What ads? (0.00 / 0)

I'm in a swing state. A big fucking important one. Name starts with "F", and rhymes with "Blorida". Why am I seeing none of these supposed negative ads from Obama? I'm seeing plenty of lying McCain ads, especially that stupid "original mavericks" one. The only ad I've seen from Obama on TV is that stupid "I'm from the Kansas heartland, yee haw" bio spot, and that was weeks ago.

If I'm accusing Obama of not fighting back, it's because I haven't seen it. I've hardly seen him doing anything at all. Has he pulled out of Florida or something?

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

---

by: fwiffo @ Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 16:04:03 PM CDT

Issues vs ??? (0.00 / 0)

It is clear as day that the Democratic party leadership is not progressive.

From Bill Clinton to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid we've got actual policies like NAFTA, FISA, etc. Obama will give us Clinton redux in many ways - a more efficient, less ideological administration that really values the DC and Wall Street consensus opinion. The Bob Rubin, Madeleine Albright crowd. And it makes sense since they represent the corporatist wing of the Democratic party.

In this cycle all Obama's campaign wants from us progressives are money and volunteers. He'll get that in spades.

My question is what happens IF Obama loses the presidential election?

Does the Democratic party tilt even more right and the corporatists get stronger as in true DC fashion where those that get it wrong get even more power or does progressive wing start to get more influential? My bet is that the corporatists/DLC crowd get even stronger.

---

by: ab initio @ Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 16:29:02 PM CDT

what happens if he loses? (0.00 / 0)

If we just ask what happens, we watch history go by....

I think your assumption about what happens with corporatists/DLC getting stronger will definitely happen in some way or form regardless of who wins. Only thing that will happen is that it'll be with a new set of players.... but still the same game.  

---

by: carlosinhp @ Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 16:47:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree with Obama... (0.00 / 0)

...at least on this topic.  We can't win a fight of the "better name callers", we can't win a fight of the "nastiest smear landers", we shouldn't stoop to that level.  It makes everything else we claim to want and believe a big steaming pile of horse shit.

There is a difference between nasty negative ads and establishing contrast and STANDING UP FOR YOUR OWN BELIEFS AND CHARACTER.  John Kerry is a great example of a candidate who failed to stand up for his own beliefs, strong and proud, and instead presented himself as exactly the meek man they (you know, the evil they) insinuated he was.  Kerry forfeited the character war when his campaign (in Iowa) touted him as a war hero brazenly.  Not that he wasn't a war hero, but that a true hero, war or otherwise, does not claim to be a hero.  Others can proclaim it, you can accept their acclaim courteously, but you (or your campaign) cannot "brag" it as such...

Obama has done a pretty good job of calling out the McCain camps lies and deceit.  I'd like them to be a touch more aggressive, but all in all, I think they are on the right track in that department.

Obama is not (as the back of the book "Obama Nation" declares a "radical liberal".  He is fairly moderate overall and in my estimation has done an excellent job attacking specific problems and achieving results.  He doesn't have the 30+ year track record with lists of achievements, but he has a list of achievements that is by no means weak.  Ethics reform has been a focus of his, and he has made progress on both the State (Illinois) and Federal level, funny that McCain/Palin forget about that when they champion great ethics reformers...

On some issues, Obama makes me cringe.  On every issue McCain makes me cringe...wait, I actually tend to laugh more lately, what he says today versus what he said 5 months ago vs what he said in 2000...if you can't laugh at this campaign he's running, you haven't been paying attention.  Obama is not as Liberal as I am, I accept that and support him as our nominee - he is the best candidate available by a gigantic margin.

