to the war on terror and the war on drugs, an end to the surveillance state, a move to sustainable food, industry, development, and media systems.  Both carry immense amounts of pain, neither is guaranteed to work, both offer a different set of winners and losers, and they each reflect different views of human nature.  People try to do the right thing if given the opportunity versus people cannot be trusted and respond only to force and propaganda.  

That's the choice, and progressives basically have chosen the former.  But notice that tthere is no centrist solution to peak oil or climate change.  You can't cut the baby in half, someone is going to have to reduce oil and coal consumption by a lot.  Change is coming in a big way; in fact radicalism since 2000 and a broad internet revolution shows that change has been here for quite awhile, though nothing like what we will see.

As a liberal, I believe that if Obama comes in and implements a bunch of muddled centrist policies, proposing tax cuts to deal with poverty and an expanded military and entitlement reform along with a weird convoluted health care reform, he will fail because basic liberal ideas like accountability, oversight, and integrity in leadership will not be embedded into our institutions.  The rich have left us with a massive bill in the form of an intractable trade deficit, national debt, and oil addiction, and someone's going to pay it.  If it's the public instead of the people who ran up the country's credit cards (take a look at the nation's billionaires), it's going to make a lot of people much angrier than they are right now.  

This anger will go somewhere; right now anger is going against Bush, but he's out of the picture come 2009, though we can kick his corpse for a few years or so if Democrats act smartly (which they won't).  If Obama's centrist policies fail, and he is considered a big government liberal or progressive, the public will reject liberalism and progressivism, as it has for the last forty years.  But this will not be a result of disliking progressive ideas, but as a result of believing that bad centrist ideas are progressive ideas.

So, as liberals who believe in a different vision for America than Obama, it's important that Obama's centrist policy sympathies are blamed for what goes wrong when he takes over and screws up the country worse than it is right now, which we'll notice after our honeymoon of hoorays some time after the transition.  We should not want him to make policies in the name of liberalism unless they are actually liberal policies.  America tends to get the right answer after trying everything else first, and this period is no different.  After trying out a disastrous top-down financialized conservative framework, the DC elites are moving to more centrist top-down period of transition, much as they did after Bush the first.  Just as the 2007-2009 Democratic Congress failed utterly in stopping the war in Iraq or setting us on a different energy future, kicking the can to the next President, the next President is going to try to avoid big ideological fights as post-ideological change agent.

When the next President runs into trouble, he can either turn to the left and we can be there with political support and real solutions, or he can either turn on the left and pretend like his trouble is coming from him not passing enough FISA-like actions.  I'd far prefer the former to the latter, but a liberal opposition strategy - as the 'loyal opposition' within the party, makes sense.  Obama isn't ours, he never was, and we shouldn't pretend he is or else we are throwing away the opportunity to have real progressive policies enacted sometime over the next few years.

One you absorb this state of affairs, it's a fairly optimistic path forward.  All of the work going into getting Obama elected is helping to build the progressive movement and teaching millions of people to get involved, give money, run for office, etc.  These people have progressive sympathies and are attaching themselves to important political networks.  Some of them paid attention to FISA who were not paying attention in 2006, which is good.  The network is just bigger and stronger.

We have a variety of problems in the progressive movement, but several of them are changing quickly.  The 50 state strategy has reshaped the party apparatus and grassroots, and the homogenized boomer white leadership structure is changing quite quickly both racially and generationally this cycle.  That is exceptionally good.  There's a lot of work to do yet, including building much stronger links with elements of the corporate world and a renewed need for strong gender diversification, but at a certain point, the progressive movement will be big enough to regularly influence and even change policy.  And then we're going to be able to proactively shape the agenda of all politicians.

So work for Obama, help him get elected, but realize that he doesn't and will never share our values.  And we shouldn't try to pretend that he is the progressive we wish he were, since he's a politician, and politicians go where power is.  And he's decided that power is not with the liberals.  That's fine.  But it's important, as people who believe that liberal ideas work, that Obama be understood as who he is, not as who we wish he were.  I have tried to broadcast this message over the past few days, but first, I'll make a caveat most of us on this site will recognize.

Caveat: We want to make it very clear that criticism or analysis of Obama is not intended as a repudiation of support for Obama.  He's a far superior candidate to McCain, a better person, and will be a much better President.  Second, we are not really making an argument that Obama's recent moves will hurt him in this election.  They may or they may not.  It really doesn't matter what any of us think about his campaign, he's chosen his path, perhaps because he did not think there was a viable progressive alternative or perhaps because he's more of a Jimmy Carter good government Democrat than a liberal populist.  Regardless, we don't think this is a sudden swing to the center for him, he has always broadcast his politics as centrist and post-partisan in nature.  We don't feel betrayed, because we always took him at his word that he saw incivility and not conservatives as our major political problem.  We saw him support Lieberman in 2006, and we listened when he praised Reagan for bringing optimism back to American politics.

We support him, even though we disagree with his political outlook and policy positions.  

Over the past few days I've made a number of public statements in various traditional media outlets about the ideological nature of the government we'll see in 2009 to highlight this distinction.

  • I headlined the Brave New Films campaign petition drop asking Joe Lieberman to be stripped of his powers within the Democratic caucus come 2009, which includes the Chairmanship of the Government Reform and Homeland Security Committee which he would no doubt use to undermine Obama's attempted withdrawal from IRaq.

  • I was quoted in the Washington Post today saying that an Obama victory will be a victory for "centrist government".  Last night, I was on Al Jazeera and was asked about what progressives had in common with Barack Obama.  My response was "not much", and that he's just a politician and needs to be pushed.

  • I visited and grilled Kevin Powell, a primary challenger to corrupt corporate Democrat Ed Towns, to see if he is worth supporting.

What all of these statements have in common is a belief that the 2009-2011 government will not be liberal or progressive, but will by and large be a mixture of the recent FISA bill and the recent Medicare bill.  The Democrats will move progressive legislation around the edges, but corporate interests will hold a good amount of power (such as capital gain cuts for entrepreneurial businesses, a venture capitalist dream).  Progressives and Ron Paul libertarian types will have a bit more access, but we will still be a largely marginalized group because there just isn't enough power or sophistication within our movement to get much more.  Smart organizing campaigns, like the FISA fight, will originate from outside DC, and will lose far more often than they win, but progressive movement actors will continue to get better and stronger and at some point will break through to the mainstream.

So let's keep going in the direction we're headed in.  It's working, but it is also going to be a real slog.  And it's not worth it to pretend otherwise.


Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Hasn't this been a concern all along? (4.00 / 6)
That nobody had a clear handle on what all he stood for in a broadly ideological or narrow policy sense and so seized on hope and presumed that everyone was hoping in the same direction and for the same things?

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

Yep. (4.00 / 1)
And people with radically different viewpoints looked at different tea leaves and saw whatever they wanted to see.

[ Parent ]
JRE (0.00 / 0)
And this was the big criticism of Obama that we Edwards supporters had.  His fundamental approach to politics necessarily leads to centrism.

Edwards was clear about where he was on pretty much everything.  Obama was clear that he was pro-hope.  Now that we're finding things out, I know a lot of liberals and progressives with egg on their faces.