The biggest flaw in the system of American Politics today is the traditional media.  The traditional media should put an end to false ads the first time they see them, the campaign issuing such a false ad should pay a huge price in the media for putting together such an ad.  These ads include the candidate explicitly approving the content.  The point of this "stand by your ad" statement was to hold the candidates accountable and make them more concerned about what was being done in their name.  Third party groups, 527's, etc...should face the same threat of media backlash, as should the parties, DCCC/RNCC/RSCC/DSCC, etc.  But the media is either asleep at the switch, or more often exercising their power to influence the races to keep them close (to increase revenue) or to protect their financial interest in terms of legislative repercussions.

If a candidate aired an ad once, and it resulted in every major newscaster declaring it to be false, and then confronted the candidate about the ad, giving them no other media coverage until they owned up to the lies/deceit, then we would see campaigns behave more ethically on both sides, we would see more discussions of issues and more progress to solutions in Congress.  What a crazy pipe dream.

---

by: mp @ Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 16:31:31 PM CDT

terror wars and MOR politics (4.00 / 1)

I don't for instance think there's a war on terror, for starters, something Obama said he believes in on Bill O'Reilly.  We can acknowledge that Obama thinks about the world in a really fucked up way

For me, the biggest disappointment of this entire election is that in this once-in-a-generation progressive window (delivered to us by the utter failure of the conservative movement), we nominated a candidate who believes in a "War on Terror" and is willing to advance that idiotic frame.

But that's water over the levee, so to speak. I agree that the Obama campaign indeed IS "going negative" according to their middle-of-the-road worldview. It's not how I would run a campaign, but I didn't get 18 million people to vote for me, so that's a moot point.

---

by: dave marley @ Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 16:35:01 PM CDT

yes, Yes, YES!!!! (0.00 / 0)

Hey Matt,

First and foremost, great piece... it was very thought provoking and provided me with a "Yes!" moment where I was screaming at my notebook because for once someone on the blogosphere has hit this subject which I've been ranting about for the last year. Perhaps its done elsewhere, but for me this was a first and encouraging thing as I have been thinking about this for a while (even before my ranting started!)

I accept your assumption of Obama not being progressive as true, because I think I see what you are getting at in saying that, but I am not sure that we could pass that off as true to everyone else for a simple reason....the word progressive itself. The problem with the word is that its fluid and has many definitions-

Progressive as I see it mostly used in the public sphere is just new code for Liberal.

Progressive as I'd like to see it used would be something along the lines of "willing/open to move". If one is truly progressive, they they seek to progress their political views to a more inclusive and welcoming reality.
This definition would make progressive a never ending approach or viewpoints to their life and a counter to reactionary beliefs and ideology which aim to take us back to Old Testament Days (if one is of a Judeo-Christian orientation and can understand that...)

Anyway, the reason I responded to this whole thing was to ask or hear your ideas on doing just what you proposed... an examination of the differences in ideology that are not discussed.

I've been using this tool I got from this organization "Social Justice Leadership" around ideology and what policies are coming out of that camp. Its really useful, breaks down revolutionary, radical, systemic, liberal, neo-liberal, conservative, to reactionary. I was shocked to realize how little folks ever separated stuff on any side of the spectrum and saw things as either progressive or messed up without any real solid ideology behind it.

---

by: carlosinhp @ Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 16:43:28 PM CDT

sounds cool (0.00 / 0)

do you have a link?

---

by: 11luke @ Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 16:53:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Kind of... their stuff isnt on the web just yet... (0.00 / 0)

http://www.sojustlead.org/5%20...
Sadly, the material isnt posted online and probably only available if you participate in their program... that might change hopefully

http://www.sojustlead.org/toi.... is the program similar to what I went through.

Unfortunately, this is a rather new thing that these folks are trying. Obviously their site can use some work, but they've spent a ton of time working with folks on the ground in a few cities and the results have been great thus far. I'm curious to see if it will take off, I hope it does, it made us a better unit internally in my org.  

---

by: carlosinhp @ Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 16:59:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We don't know whether Obama is a progressive (0.00 / 0)

We do know he's an ambitious politician and i think he's chosen the policy positions and issues that he believes will get him the farthest.  if the overton window changes and we escape from the nixonland politics that rule our world, obama might reinvent himself as a progressive.  not holding my breath, but its not an impossible scenario.  

overall i think you are right that criticism from the netroots of the obama campaign and their strategy and tactics is a manifestation of bloggers' frustrations that they don't have a seat at the obama table.  but so what?  join the club.  obama has kept a lot of powerful interest groups (as well as the clinton machine and advisors) out of the decision making loop. this is mike lux's glue politics idea, that i find really compelling.  

---

by: 11luke @ Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 16:52:31 PM CDT

Time (4.00 / 6)

"I don't agree with them.  You probably don't agree with them.  That doesn't make him wrong, it makes him part of a different ideological group.  It's time to start listening and spelling out these disagreements."

It's time to win an election.

I had major disagreements with most Democratic candidates for President this year.  But then I'm a socialist so I've already settled on the idea I'm going to disagree with Democrats.

But if they get in power they can be pressured and they might do the right thing.  If a Republican gets in power they'll never do the right thing.

Discussing policy disagreements with Obama isn't counting your chickens before they hatch - it's debating methods of chicken counting before you've bought hens.

You want to prove progressive ideas are better?  You want to prove progressive ideas can win more votes?  Then pick some policies progressives have in common (or close to in common) with Obama and push those issues.  Recommend 527s we can fund to advance those ideas.  Suggest phone-banking scripts that highlight those areas - ask people to give feedback on those calls.  Suggest ways we can jump up and down and say "progressive policies" excite voters in a way Democrats in office can notice.

I like openleft and I've generally liked your writing over the years, but lately I see "by Matt Stoller" in my RSS reader and my eyes start pre-rolling in expectation.  Now is not the time to debate policies - that starts on November 5th when we'll know who to debate it with.  Now is the time to get people elected - and to do it in a way that progressives get credit for the win.

---

by: Kevin Lyda @ Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 17:06:17 PM CDT

Ah, the pressure argument (4.00 / 1)

If we can't pressure them when they're out of power and they need our votes and money, what makes you think we can pressure them when they're in power and awash in corporate cash?

And if you think progressives are going to get ANY credit for the win, you're in deep denial. The narrative is already that the Obama Movement will have won it, using new technology, and rendering the old D base irrelevant (yay!)

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 20:41:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Please read what I wrote (4.00 / 1)

I wrote: "Suggest ways we can jump up and down and say "progressive policies" excite voters in a way Democrats in office can notice."

In other words if we want credit we're going to have to annoy people into giving it to us.

At every stage of the cycle there are different ways to effectively advance progressive policies.

In primary season we should look to recruit and assist progressives running for office.  And not just the Presidency but all offices.  Obama started out as a state senator about a decade ago.  If we got several progressive state level people elected this cycle our bench might be a bit deeper for the 2016 elections.

And when they win we should advertise and credit their progressive beliefs.  Anchor them if you will.

In election season we should look to use progressive policies and tactics to get Democrats elected.  Oh, yes, and to get that one mythical progressive-ish Republican elected.  Not all Democrats mind you - I think in the House we can start ignoring some Dem races.  We'd almost be better off if some conservative Dems started losing seats there.

And when those policies pay off and the Dems win their seats we should loudly take credit.  You're right, we won't always get it.  But we're guaranteed never to get credit if we don't do it and don't try and take credit.

Sitting around and sniping at Obama's positions in the middle of an election is a fantastic way of coming across as politically clueless and to set ourselves up for getting credit for a loss.

If Obama wins (and this holds true for other offices), it's time then to pressure him on his policies.  Start looking for more progressive candidates for the primaries for the 2010 elections.  Fund progressive groups.  Etc, etc.