[ Parent ]
Well (4.00 / 2)
"I told you so" really doesn't help anything at this point. So the next step is figuring out what to do with a candidate who, more and more, is acting like he just wants to win the popularity contest. Regardless of the ultimate vote, the MyBO FISA group seems like a good start.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
I was an Edwards supporter, too.  But what Feingold said about Edwards was true -- look at how he voted and what he supported when he was actually in the Senate.  What we were supporting was the rhetoric Edwards was using to try to win Democratic primaries.

[ Parent ]
this was the basic campaign strategy of axelrod... (4.00 / 1)
and wasn't kept particularly secret.  making a candidate/personality based appeal allows a candidate to attract a broader base of support than making an issues based appeal, as evidenced by the primary.  it's pretty simple really.  

now, that doesn't mean that the candidate, and eventually their white house, won't have distinct policy agendas.  however, ferreting out what those will be is a difficult task, and it seems like we are finally getting to the point where that discussion can happen in a relatively un-polarized fashion.  


[ Parent ]
Which is why our strategy as voters/supporters (4.00 / 1)
and definitely the press's strategy, should be to force those issues and positions to come out of the candidate's mouths.  

I'm also thinking that part of the reason why Wright was as effective of an attack as he was had to do with the way that Obama avoided definitive statements on things, so then, people were able to "reveal the REAL Obama"


[ Parent ]
Yes and No (4.00 / 2)
One BIG No: he was against the Iraq war before it started. For me, this was the big difference between him and Edwards and Hillary. And it will pay off this November after Obama has three months to pummel McCain on his various Iraq stances and his neo-con impulses.

Obama has many flaws, but he talks consistently about ending the war in Iraq (yes, with large asterisk, depending upon residual forces) and also consistently about a new path on energy and covering most of the population with health care. Is he as progressive as I am on any of these issues? Almost certainly not.

But let's not pretend there was NO difference in narrow policy terms between the candidates (if not broad ideological things). Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. That was the sum total of my decision to vote for him -- the hope that his instincts and his foreign policy team had the best chance of effectuating a real foreign policy change in the next administration.


[ Parent ]
he wasn't in the senate when it started (0.00 / 0)
so it was pretty easy for him to be against it.  not that that doesn't make him a sensible citizen, but I don't know exactly what he would have done as a sitting senator.

[ Parent ]
You're right about that (0.00 / 0)
Comparing the Obama's rhetoric and to votes by Edwards, Clinton, or any other congress critter is not the best way to discern intent.

But that simply does not change the fact that the US Congress, especially those in the alleged opposition party, completely dropped the ball on the AUMF in the rush to invade Iraq. The very concept of the AUMF resolution was a mistake, let alone voting for it without actually considering the contents of the NIE.  It was an abication of Congressional duty.

That was the hole that Clinton, Edwards, and the rest of the enablers dug for themselves and, from my perspective, none of them has managed to climb out of it.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
precious mark twain quotes (4.00 / 1)
"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress."

"The lightning there is peculiar; it is so convincing, that when it strikes a thing it doesn't leave enough of that thing behind for you to tell whether--Well, you'd think it was something valuable, and a Congressman had been there."

"All Congresses and Parliaments have a kindly feeling for idiots, and a compassion for them, on account of personal experience and heredity."

"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."

there's more :)

anyway, yeah - my point was only that comparing apples and apples is only fair; state senators from illinois are oranges, even when they have grander ambitions for the future.


[ Parent ]
Thank You (4.00 / 4)
For so lucidly outlining the situation.  I think you are 100% correct on every point here.  Many of us have had this notion for a while, but you are putting it in words better than anyone else has.

I think the netroots needs to work its ass to the bone over the next few years electing better Democrats to Congress.  That's the missing piece that we need in the puzzle that is fixing this country.  We need LOTS more better Democrats.


Matt, don't even try to defend Obama (0.00 / 0)
Many of our fellow bloggers trashed John Edwards on his voting record, which at the time, was mainstream.  He learned his lessons and went very progressive.  Yet you (among them) all trashed him and Elizabeth's thoughts anyway.  Chris Bowers was the only one who saw the light of JRE's progressive agenda, and it was too late for an endorsement.

You cannot defend Obama by reason except this is your blog, but frankly, I cannot defend Obama, and I have been his constituent for 3 years.  He has performed poorly in answering concerns of non-Chicago voters, and frankly, he needs to reconnect with rural voters.  But it goes back to Identity Politics that this blog espoused, and was correct about.

Obama has a lot of growing up to do, albeit Axelrod is doing a superb job on imagery and buying it.  Obama is not an ideologue, which is this blog is about progressive ideology, and his stances don't match it.   Bloggers here need to get over it, or else, find other means to support downtickets.  

Obama is not partisan.  That is what he perceives to be his strength.  I don't agree, but that's what's his campaign is espousing.



JRE, again (0.00 / 0)
This was a point that I made when making the case for Edwards.  While in the Beltway, coming out of the 1990s, Edwards was a centrist Democrat.  When he left, the closer he got to the presidency, the more progressive he got.  Exactly the opposite of most every other conventional politician.  

[ Parent ]
I'm amazed folks see that as principled (4.00 / 2)
And not as an obvious quest to find the largest potential unclaimed turf in the primary field.  

If anything, Edwards was further from the presidency in 2008 than he was in 2004, when he lasted a lot longer than three states.


[ Parent ]
correct (0.00 / 0)
since when is running left a novel idea in a Dem. primary? And in 2008 running against two moderate Dems it was the only place to go.

[ Parent ]
Not so amazing (4.00 / 2)
Its comforting to view any candidate moving towards your position as "principled", regardless of why they move in that direction. Anything less is either coersed, or pandering.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
a few caveats (4.00 / 6)
Obama opposes the California gay marriage ballot initiative, in which the only question is whether the bundle of rights afforded to gay couples in CA should be called "marriage" or not.  To me, that's showing support for gay marriage.

It's also a bit muddled as to whether he supports the SDGT designation of the IRG as a whole, or (as he told AIPAC) its Quds Force, which pretty clearly is linked to Hezbollah funding.  But that's not dispositive.  I also think his poverty plans are far more radical than "proposing tax cuts", but this doesn't defeat your point.

We need to build enduring progressive institutions, and we need to elect every Democratic president we can.  Think of the conservatives post-Nixon: sometimes you get a Reagan who'll mostly fulfill your goals; sometimes you get a Bush I who needs more pressure. Either way, we need to be ready to fight for our causes.


heh. (4.00 / 2)
Lessig has changed his post to say "He is for same-sex civil unions."

[ Parent ]
so (0.00 / 0)
Is Lessig wrong?  Does Obama support gay marriage?

[ Parent ]
No, He Doesn't (4.00 / 2)
He supports not passing the initiative that even the Gropenator opposses.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Um... (0.00 / 0)
He is backing gay marriage in a state that a) opposed it via ballot initiative in the recent past a b) initiated the change via the court system. To defend gay marriage in those circumstances, and then to say efforts to change it are discriminatory, sounds like the ramblings of a man who is for gay marriage.  