---

by: Kevin Lyda @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:05:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I did read what you wrote (0.00 / 0)

So it wasn't necessary to repeat it at greater length.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 10:35:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I mostly agree with this post (4.00 / 2)

(Of course). Alexander Cockburn had a good column that takes Obama to task for wanting to increase our occupation of Afghanistan and says:

As Obama said in 2002, he is not against war per se. Wars mean dead children. Now he wants to send 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan. And exactly at the moment liberals were diverting themselves with Palin's shifting posture on pork barrel projects in Alaska, Obama was doing a major somersault of his own. He has joined John McCain in vigorously endorsing the performance of US forces in Iraq, telling Fox's Bill O'Reilly that the surge "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams," a craven surrender to Republican mythmaking and a club McCain will be able to whack Obama with in the upcoming debates.

Liberals delightedly ridicule Palin's Christian certitudes about the truth of the Bible, the sanctity of life from the moment of conception, the advisability of sexual abstinence for teenagers and so forth. This is a distraction, one I find rather pleasant, from the impalpability of Obama's positions, which shift, as with the surge in Iraq or with the rights and wrongs of the conflict between Russia and Georgia, and usually attain maximum clarity when Obama is ensuring that he won't be ambushed from the right.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/2...

But I don't think Obama's ideology is as fixed as you depict, or as fixed as Obama himself pretends it is. Which is to say he's a typical big-time pol but one who's more open to progressivism that most, and who will, to some degree, follow the political winds. Back in 1996 he opposed the death penalty and supported single-payer health insurance, and he could be persuaded to do so again. WHich is to say that no, he's not a progressive leader, but there's a good chance he won't stand in the way of progressive change either.

---

by: david mizner @ Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 17:22:44 PM CDT

Ideology vs. Tactics (0.00 / 0)

On Ideology -- The simple fact is we have no idea how a President Obama will govern. Everything he has said and done to date is political positioning for electoral advantage. It may be a guide to his elected policy ... or not. Once elected he's only constrained by the need to be re-elected. In the end, however, this is a future worry, that I hope we have the opportunity to confront.

On Tactics -- Another matter entirely and a pressing, critical issue right now. Their default position of high-minded debate that relies on the "good sense of the voters and the press" is naive in the extreme, as is their belief that this positioning prohibits them from getting in the mud. (George W. Bush ran as a 'uniter, not a divider' and threw plenty of mud.) As such, until the last week or so they have done virtually nothing to disqualify McCain on his own merits, which allowed McCain the room to reinvent his campaign positioning.

They can mock "bedwetters," crow all they want about their epic GOTV infrastructure and claim their tactics have been sufficiently negative to create the needed contrast all they want. But if they haven't motivated and persuaded enough actual voters to their side GOTV won't matter. The electoral scoreboard and the trendlines don't lie. The bottom line is if the election was held today they would lose. The bottom line is since the beginning of the general they have been on their heels, first thinking they could run out the clock on their small lead (just as they did in the nomination race) and then being slow to combat McCain's reinvention.

Having watched their strategy and tactics fail to date, I'm not comforted by Bush-like pig-headed declarations that contrary to my lying eyes the plan is working just fine and we should just STFU. That's a very strange way to motivate the base...

As charter member of 'Worst. Campaign. Ever.' I sincerely look to the Obama campaign's victorious "I told you so's." These critiques give me no pleasure...

"Don't take much, does it, elected Democrats, to get your balls tucked up." Cf.

---

by: Steve in Sacto @ Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 17:26:09 PM CDT

I disagree (4.00 / 1)

I think you are sticking your head in the sand when you say "we don't know how Obama will govern" because "everything he has done was for political positioning." Activists (conservatives too, btw) tend to assume that the political world is divided into two categories: The bad guys, whose world view is entirely opposite from ours; and good guys who would agree with us on everything if they had the guts to say what they really think. That's not true. Democratic leaders, for the most part, really ARE moderates. That's how they got to be leaders of the party, since the party is a huge tent that includes all sorts of ideologies. They really DO think it's a good idea at this time to expand offshore drilling, and to approve FISA, and so forth. They really DO think there is a war on terror. True progressives, like true hardcore conservatives, are small minorities. But for some reason, we can't accept that. We keep thinking that "our" guys and gals (i.e. Democrats) really secretly agree with us on everything but because of the political environment, abetted by the media, they can't say so. Obviously, that's flattering to us. But it's not true. And actually, admitting it's not true is quite liberating, because it lets us talk about candidates like Obama more effectively and with less unintentional intellectual arrogance.

---

by: ColoDem @ Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 17:50:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actually, we don't disagree (0.00 / 0)

I'm under no illusions Obama will be a progressive/liberal president. Even if he's more progressive than his campaign rhetoric, he will likely be more conservative than I'd like. My points were simply A) We don't/can't know for sure, B) I don't take his rhetoric as being anything other than just rhetoric and, C) It's not what's important right now -- winning the election is the only thing that matters now, by any means/rhetoric necessary.

"Don't take much, does it, elected Democrats, to get your balls tucked up." Cf.

---

by: Steve in Sacto @ Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 18:20:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Quibble: (0.00 / 0)

I think it's clear from press accounts that House Democrats do not think offshore drilling is actually a meaningful policy choice on the merits, and they're only going with it because the optics are so bad.  

There are issues where they are not "with us in their hearts" (gay marriage, global warming) and issues where they are (choice, the war; most of them are authentically sick of the war, and pissed that it was used as a political hammer against them to boot).  On more old-line issues -- taxes, budget stuff, health care, civil equality -- they are with us because these are the subjects that drew many of them into politics 30 years ago -- whereas on new-line issues like global warming, they just see a fringe base at their gates who must somehow be appeased with ambiguous rhetoric.  

Anyway, overstating either angle is unwise, and you're right that overstating the "secret progressives" idea is a huge and common mistake.  If anything, they're "secret kind-side-of-the-owner-class" more than actual progressives.

---

by: texas dem @ Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 18:24:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Gay marriage? (0.00 / 0)

Really?  I tend to think of gay marriage as one place where the "secret liberals" argument might hold some water.  If I had to bet I'd say that large majority of the Democrats in Congress have no real issue with gay marriage - they just see it as a major electoral liability to try and lead the fight on this one.

Dunno.  Maybe it's more deeply ingrained than I'd like to believe.  

---

by: Baldrick @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:22:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actually, I do agree with him. (4.00 / 2)

Here, at least:

He doesn't, he's running his campaign on the issues, which is the way he conceives of political power.  To people like Obama and most Democratic leaders, name calling and character attacks against Republicans are losing strategies because they are immoral strategies.

I don't agree with them.  You probably don't agree with them.

Assuming you can succeed with it, running on the issues is much more politically powerful than running on character.  Bush ran on character and won in 2004, and then found he actually had no mandate to do anything.  His Social Security effort was weak in very large part because he hadn't run on it, (although he never would have won if he had), and then only a few months later Katrina and then the Golden Mosque aftermath wiped out his credibility on domestic and foreign policy completely.  He hasn't led the country on any issue since then, though he has used his powers of office to exert his will against the country somewhat.

If you have specific things you care to accomplish, and you can win by running on them, you should run on them.  Hillary ran on health care partly because the act of running on it made her more likely to be successful at reforming health care.  In the total issue environment of 2008, Obama would be nuts not to run on issues.  They all point our way, so he should be able to win by doing so, and then he is empowered to become madly effective if he does.  For him to choose to run a campaign on character would be foolishness.

Now, he does have to avoid being ambushed by McCain's logical choice to run a campaign on character.  He has to play defense here, which may mean a good character offensive against McCain.  But his chosen battlefield is issues, not character, and for damn good reason, and to some extent any choice to engage in character debate is a defensive choice, not an offensive one.  The battlefield Obama wants is issues, and if McCain drags him off of it, and onto the battlefield of character, McCain has actually won a tactical victory.  