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

[ Parent ]
This COMPLETELY Misrepresents What's Going On In California (4.00 / 1)
But I won't take away your pony... yet.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I second Rosenberg (4.00 / 2)
I follow the gay rights issues (because they are personal to me) pretty closely.  The Human Rights Campaign did a score card on gay marriage and other issues. Pretty much Obama's views are almost identitical to Clinton and Edwards with a slight tweak. None of the Democratic candidates of the top three supported marriage outright. They supported civil unions, but even that was a matter of with a lot of provisos and restrictions.

You also mispresent factually by omitting points regarding what's happened in California.  


[ Parent ]
Governator (0.00 / 0)
And the Governator is hardly a yardstick by which to measure other's positions. He's simply a pro-business Democrat that doesn't understand that taxes are what pay for all those things he wants to buy.  

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

[ Parent ]
The Gropenator OPPOSED It Previously (4.00 / 1)
He said it was for the coutrs to decide.  What he did was basically stand by the courts. So he gets points for not flip-flopping.  Only Republicans get points for not flip-flopping.

Obama is just the same as the Gropenator.  He's defending a court decision.

And what's happened in California is what's happening elsewhere, as the issue plays out in public and gets discussed without people's heads exploding, the public is shifting to support.

Once again, he is a follower, not a leader.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Clearly not a leader (0.00 / 0)
His states position was to be opposed to gay marriage, and he changed that somewhat. Credit where credit is due. I live here, so the issue is an important one for me, and Obama scored some points in my book by coming out the infinitive so strongly.  

And HOW excatly am I misrepresenting the gay marriage situation in CA?

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


[ Parent ]
Correct the typos in your mind (0.00 / 0)


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

[ Parent ]
Like Adam said... (0.00 / 0)
Obama outright defended the legality of gay marriage in CA. I have a feeling we will see his stance turn into "civil unions for everyone, gay marriage up to the state".

Article Here


the presumptive presidential nominee said he opposed "the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution" and similar efforts in other states.

Note he is not simply saying 'vote no', he is saying the entire ballot initiative is discriminatory.  

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

[ Parent ]
Actually (4.00 / 1)
I have a feeling we will see his stance turn into "civil unions for everyone, gay marriage up to the state".

I distinctly recall reading statements from him saying pretty much exactly the same thing.


[ Parent ]
He certainly doesn't actively oppose it. (4.00 / 4)
I was surprised by his comments on the CA initiative, because "this should be settled by the citizens of the Golden State" is all he was obligated to say.  Which would have been unsatisfactory, to be sure, but an understandable dodge.

Do I think he'll actively advocate for marriage-called-marriage?  No.  Do I think he'll sign into law anything Congress gives him which expands couples' rights, however they're labeled, and nominate judges who will generally work to expand the protections afforded by the 14th Amendment?  Yes.

I honestly think most Dem leaders are fine with gay marriage, but just too chicken to say it.


[ Parent ]
The citizens of the state already approved up in the form (4.00 / 1)
of electing their representatives who voted for it. This is taking it out of the hands of the elected representatives and placing it in the hands of the intiative process.

[ Parent ]
this was done by the CA Supreme Court, not legislation. nt (4.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
you have no idea what you are talking about (0.00 / 0)
http://www.sovo.com/2007/9-14/...

the bill passed the legislature.

The governor vetoed, but only because of the following reason:

"In his veto message, Schwarzenegger said voters and the state Supreme Court should decide the issue. The high court is likely to rule next year on whether California's ban on gay marriages violates the constitution."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/...

As I said above, you are at best being misleading as to the facts, and at worse spinning. The fact is that yes, it was the courts who decided, but it was based on the fact that the duly elected representatives of the people passed and bill, but couldn't get it beyond veto until it was decided by the courts. Hence, the governors present stance on the iniative.

Many of you also clearly have no lived in California. The intiative/referendum process isn't something that's overall agood idea. It doesn't allow for deliberation or thought out processes. If you want to get into that with me, I will be happy to provide you with further information and arguments regarding the subject matter.


[ Parent ]
Incidentally one of the people I really like on the subject (4.00 / 1)
of legal issues is Greenwald. He had this to say of the issues involved:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/g...

He had this to say:

" No rational person can criticize the Court's decision here without having at least a basic understanding of the governing California precedents. Anyone who condemns this ruling without having that understanding will be demonstrating a profound ignorance of -- and contempt for -- how the law works.

As the Court made clear, whether someone believes that "marriage" should include same-sex couples is completely irrelevant. It is equally irrelevant whether one believes that the U.S. Constitution can be read to require same-sex marriages. There is one issue, and only one issue, that matters here: are the provisions of the California State Constitution, in light of how they have been interpreted by that state's Supreme Court in prior decisions, violated by the exclusion of same-sex couples from the legal institution of "marriage"?
To be able to answer that question, one must have read and understood the key cases on which the Court relied, such as Perez v. Sharp (1948), Brown v. Merlo (1973) and numerous others. For reasons I've written about before, anyone who criticizes the Court's decision without reference to California constitutional law is engaged in rank sophistry or, to use a more familiar term, pure "judicial activism" (i.e., judging a constitutional question based on one's preferred outcome rather than the requirements of binding constitutional law). Put another way, those who criticize the Court here of "judicial activism" without bothering to familiarize themselves with relevant California constitutional law are themselves engaged in the purest, and lowest, form of "judicial activism."

(2) Equally misinformed will be anyone arguing that this is some sort of an example of judges "overriding" the democratic will of the people. The people of California, through their representatives in the State legislature, twice approved a bill to provide for the inclusion of same-sex couples in their "marriage" laws, but both times, the bill was vetoed by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said when he vetoed it that he believed "it is up to the state Supreme Court" to decide the issue.

Polls have found substantial support for gay marriage in California, with dramatic trends toward favoring gay marriage. While there was a referendum passed in 2000 limiting marriage only to opposite-sex couples, five years later (in 2005), California's state legislature became the first in the country to enact a same-sex marriage law without a court order compelling them to do so. Thus, even leaving aside constitutional guarantees (which, in a constitutional republic, trump public opinion), today's ruling is consistent with that state's democratic processes and public opinion, not a subversion of it.

(3) Numerous states have already adopted laws declaring that they will not recognize same-sex marriages from other states. Moreover, the Defense of Marriage Act makes clear that states are not required to do so. Thus, those states which wish to continue to deny basic marriage rights to their gay citizens will be free to continue to do so. Today's ruling applies only to California.

(4) The Court did not rule that California must allow same-sex couples the right to enter into "marriage." It merely ruled that if the state allows opposite-sex couples to do so, then same-sex couples must be treated equally. The Court explicitly left open the possibility that the state could distinguish between "marriage" (as a religious institution) and "civil unions" (as a secular institution) -- i.e., that California law could leave the definition of "marriage" to religious institutions and only offer and recognize "civil unions" for legal purposes -- provided that it treated opposite-sex and same-sex couples equally. The key legal issue is equal treatment by the State as a secular matter, not defining "marriage" for religious purposes.