So re: all the screaming emailers at TPM who want Obama to go on offense, my question is, offense how?  My version of WhatObamaShouldDo is, launch a series of very hardhitting ads on particular policy issues: "McCain's only healthcare plan is to tax your benefits" "McCain thinks American troops should be based in Iraq indefinitely" "Palin thinks global warming is not caused by humans" "McCain wants to give tax breaks to companies that ship your job overseas" "McCain refuses to put money into alt-energy and new green jobs, and backs Big Oil instead".  Put a hell of a lot of money behind them, make the language very simple and direct and accusatory, and make the imagery very provocative -- all with the intent of getting the media to talk about them.  When you turn the conversation into McCain defending himself on policy, you've won the election.  Especially if you accomplish this before the debates, rather than during or after.

---

by: texas dem @ Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 18:10:58 PM CDT

A campaign that has lost its nerve (0.00 / 0)

My version of WhatObamaShouldDo is, launch a series of very hardhitting ads....

A lot of our criticisms have been of the mind-numbingly mediocre ads that Team Obama has run for the general.  If they've run a single memorable ad that got the country talking, I've missed it or any mention of it.  

They have unprecedented amounts of money to spend on ads, money donated by hard-working people who can probably barely afford to give, and they're pissing it away on pap.

I really don't give a shit what strategy or tactics the Obama team pursues, as long as I can see it's effective.  But what I see is a campaign that lost its nerve after winning the primaries and has been playing defense ever since.  I'm guessing that whenever anyone suggests something bold and imaginative, someone else in the campaign shoots it down as being too risky.  

---

by: Taylor @ Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 21:46:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Must be nice to be white. (4.00 / 3)

I'm a black dude from the same neighborhood Obama lives in. I know people who go to Trinity and people who know Bill Ayers - including my mother - and if you really think Obama isn't a progressive you're mistaken. Black people don't have the rhetorical freedom to address progressive issues the way whites can. Progressive whites are marginalized rather quickly by the "mainstream" but still have some pull, progressive minorities are invisible not only in the "mainstream" but in progressive movements as well.

You live in an entirely different world than Obama and clearly don't understand the rhetorical limitations he's operating under.  

---

by: illlaw @ Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 18:44:16 PM CDT

My idea of a fighter (0.00 / 0)

Is someone willing to sucker punch a Republican in the face.

If Obama ran the kind of campaign I would like, he 9or rather his surrogates) would do level personal attacks at McCain and his family with the intention of using them to bait McCain into throwing a temper tantrum.

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

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 18:59:16 PM CDT

This Just In: Obama Is Not a Radical! (0.00 / 0)

Barack Obama is neither a socialist nor a pacifist. He has not condemned all notions of the free market and apparently considers military means justified in the struggle with Al-Quida.

I didn't think Obama would or should announce his opposition to all international trade. I didn't expect him to try to convince Bill O'Reilly of the the deceptions of the "war on terror" frame. I wasn't sure whether a filibuster on FISA would advance the cause of civil liberties given Bush's willingness to evade the language of any statute. When Obama suggested that earlier anti-war movements devalued the troops, I wasn't that disturbed because some on the far left did.

Going to college in Ann Arbor in the early 1970s, I found many exotic species of radicals. Of course, most of the crazies of that period have become Republicans.

Some of the bloggers on this site have a mystifying litmus test for progressivism. I have no doubt that Obama is a progressive. He will probably disappoint us on many issues,
but he has endorsed a program for working families that will almost certainly exceed the feeble initiatives of Carter and Clinton.

---

by: jacobsdc @ Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 19:43:15 PM CDT

Ideology and tactics (0.00 / 0)

Steve in Sacto wrote a good comment titled "Ideology vs tactics". I agree with most of what he writes -- though, unlike Steve in Sacto, I think we should take Obama at his word when he says that we should take him at his word. Further, we also know from Obama that he believes his differences with his Internet detractors on the left is that he and they disagree (to some extent) on what "progressive" means. So far, so good (at least for me!).