(5) Each time there is a court decision recognizing the constitutional rights of gay couples, all sorts of hysterical political commentary ensues. In October, 2006 -- right before the midterm elections -- the New Jersey State Supreme Court unanimously ruled that its Constitution requires same-sex couples to be given the same set of marital rights and privileges granted to opposite-sex married couples (though it ruled, by a 4-3 vote, that it need not be called "marriage").

As I noted at the time, all sorts of pundits and right-wing hacks shrilly predicted that the New Jersey gay rights ruling would lead to a major voter backlash that would mobilize social conservatives and destroy the Democrats' chances for victory in the midterm elections. Needless to say, for reasons I pointed to at the time, nothing of the sort happened. Our national elections are simply not determined by a decision by the state of California -- or New Jersey, Vermont or Massachusetts -- to extend equal rights to their gay citizens."

You can continue to spin me, but realize, I am very familar with this issue, and can also bring what Obama actually said on the issue to the conversation as well.


[ Parent ]
thanks for the explanation (0.00 / 0)
I actually didn't know about the vetoed bills; that's a bizarre rationalization and an utter subversion of how representative democracy's supposed to work.  And I'd certainly concede not knowing CA state constitutional law, though I'm fully aware that the case was decided on those grounds and not federal ones.

I just wish you wouldn't presume my bad faith.


[ Parent ]
I assume that people have done their due diligence on topics (4.00 / 1)
before asserting  with certainty that they are right on issues that they are discussing. Too much of politics is reduced to the realm of opinion. We can disagree about what things mean, but the idea that you don't know this is why I had a problem with you commenting. If you had just said, I don't know, but this is what I heard, or framed it less as certainty, you would have received less attitude from me.  Below, the same things I expected of you, I expect of myself by saying that if I am wrong about what I am saying to another poster- please let me know.

[ Parent ]
Which is in and of itself probably unconstitutional (0.00 / 0)
I HATE the initiative process. To the extent that citizens vote on 'policy guidelines', it ought only be for state constitutional amendments that face even stricter (like 2/3 of each body) legislative hurdles. I believe strongly that trying to make laws by direct democracy via initiatives directly contradicts the federal constitutional requirement that each state have a republican form of government.

Think of most the direct democracy stuff in the states in recent years -- bigotry against gays and lesbians and  evisceration of affirmative action/access programs are the two that come most to mind. Maybe it's a necessary check on elites that overstep their bounds, but I think in the long run it's bad for progressivism. I know (or at least remember) Paul disagreeing with me vociferously on this point in the past, but I remain convinced it's better for everyone if we did away with the initiative as a means of democracy.


[ Parent ]
Basically I agree with you (0.00 / 0)
In a complex modern society of millions, direct democracy is problematic when addressing complicated issues. When i was out there, and had to vote on these issues, I started to just vote no because as much as I am interested in politics- I will be frank- I had no idea half the time what I was voting for and rather than voting yes on something, I just voted no, and after that just left it blank.

[ Parent ]
How does the Obama takeover impact our longterm goals? (0.00 / 0)
How does Obama remaking the Democratic Party apparatus in his own image affect us? Most of us supported him, but how do we go from that support to taking over the lower levels of his network without causing a backlash?

We can't be outside the tent, even if we do support him. We have to have the ability to hit the centrist establishment from inside and outside the established structures. How does the Obama victory affect this?

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


The same way that Clinton did (0.00 / 0)
people (firs the GOP, then the media, and eventually the American public) will come to define liberal or progressive as liberal=Obama or progressive=Obama rather than there being another way to view things. The presidency sucks the most energy out of the room. This race for progressive/liberal was lost in the primary. Now, it's just a matter of the edges and/or creating a Congressional counterweight that will make sure that Obama's legislation isn't unduly centrist. FISA shows that he won't take the lead. So he must be lead. Unfortunately, FISA also shows that Congress won't be taking the lead either. The best chance progressives had was the Presidency and its bullypulpit. Obam mentioned Reagan. That's the lesson that should have been understood from his Presidency.

[ Parent ]
If you are right then won't people also identify McCain = conservative, conservative = McCain ? n/t (0.00 / 0)


End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

[ Parent ]
I am talking about centrism or triangulation (4.00 / 1)
being considered the same thing as liberal or progressive. For example, Obama has a healthcare plan, and therefore, that plan is the "liberal" or "progressive" plan regardless of how centrists it is.

[ Parent ]
I wish more attention was paid to this early on. (0.00 / 0)
The whole Obama-Clinton dust up really skewed our ability on the left to appropriately apply labels and now we are potentially without our rebranding as 'progressives'. The primary has potentially made the word meanless or at least undifferentiated from 'centrist' or 'liberal' which are pretty much indistinguishable these days in the media and amongst the masses.

People got so wrapped up in trying to make Obama and/or Clinton the 'Progressive' that we have damaged the brand. I thought it was evident that neither one of them was progressive.  Sure they each had places they were better than the other from our perspective, but just because McCain holds more progressive opinions than Romney doesn't make McCain a 'progressive' any more than Obama or Clinton's positions make them progressive.

To me this was perhaps the most damaging aspect of drawing out the primary the way Clinton did.  Progressives took their eye of the ball in defending the party and Obama and sold our position to someone who doesn't share our values on so many key progressive policies.  Progressives needed a champion this cycle in the mold of an Obama. It was too hard fully get behind the johnny-come-lately Edwards and Kuchinich was always a non-starter.  

It is what it is, but looking back I just don't see any candidate that was not only capable of winning in November but willing to do it as a firm progressive.  Its a shame that we have potentially lost the battle for the progressive brand that now symbolizes all the worst of the centrist politics we despise.


[ Parent ]
I wish more attention was paid to this early on (0.00 / 0)
The whole Obama-Clinton dust up really skewed our ability on the left to appropriately apply labels and now we are potentially without our rebranding as 'progressives'. The primary has potentially made the word meanless or at least undifferentiated from 'centrist' or 'liberal' which are pretty much indistinguishable these days in the media and amongst the masses.

People got so wrapped up in trying to make Obama and/or Clinton the 'Progressive' that we have damaged the brand. I thought it was evident that neither one of them was progressive.  Sure they each had places they were better than the other from our perspective, but just because McCain holds more progressive opinions than Romney doesn't make McCain a 'progressive' any more than Obama or Clinton's positions make them progressive.

To me this was perhaps the most damaging aspect of drawing out the primary the way Clinton did.  Progressives took their eye of the ball in defending the party and Obama and sold our position to someone who doesn't share our values on so many key progressive policies.  Progressives needed a champion this cycle in the mold of an Obama. It was too hard to fully get behind the johnny-come-lately Edwards and Kuchinich was always a non-starter.  

It is what it is, but looking back I just don't see any candidate that was not only capable of winning in November but willing to do it as a firm progressive.  Its a shame that we have potentially lost the battle for the progressive brand that now potentially symbolizes all the worst of the centrist politics we despise.


[ Parent ]
Mostly A Great Analysis (4.00 / 5)
But I disagree on two points, one minor, one less so.

The minor one--in the long run--is that I do see the FISA vote as a betrayal, and a move to the right, not the center.  This is not Ted Kennedy vs. Newt Gingrich we're talking about on this one.  It's Barry Goldwater vs. Tricky Dick.  And Obama sided with Tricky Dick.

The less so one is that I definitely do think this amped-up triangulation (yes, he's always triangulated, but he certainly is amping it up) hurts him in the campaign.  It hurts his brand and it hurts by blurring differences.

With the huge partisan gap the Dems have opened up, his best path to victory is to identify as a Democrat--but maintain his "post partisan" stance by doing that thematically.

We know he can do that, because that's how he won the primary.  And that was him, too.  Just as much as the current incarnation.  Or whatever incarnation comes next.

But, as I say, these are small potatoes compared to the main thrust of this post, looking ahead to 2009-2011, which I think is absolutely spot on.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


I have some problems with this analysis (4.00 / 3)
Initially, I was going to quibble with whether or not certain views really were "centrist" or "liberal."  But my real issue with this analysis is the assumption that, because Obama is not "liberal" across the board, it follows that he will pursue "a bunch of muddled centrist" positions, that do not bode well.

First, not all issues are created equally.  If Obama is liberal on the most important issues of the day - ending the war quickly, expanding health care as much as possible, a more progressive tax code, ensuring balance in the courts - then he's basically a liberal.  And accomplishing those goals will not be a muddled track record, even if there is a lot of compromise elsewhere.

Having said that, I agree that Obama is not a true, dyed-in-the-wool progressive.  I think he sincerely intends to compromise on a whole host of issues.  But if he stands fast on a few, high priority matters, then I will consider his administration a successful, progressive administration.


Rather than arguing with you, I will simply ask you to list better (0.00 / 0)
 issues that are his line in the sand upon which he will govern from the left because the one's you mention- let's take healthcare- his plan is the most centrist of the 3 major plans from the Democrats. Forgetting mandates (one can go back and forth) it doesn't as, I remember, contain a public option for people to buy into healthcare, doe sit?  If I am wrong, please provide citation.

Balancing the courts? The courts doesn't need balancing. They need a full scale packing from the left because the GOP has been doing that for decades and balancing often in a centrists terms means moderate on social issues, and conservative right wing nut job on corporate issues. Only centrists talk about balancing when the other side has already  taken over the whole ballgame.

What does ending the war quickly mean when his plan is similar to the one advocated by Clinton?

I am left with the tax code. That's a muddled mess too. So what else are your examples that aren't as I describe above- namely if Obama says, then it's progresive or if Obama passes it then it's liberal. Because that's what it sounds like to me you are doing here. If I am wrong, please give detailed ways in which he isn't playing it safe on these issues you mention.


[ Parent ]
most centrist of three major dems this year (0.00 / 0)
and more liberal than the last two Democratic nominees.

I just can't resist making the point, even though it's doesn't invalidate what you and Matt are saying.



New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.


[ Parent ]
Other than Iraq- how is he more liberal than prior candidates? (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
I Expected Obama to tbe the most Dean-Like (4.00 / 1)
If I had to explain my general political leanings, it would be that I supported Howard Dean (a candidate who I was first attracted to because he seemed refreshingly sane on drugs and guns) in 2004 because I overwhelmingly agreed with him on points where he disagreed with Dennis Kucinich.  I hoped that Obama was the candidate oriented most similarly to Howard Dean, which is why I voted for him in the primary.  If "Bernie Sanders liberal" is the definition of liberal, then I never expected Obama to be liberal because I don't fit that definition either.

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

Can the netroots carry the load? (4.00 / 1)
Thanks, Matt. I think you're 100% right about this.

We do face a "real slog" and maybe one thing that'll help is more solid, stable support organizations. There aren't any full fledged progressive think tanks or foundations that are prepared to be regularly influencing policy... not if "progressive" means positions like OpenLeft takes.

Progressives and the netroots are a loose confederation of networks... individuals like you who join and leave different movements as needed... who get called in for occasional punditry... who blog and write books and articles and sometimes columns.

It's a tough life that's limited to a few. That's not going to cut it if we are going to grow to be a power that's influencing policy. We need to be mentoring students, providing platforms for progressive politicians who are temporarily out of power, moving into TV and radio broadcasting with our own programs... not just YouTube and podcasting.

We need to be doing some of that think tank stuff the right wing has been doing for 30 years. Especially the support structures... administration, fund raising, grant writing, media scheduling, all the back room stuff that most bloggers and progressives are trying to handle on their own right now.

There are a whole bunch of little single-issue groups doing this kind of thing... but no broad spectrum umbrella organizations that put a full progressive platform out in public.


here comes the belly button moment.. (4.00 / 2)
I think this is much more about the progressive bloggers trying to figure out strategic goals, and tactics under a pending federal government controlled by the dems--especially one that may minimize polarization and find itself buoyed by compromise.

The progressive internet has thrived in the polarized environment of fox, rove and cheney.

The question for the bloggers now is how to achieve rather large goals, remain relevant, and popular.

I personally love obama and am more than willing to sacrifice a few battles in order to win the war(s). But that's me. I have waited 50 years for this moment and I am so excited I can't stand it.  


great post (4.00 / 1)
and one that i hope is widely read. there is indeed no "centrist" solution to many of the larger problems we face, though i'm pretty sure that the first significant attempts to deal with something like, say, climate change will indeed be less than inspiring from a liberal perspective...and they will indeed prove to be inadequate. i think it's extremely important that we label such muddleheaded compromises as anything but the "liberal" or "progressive" approaches because when they inevitably fail, we need to have kept viable the solutions we believe to be most effective.

like i said, this is a fantastic post, but i'm really curious to get your read on powell. towns is an obvious disgrace, someone who seems to represent all manner of corporate crap ideas that are far out of step with the concerns of his district. but, the reactions to powell that i am hearing here in brooklyn are somewhat mixed. mostly they seem to be along the lines of "at least he'll be better than towns." i've met plenty of die hard supporters and quite a few who are ambivalent at best.

your thoughts?

It's time:the albany project.


Great piece! (0.00 / 0)
Very true.

What's the verdict on Kevin Powell?  Is he worth supporting?


You've Got to be Joking (4.00 / 1)
 "...it's important that Obama's centrist policy sympathies are blamed for what goes wrong when he takes over and screws up the country worse than it is right now"

Seriously.  After eight years of Bush/Cheney, do you actually believe in your heart of hearts that Obama's policies will screw up the country worse than it is right now?  You are either smoking something or have joined the McCain campaign.


Screw up = not work (0.00 / 0)
Centrism and its policies don't work.  So when centrist "solutions" to our massive problems don't work, that's essentially things going wrong.  Not fixing a problem is something going wrong.  

Matt's statement on this are almost verbatim what I've been talking about with some progressive friends.  

We risk a TON with Obama in the White House.  Obviously, we're guaranteed total horseshit with McCain there.  But people will see Obama as a liberal, just like they did with Clinton for a time.  When Obama's centrism doesn't re-structure our economy in the ways that it needs, liberals will get the blame.