Matt whom I have started reading with great interest recently, has given us yet another honest and commendable post (and I say that not just because he called me "smart" ;-)). I think he is spot on with his caution against self-denial with bromides about accountability. And he is right in that there is some ideological divide between us and party big shots. However, insofar as we can and must take them at their stated goals and justifications, there is a large area of common interest (as there is between me and the readers/writers on dKos). With Obama, in particular, what I perceive happening is a rather public process of self-education (and accompanying speculation) -- the varying positions on abortion, and so on. Which is fine, I suppose, generally speaking.

The problem really is that Obama and his campaign betray us in both the ideological (the part of it that is shared) and tactical fronts. If, as they hold, their interests coincide with ours in seeking a fairer deal for the working classes, equal rights and protections (real rights, not paper ones) for minorities and discriminated groups, and so on, it is ridiculous of them to place those moral callings below the niceties of not "name calling and character attacks against Republicans". The people who are failing at making ends meet at earnings below a living wage, even as the wealthy continue their orgy of conspicuous consumption, deserver a better fight that such "politeness". Far from being immoral or unfair, attacks (of the non-Rovian variety) are the most appropriate response to someone who shares no value system with you and does not hesitate to attack you. The "you" here is not Obama or the Dem party heavies -- and this assumption is their fatal vanity, that they are being "above it all" to disdain such attacks -- but the people.

Unless they can demonstrate that such niceties achieve the desired goals. But not only is it possible as Matt notes that they follow these protocols out of a misplaced moral imperative, but even if they did not, the empirical evidence (of which Kerry v Swiftboating is only one example) disabuses us any hope of effectiveness of doing such things for tactical reasons.

---

by: ravi @ Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 22:16:29 PM CDT

good to acknowledge disagreements (0.00 / 0)

based on the different types of things that people are trying to do - the power / belief tradeoff, etc.  but i wonder how useful it is to ALWAYS spell out what the disagreements are in explicit terms.  If you're already on the same page as me that Obama isn't going to be governing as a progressive (as far as i can tell), isn't it worth thinking about how to frame the disagreements with the obama campaign's more thoughtful types? Even with allies, it's important to be conscious about the "how" as well as the "who" the "what" and the "why".

-dr. a

---

by: dr anonymous @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 08:47:16 AM CDT

The crucial point in all of this is (0.00 / 0)

Is there anything Obama can make in a more left (This is Open Left, after all, why settle for "progressive") direction that would help his chances?

Matt is quite right to separate these two questions, they are separate:

1. What positions do I wish Obama would take because they are more in agreement with my politics?

2. What positions do I wish Obama would take because they are more likely to lead to a win of the election?

The two may or may not coincide.

I would argue that a strong emphasis of economic populist issues especially now that the implosion of Wall Street is there for all to see is crucial. Obama seems to be moving that way, but always with that maddening hesitation that may stem from the fact that he doesn't quite believe it himself.

There are many other issues that I wish Obama stood strong for, but I don't think they would help win the election, and some might hurt.

As for where all this is going if he wins, none of us, neither the optimists nor the pessimists, know.  Of course, we don't know what the landscape will look like in four months.  

The optimistic example, of course is Abe Lincoln, whose detractors detracted with a venom equal to anything Obama's most strident critics have come up with, and yet, there was more there than met the eye at the time.

The pessimistic example is this goddamned Democratic Congress we have now.  But I must say I can't see anywhere in American history any time when the window shifted to the left through careful planning.  Rather, external events played a large role in pushing them that way whenever it happened.

Bottom line for the next two months.  Obama needs to win this thing.  We have no choice.  

No illusions, but some hopes.  Wish I had more, but I'll play the hand I'm dealt.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

---

by: sTiVo @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 10:49:12 AM CDT