Remember, not doing what needs to be done and being effective is screwing things up.  George Bush actively screwed things up, Obama's centrism could passively do it.  And hurt us politically for the long-term.

Matt's strategy on calling out the bullshit as CENTRISM and not LIBERALISM is TOTALLY 100% right on.  


[ Parent ]
Good idea. (0.00 / 0)
Call progressive policies progressive, and for ones which aren't, don't. Honesty is always a solid plan.

Too late (4.00 / 1)
Obama isn't just going to be some figurehead.  He's forming an unholy alliance comprised of the corporate media, spineless Washington Democrats, gullible young voters, rich libertarians, and a supine progressive blogosphere, all in support of his phony post-partisan  revolution.  Push-back will be extremely difficult.

doesn't this post undercut your argument? :) (0.00 / 0)
"supine"? :)

anyway,  pushback is always hard.  that's what progressives are made for.


[ Parent ]
Obama's not a liberal? (0.00 / 0)
Tell that to right wing radio... they keep saying that he's the most leftist (their words) presidential candidate ever...

That's laughable on the face of it... there have been plenty more liberal presidential candidates and even sitting presidents...

But, in right wing world, Obama was more "leftist" than Hillary... I guess we believed it, too... he certainly didn't do anything to dissuade us from that belief...

I'm now regretting this entire primary fight.  It was for nothing.  We've got the same candidate as Hillary Clinton, only he will get a few more votes out West... It wasn't worth the time, effort, and money... and a lot of people are now pissed off... yet, the result is the same.  What's the point of the whole battle in the first place?

I agree that he's not a DLC candidate... he won't totally capitulate to right wing talking points like the DLC does, but it's still a rightward shift...

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


The point was... (0.00 / 0)
... that Obama is a better campaigner and has a better chance of winning. And he is better than McCain on just about any issue you can name.

I was a little wary of Obama's centrism and compromising during the primaries... and I am more apathetic about Obama after his FISA flipflop. But I watched his immigration speech and obviously he is only getting better on the stump. He is one of the best political orators in the nation while McCain is taking remedial speech lessons.


[ Parent ]
Do you really thnk so? I don't (0.00 / 0)
I heard him this morning at the big NY fundraiser.

He trips all over himself if he hasn't already memorized it..he phumphers and hems and haws.  I don't think he's a great speaker.  I even saw the Boston speech in the arena...I was unmoved...even then I thought the post partisan stuff was just crap.

Hillary's speech this morning blew him away...she was eloquent and fluent and she sounds that way even when she is saying something she hasn't said before....unlike him.  

We chose the wrong candidate. Simple.

I disagree with Matt...yes... Obama's not a progressive and not a liberal...I've always said that over and over....only to met by endless lines of people with their hands over their eyes and hands over their ears howling away...."How dare you denigrate the great HOPE for the party and the country?"

I disagree with Matt that Hillary Clinton is a centrist. I know it's consoling to think that because otherwise you have to kick yourself...but ......

There were 2 progressive candidates in the race...Edwards and Clinton.  I will post again the voting spectrum from the last 2 Congresses.  Obama indeed is in the middle....the furthest left were 2 women...Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton...indeed what proves its value is that almost every Senator to the left of Obama voted against the FISA bill.  

Every issue Matt mentioned she had been on the right side of...she stayed on the right side of...and she would never, ever had uttered the words about abortion he did.... so carelessly revealing how influenced he is by right wing framing on woman's moral intelligence...he too, like them,  doesn't trust women to make moral decisions.  

I said as I saw the fever Obama aroused among the inhabitants of the blogs that we would have no influence on him because the Obama campaign knows that it doesn't matter what Matt Stoller or even Markos eventually would say .....because they have kublaoo and icebergslim etc at Dkos, thousands of them who will equate anything he does as both progressive and saintly.  He always disdained us. MoveOn endorses him and he sistah souljahs them.  He doesn't need us...he will ignore us.

Hillary, however, would never have been in the same position. Because the netroots would have been something she would have had to keep wooing because they were not in love with her...So she would have had to keep propitiating her left flank.  

And she would have welcomed it.For anybody who listened she that at Ykos last year.  FDR asked for help from the progressives of his own time...he listened and then he basically asked them to create the conditions needed so he could pass the things they wanted and he wanted..  That's how Johnson and Martin Luther King worked together.

Yes we need to make it clear that the legislation coming out of Obama's White House is not mistakenly called progressive.  Or we will damage progressivism for decades (another point I argued over and over)....But you know it would have been much better to not have to do that on everything...and with the her (or Edwards) what we would have gotten was something that we could characterize as liberal. and lots of it would have worked ....like unuversal helathcare was written into her healthcare plan...not just some distant wish.

Paul Krugman...had them both right...

so here's the voting spectrum..
http://www.govtrack.us/congres...

 

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


[ Parent ]
Frankly I see no difference between an ardent Clinton (4.00 / 1)
supporter and an ardent Obama supporter. They both engage in over the top rhectoric that's not in proportion to the reality of who their candidates are.

[ Parent ]
I should probably let this slide, but ... (4.00 / 1)
... come on.  The idea that Obama's having supporters like IcebergSlim made him less in need of support from netroots leaders than Clinton, when Sen. Clinton certain had her share of Alegres and Larry Johnsons on her side ... I mean, that just defies credulity.  

Did Obama's team cultivate good relations with netroots leaders like Matt, Chris, Markos or the FDL crew?  Obviously no.  Matt's made a consistent point of highlighting the gaps in communication there.  But all three major candidates had their share of loud supporters among the users of these sites, so I don't know what kind of distinction you're making here.


[ Parent ]
I should have made more of the etcetera (0.00 / 0)
The etcetera referred to numbers...the numbers of icebergslims or davefromqueens or today strozseks vastly, vastly outnumbered the alegres....all you had to see was the poll nubers at kos. They outnumbered HRC supporters.  They were more rabid and irrational in their adoration of him than Hilary supporters in their love for her.

I was a distinct minority.

It is true...kos really gave it to Obama over FISA, wouldn't donate his 2300...the site decided to do it for him.  The only non Obama diaries of any frequency are from NYCeve.  Yes they knew that had the inhabitants of the blogs and so they didn't need Matt or the blog leaders.  Joe Rospars said as much at Personal Democracy Forum.  

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


[ Parent ]
that's closer to the truth (0.00 / 0)
Let's just agree to disagree on whose supporters were more rabid.

Certainly, Clinton supporters were a minority on DailyKos, but soon after this became a two-candidate race that was by choice, what with the strike and all.  So they dominated MyDD and NoQuarter instead.  We have no way of knowing how her support might have evolved online had her supporters stood and fought on Big Orange, or if Clinton had adopted her more populist themes from late in the campaign much sooner.


[ Parent ]
they swould have been trolled off the site (0.00 / 0)
they would have gotten so many zero ratings because the newbies had no sense of ethics in their troll rating...none

They would say If Hillary's the nominee..I won't vote for her .  If and I say if,  they got zeros,  the Obama supporters would give them rec's to outnumber the zeros by 5 to 1 or more

and when HRC supporters said exactly the same thing they got trolled.

You would have to admit just from the straw polls the Obama supporters outpolled hers 15 to 1.  that meant they had much more trolling power and they used it.  

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


[ Parent ]
classic (0.00 / 0)
Yeah, those damn Clinton supporters going on an on about comparing actual policy policy positions early in the primary. If only Clinton had relied on "populist themes" early in the campaign instead of those boring progressive policies.

And it really is to bad that those Clinton people let themselves get autobanned whenever they pointed out that Obama's actual policies were centrist. If only they had stood a fought, or something.


[ Parent ]
who? (0.00 / 0)
Name one user who was banned for expressing policy disagreements.

[ Parent ]
just a difference of opinion (0.00 / 0)
I followed your link and got to this page that said "Senator Obama is at most marginally more liberal than Senator Clinton but the difference is negligible."

http://pooleandrosenthal.com/C...

I seem to recall Hillary denouncing Moveon.com too...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

... and she supports a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions... she sat on the board of WalMart that refuses to carry the morning-after pill Plan B (at the same time saying "I fought for years to get Plan B on the market")... supported and donated to anti-abortion Bob Casey...

I'm disappointed by some of Obama's moves lately, but I'm still not persuaded that Hillary would have been any better. Anyway the argument is pointless now, the candidate is chosen.

Unless, of course, something "happens" ... we all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.



[ Parent ]
where do you get such mistaken information? (0.00 / 0)
and she supports a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions... she sat on the board of WalMart that refuses to carry the morning-after pill Plan B (at the same time saying "I fought for years to get Plan B on the market")... supported and donated to anti-abortion Bob Casey
...

You are just wrong on the facts.

Partial birth abotion...she voted against the bill...When she was first Lady she helped show Bill Clinton that he had to veto the 2 earlier versions of that bill passed in the 90's.

NARAL/NY endorsed her for Senate....that was one one our criteria. being against the BAN...I have been a boardmember of that organization for nearly 2 decades. Hillary Clinton is 100% totally prochoice...I know that personally.

She fought for the Plan B and we worked with her on the campaign...  

When she sat on the board of WalMart in the 90's Plan B did not even exist.....so she could not have agreed with their stance not to stock it.

Now i haven't checked Obama's PAC donations but I bet he gave money to Bob Casey and he was enormously happy to have antichoice Bob Casey's endorsement in the Pennsylvania primary.

And I know everyone says the primary is over...but I think an autopsy is warranted for why we have made the choice we made and how did we, the progressive, partisan netroots end up cheerleading for a candidate that is neither.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


[ Parent ]
actions and words (0.00 / 0)
I was wrong about Wal-Mart, thanks for the correction.

What Hillary says and how she votes are sometimes at odds... in her 2000 campaign she said "I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected."

Here she is in 2007 positioning herself between pro-abortion and pro-life camps, agreeing that she'll work with pro-lifers to reach a compromise to reduce the "decisions for abortion to zero."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

I guess the point is, look at the voting record and the executive decisions... don't put too much stock in the rhetoric.


[ Parent ]
more info re abortion (0.00 / 0)
 
including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected."

that's what every single politician said who voted AGAINST the bill said.

and

The prochoice movement is fully in favor fo reducing the need for abortion by reducing unintended pregnancies ...through contraception and sex eduaction.  Matter of a fact she haas our position.That's what we say and if the right wants to do that too we would be thrilled. ...most of them don't....not the advocates,....they don't care much for contraception or education...just controlling woman.  However there are a few reasonable Republican legislators remaining and we (she) can work with them.


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


[ Parent ]
Do we need a Progressive Party, or just a well organized Dem Wing? (4.00 / 2)
I am so unhappy with my Party's chosen candidate for the presidency, and the process by which he was chosen, that after 40+ years as a registered Democrat, I am starting to think the unthinkable...walking away from a hopelessly flawed Party.

Sen. Obama is convincing proof that the Democratic Party no longer represents the hopes and desires of the Progressive Wing. And frankly, I think I would be happier in a Party which, even if hopelessly small, was true to its foundational principles. How could we have chosen such a candidate who does not reflect what being a Democrat is all about?

What power block within the Democratic Party foisted this candidate upon us? Who are the true sources of money behind him? What can a Progressive-leaning citizen do to jerk this Party back to its roots? And is it even worth the effort. The thing that really dismays me is that we HAD a viable candidate who truly did represent the "finer instincts" of this once-noble Party...Hillary Clinton.

And the supposedly smarter-lights within our party simply wouldn't stand for a woman heading the ticket. Make no mistake, her candidacy was sabotaged from within the party...and she would have won rather easily in the general election, or so I fervently believe, at any rate. In any event, for the first time in 40+ years I will NOT be casting my vote for the Democratic Party candidate. I may just stay home, but I will not be standing in line to vote for a candidate in whom I have no faith.


oh please (4.00 / 1)
apparently you didn't read the list of issues above.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
you don't have to pick one (4.00 / 1)
you can have both.  In fact, ideally you would have both.  And in some places (like places with fusion  voting), it probably works best.  It's amazing how long the Nader/Democrat split has been allowed to fester by people who are questioning frames and all else all the time.  Has it ever occurred to anyone that despite all facts to the contrary, the media and others have contineud to insist that the leftwing and progressives are at odds when in fact a site like OpenLeft is clear evidence that we're talking to each other and communicating, having arguments, disagreeing, agreeing, etc.

[ Parent ]
Precisely (0.00 / 0)
While I'm a advocate of establishing a multi-party system in the US, it is clear that this cannot be done by simply declaring a new "third" party. The two-party duopoly is the basis of the system and this should be changed first, I'd say by reformed voting laws.

Think of the alternative parties as plants you'd like to grow in your yard, but at the moment the land is over-grown with brush and strewn with dead wood. Seeding an alternative into that environment isn't a very good idea. Clear the brush, till the soil, fertilize the field, then begin planting the alternative parties.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
also (0.00 / 0)
i am going with the strategy I always do--which is to vote for obama (in this case), if it's a close election in your state and your state matters for the general election (e.g. like Michigan or Ohio, but not New York or Texas).  I would strongly encourage you to vote for Cynthia McKinney or some other person to the left of Obama if your state is not in that category - of which about half the states aren't.  If Obama can't win this election without carrying Washington, DC, then he's not going to win the election.  Conversely, if Obama is  doing so well in Alabama that it actually matters which way you cast your vote for Alabama's electoral votes, then don't bother voting for him because he's going to win the general election anyway.

Because this, at least, makes your presence felt, you can vote for downticket candidates when and where you believe in them and think they might win, and you can most importantly, not get politically unmotivated.

And in the meantime, if you want to talk about getting politically active and building a progressive third party or other strategies for pushing the Democratic party to actually be progressive -- and not in the 1979 variety but in the variety that we ourselves decide  -- then by all means get in touch with me - my e-mail is dr.anonymous AT passtheroti.com.


[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
It depends on your definition of liberal, progressive and centrist.

If you look in terms of the current political culture of Washington Obama is a center-left politician. Jim DeMint, James Inhofe and John Cornyn are examples of right-wing politicians. Dick Lugar and Ted Stevens are center-right politicians. Evan Bayh, Olympia Snowe and Mark Pryor are centrist politicians. John Kerry, Barack Obama Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd are center-left politicians. Dick Durbin, Jack Reed, Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders are left-wing politicians.

In terms of public opinion Barack Obama is pretty much in the mainstream. He's probably to the left on global warming, energy, taxes, gay rights, immigration, poverty and some other things squarely in the middle. In other words he's pretty much a little bit to the left of where the people are.

Now I think he could still win with more progressive stances on issues but I never expected him to agree with us on everything because NO ONE DOES. Wellstone voted for DOMA. No one is perfect.

I think Barack Obama will have a more progressive administration then Carter or Clinton did. He probably won't be as progressive as LBJ on domestic issues but will be much more progressive on foreign policy.

Overall I think his administration will be remembered as one of the most progressive along with LBJ, FDR and Lincoln. But what do I know? I'm just a damn cultist who blindly follows the leader. I personally agree with his political outlook and policy positions a vast majority of the time.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power


very good points, all, but it's unpredictable (0.00 / 0)
I made many of these same points the other night about Obama and his stances on different human rights issues.  I agree with almost everything you wrote here, except that the shape of the 2007-2009 government is unpredictable because we don't know what Congress will look like.  If the Republicans get destroyed in the House and Senate, you may get a MUCH more progressive Congress than you talk about here. It won't be Bernie Sanders progressive (and progressive solutions really are better for most of our nation's problems), but it might not be muddled.  That said, you're right that it won't be as progressive as we want it to be.

Ron Paul (4.00 / 2)
I always read Matt's posts for his big picture.  Always thought provoking.

I am not as optimistic as Matt.  I believe Obama will run a muddled Clinton-esque administration, as he suggests.  I imagine that Obama seems himself a technocrat who just wants to fix the problems, and this wrangling is just getting in the way.  But politics is inherently messy and sometimes there is no middle ground.  UHC in this country has little to do with the plight of millions of people (including children) without health insurance, and everything to do with power dynamics in Washington DC.  There can be no compromise because a large power structure cannot allow UHC to succeed in this country.

So I expect Obama to fail to deliver on meaningful UHC, because he will not fight for it.  I never got the impression that he saw the importance of it.  I am absolutely convinced that US troops will be still be in Iraq in sizable numbers by the end of the Obama administration.  By then there will be bipartisan consensus (among the elites) that the US has a strategic interest in safe-guarding the Iraqi oil fields.  That leaves global warming, and there I know the enormity of the problem, and I can't imagine him delivering more than a pimple of a solution, just because there are such powerful interests with an investment in not doing anything.  If we are not already past the tipping point, we will be by the end of his administration.  

Behind all this, I see Ron Paul (or someone like him).  As you say, people are going to be getting more and more angry, and we won't have Bush to kick around for much longer.  No doubt the GOP establishment is already planning Jeb's run in 2012.  But by then I expect the hunger for change, any change, in this corrupt and incompetently managed country, to be even greater.  With Obama having discredited the brand of the Left (no-one said life was fair), I can see them swinging to the Right, to a candidate who is again promising change, and very much running against the DC elites.


Grassroots organizing (4.00 / 4)
Per Donald Sutherland:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Norman Solomon wrote today that
"under a McCain presidency, we'd be back to square one, where we've found ourselves since January 2001. Putting Obama in the White House would not by any means ensure progressive change, but under his presidency, the grassroots would have an opportunity to create it."

You're the grass roots. Put Obama in the White House and make the country ours.




Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net




I agree emphatically with this (4.00 / 1)
We need a win. Period. The people in the current system picked our nominee, and he will show us what he really believes in when he starts governing. Everything else is speculation -- very informed speculation here at this site, but speculation nonetheless.

For those that see some Manchurian conservative candidate that some of us swallowed hook, line, and sinker (and then some) in the primary season, you may well be right. I still can't see a guy that scrambled around forgotten parts of Chicago to help organize the dispossessed and then spent much of his time in the Chicago Senate working on procedural reforms for police investigations and the death penalty as some Bush or Nixon or Kemp or Reagan stalking horse. My eyes are wide open, and I am disappointed in much of what he's done in the last few months and how he's decided to run a more conservative top-down campaign for his general election strategy. But, broad strokes -- he has our general goals on many of the big picture items that drive us as progressives (Iraq, health care access, energy).

I balance my realism and my pragmatism with my optimism. I do hope for the best, but will never be surprised when politicians let me down. Obama in January will have a choice to make if he wants to be another Steny Hoyer or Rahm Emanuel or Harry Reid -- or if he wants to be a Ted Kennedy or a Russ Feingold or a Paul Wellstone or a Barbara Jordan. We'll see then. I hope for the latter category, am prepared for the former, but we need to help give him the chance first. And, on day one, I'll be screaming as loud as anyone to pressure him to live up to his promises.  


[ Parent ]
That's quite possibility (0.00 / 0)
the best quote of this entire election season.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Helping minorities (0.00 / 0)
To me aside from policy goals I see the primary goal of an Obama presidency as helping minorities.

Its the gay, black, transgendered, woman in a red state who suffers when partisanship is high.  Or a black kid raised by a white woman.

Obama won because he was a black technologist in a minority party.

He isn't about progressive change by fiat which is necessarily unstable, but rather building the institutions necessary for lasting change(like transparency in government which we have never had).

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com


Your post is extremely insulting. (0.00 / 0)
As a black guy who happens to be gay and living in a working class black ethinic brown people neighborhood let me just say that the people of color who voted for him voted because they want him to change things, not go there to mainstain the status quo.

[ Parent ]
And he will (0.00 / 0)
But he isn't going to do it if it is an unpopular issue.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com


[ Parent ]
I really wish some of you would just stop making up shit as you go (0.00 / 0)
what issues are you talking about? I can't judge what you are saying from some vague reference as you have constructed it.  

[ Parent ]
hahaha (0.00 / 0)
You mean he'll fight for progressive change until it gets hard? What a leader.

[ Parent ]
I think you should look at blue states (0.00 / 0)
Frankly there are victories in states like NJ, MA, NY, CA but lots (and lots) of disappointments.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

Lessig Nader Hater (0.00 / 0)
Lessig betrayed his real frustrations at the very end, when he took a cheap shot at Nader and his supporters. Another great way to alienate and disenfranchise those whose support Obama may well need.

Until a liberal candidate emerges, my vote is still with Nader, even if I know in advance Obama will lose by a single vote. Sorry, but I'm not pro-death penalty, I don't believe Iran is a threat, I'm not in favor of remaining in Iraq indefinitely, and I sure don't want to expand funding to the Pentagon. Given this, HOW can I vote for Obama? HOW can any liberal vote for Obama? Simply isn't an option for me.

Belittling me for choosing Nader is showing (Lessig, you listening?) that you fear your own lifelong series of compromises has made you something less than a person of true character. And you know what? You're absolutely right, but don't blame me.

 

"Because the world doesn't matter if you don't have the strength to go ahead and choose something that's really true." - J. Cortazar


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox