Who Said They WNAT To Win Nationally? (4.00 / 3)

Back in 2004, John Kerry got 85% of the vote among liberals, and that was not enough for victory.  Democrats need very, very high numbers among liberals to win nationally.  As such, those who want to win nationally need to be willing to engage in actual outreach to them rather than just standing by their insults.

WHat's the evidence???

"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

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 20:30:12 PM UTC

This is my question too. (4.00 / 8)

Chris is spot on in terms of the metrics. It's not possible to argue otherwise.

But given the increasingly open hostility this regime has for a very significant portion of the party electoral base (as opposed to the financial one, you know, the have mores)--let's just accept for the moment these people aren't complete idiots--can only lead to one place: losses in November. (Wow, what a shitty sentence!)

This WH doesn't want a Dem majority in congress. I think that's pretty clear. Bill Clinton didn't either, so none of this should be the least bit surprising. What is surprising, for me at least, is the amateurish way in which they openly flaunt their contempt. Clinton at least was a better liar in that regard!

But in the late summer of 2012, the music will change to a nicer tune. Either that, or they don't want a second term either. I'm not sure it will matter by then, though. What does one have to do to get these people to realize things are too far gone now for Clintonian bullshit to ever possibly work?

This administration should have it's own annex at the Demotivator web site.

Jeebus, the best this crew can do is play "Blame The Pinkos"?

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

---

by: Emocrat @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 21:20:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Indeed (4.00 / 8)

The dismantling of then-DNC Chair Howard Dean's wildly successful 50 State Strategy, if not the first indicator, was very nearly the first.

---

by: Oaktown Girl @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 21:48:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Soviet politics (4.00 / 6)

It was clear from the beginning -- to some of us in the party, anyway -- that Howard Dean was running an insurgency. Initially, I gave him a 50/50 chance of being successful, but only if the Democrats lost the Presidential election.

Once the election was over, I fully expected Obama to do to Dean what Stalin did to Edvard Benes. I wasn't disappointed.

---

by: William Timberman @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 22:24:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

after first coopting Dean's brand (4.00 / 2)

"Obama for America" was a naked imitation of "Dean for America."

Of course it was always really "America for Obama" but it certainly helped to pretend it was the other way round. How else could they have impressed young, idealistic first-time voters into their service?  

---

by: limpidglass @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 13:35:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The White House has already shown, through (4.00 / 13)

the Catfood Commission and a dozen other moves, that they're focused on appealing to "the center." (38 -- that's the percentage of independents nationwide who approve of Obama.) So yes, this is outreach but not to Democrats.

If that wasn't obvious yesterday, it is today as he stood by his remarks.  

---

by: david mizner @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 20:35:14 PM UTC

Given Gibbs reassertion of his comments, (4.00 / 22)

I do not find it credible that this is not an official Obama attack on the left.  Is it at all believable not at aall plausible, that a press secretary takes such a tendentious and divisive attack on a portion of the President's base, and then reiterates it, without the full consent and approval of the President and his administration? But then this attack signals a further positioning of this administration to the right. Can we at least stop pretending that Gibbs has a screw loose. This is Obama and his top leadership. Gibbs is just the tool.

---

by: VLaszlo @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 20:57:32 PM UTC

Also (4.00 / 12)

look at the press secretary's choice of supposedly extemporaneous language.

liberals need "drug-testing"
and want to abolish the Pentagon
and support (crazy) Kucinich
and want (not government-guaranteed) but Canadian-style health care

Language obviously chosen to caricature and marginalize liberals while playing up O's centrist cred.  

---

by: david mizner @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 21:24:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm struck when you list this point by point that these are also the criticisms (4.00 / 3)

the right has long given of Dems as a whole. So essentially Gibbs has himself promoted hysterical right wing thought here- how many times have we heard the OMG socialism tirade in reference to Obama? He's conferred legitimacy upon standard tropes of the right, all in the putative interests of advancing progressive policies. Um, no. You don't do that if you're thinking remotely clearly. Even apart from how those of us on the comparative left may have taken his attacks, how inane is it to give credence to the rants of his own political enemies?  

---

by: sb @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 11:52:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You should have ended the post after this: (4.00 / 17)

Or, if they do apologize, I don't expect them to mean it.

I'm not offended in the slightest by Gibbs' comments.  I assumed before he made them that he thought this way.  As I assume Rahm does.  And as I largely assume Obama does.

Liberals are -- or should be -- locked in a death match with Third-Way Democrats for control of the Democratic Party.  Every moronic utterance that helps convince more liberals that Third-Way Democrats are not on their side is a win.

Liberals should accept tactical alliances with those with differing ideologies when they make sense and advance shared goals.  What they shouldn't do is blindly compromise their own agenda based upon the fiction that Third-Way Democrats have any interest in advancing liberalism.  If Gibbs caused just one more Democrat to open her eyes to political reality, I am happy.  

---

by: space @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 21:08:16 PM UTC

I think you are right. (4.00 / 11)

But I also think it is worth trying to understand why Obama and the corporate Dems are basically "expelling" their left base now. (It is not so clear by the way that the party as a whole will go along. Here is Grayson
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
calling Gibbs "Bozo the Spokesman" and calling on the Administration to fire him. Yesterday Keith Ellison called for Gibbs to resign). What seems clear today is that this is a major, deliberate effort by Obama to further distance the Democratic Party and his Administration from its liberal, populist, progressive, left tradition. I think we make a serious mistake if we do not see this move in RealPolitik terms. It is NOT a loose screw in the Administration; it is the Administration.
One reason might be the belief that the Obamanuts feel a great need to defense the attacks on Obama as socialist  (counterattacking does not seem to be a strategy this Administration believes in ...at least not vis-a-vis the right); another possibility might be a further planned expansion of Obama's wars (Afghanistan is going particularly poorly) which would cause an uproar on the left and this move might be pre-emptive marginalization of the left.
Now I admit freely that I am trying to speculate freely and I apologize in advance. I do not understand what is going on. But the incident is too deliberate and provocative and on its surface self-destructive not to have some underlying rationale.

---

by: VLaszlo @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 21:34:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh Bowers what do you know... (4.00 / 1)

You're just one of those damn liberals turned professional left. STFU and fall in line.

If teaching is so easy, then by all means get your degree, pass your certification test(s), get your license, and see if you can last longer than the five years in the classroom 50% of those who enter the profession never make it to.

---

by: michael in chicago @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 21:54:05 PM UTC

Quote, Unquote (4.00 / 1)

"The contempt for ordinary Americans displayed by the ruling class is reaching critical mass. There may never have been a time in American history when the governing, academic, cultural, and media elites have been more manifestly disdainful of the country's values, traditions, principles, and people."

When I read that quote over at The American Prospect, I started to agree with it.  Then I realized they were complaining about some conservative at The Corner.  But damn, drop the words "cultural" and "traditions" and I think I still might agree.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 00:22:52 AM UTC

"Fail" yes but not "pure." (4.00 / 2)

Yes, what Gibbs is doing is an outreach "failure" whether it is a deliberate tactic or bumbling idiocy. It's failure because it will not achieve any result remotely beneficial to the Obama administration, even if they are under the delusion that a Sistah Souljha moment is what they need to keep their jobs.

What makes the whole affair less that "pure" though is that it is a deliberate outgrowth of organizational top-down driven thinking that always seems to come with power. As TSlavin comments over on Mike's thread tonight:

"While Obama was elected by a broad set of groups and individuals who pulled together online and in the real world, once the election was over I got the distinct impression that this effort became Obama, Inc. That they wanted to control the message and their list 100%. Fine. The problem with this control freak approach, however, is that individuals own their voices and their votes. We're not employees in a corporation. If some of us choose to work through Move On, for example, we shouldn't have our work discounted or ignored because it didn't go through Obama, Inc. An inclusive approach that respects the right of individuals to organize how they want to organize was a critical piece missing from the start of this Administration. (BTW control freaks always fail, guaranteed.)"

So whatever means the Obama administration has in mind, the Gibbs fracas is certain to end in failure. But it is indisputably tainted with the impurity of power madness.

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

---

by: jeffbinnc @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 01:24:30 AM UTC

I am a grassroots activist... (4.00 / 8)

I barely read the blogs anymore because I'm the campaign chair for one of Florida's largest counties, and I spend at least 18 (volunteer) hours a day working to get Democrats elected at the state and local level.  I feel no loyalty to Obama or his team because they have wasted their mandate.  I would be out of this tomorrow were it not for the fact that the Republicans have so screwed up my state and local governments that we're almost bankrupt.  Our only hope of survival is to elect Alex Sink as our governor, and to pass two amendments that will give us a better shot at fair redistricting.  

Obama's behavior was predictable back in 2007.  In the words of a local opinion writer, he was never more than a rock star.  He never spoke in terms of the values of the Democratic Party, and he never "sold" his supporters on anything bigger than himself.  Contrast that to Howard Dean's message when he ran: "You have the power!"

I just spent three hours at a local Baptist mega-church listening to one candidate after another pander to the religious voter.  I'm disgusted that the president didn't give me and our candidates something to campaign on and for.  We are the ones who have to face the out-of-work and out-of-healthcare voters.  We've got nothing of consequence to offer them, thanks to Obama, Rahm, Geithner, et al.  

If I am the "professional left" that Gibbs complained about, then so be it.  At least I'm trying.

---

by: Susan S @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 03:41:41 AM UTC

I feel you. (4.00 / 3)

My only consolation is, people like us were here before Obama, and we'll still be here when he's gone.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 13:42:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

thank you for trying (0.00 / 0)

---

by: bay of arizona @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 03:13:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re: Dean in 2003 (0.00 / 0)

In all fairness, I'm guessing that the attacks on Dean over gun rights, trade and Medicare were from the left, as Dean had a history of being centrist-to-conservative on those issues, that seemed out-of-place compared to the stances he was taking in the presidential race.

But yeah, the Osama bin Laden thing sounds ridiculous.

---

by: liberalmaverick @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 04:36:07 AM UTC

While there were some analyses indicating (4.00 / 2)

that Dean was not as liberal as people were making him, I do not remember any significant left attacks on Dean on any of these issues.

---

by: VLaszlo @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 11:44:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I remember (0.00 / 0)

Dick Gephardt repeatedly slammed Dean for wanting to reduce Medicare spending as well as pushing for budget cuts in Vermont.  I believe at one point he said something along the lines of, fiscal responsibility does not mean amputation.  In terms of domestic policy, Gephardt actually had the most ambitious, big-government type agenda (besides Dennis Kucinich), which was why he was my second choice for President (behind Kucinich).

John Kerry attacked Dean for supporting the Biden-Lugar resolution that would've authorized President Bush to go to war in Iraq as long as he "certified" with Congress that he'd done everything he could to avoid war.  Of course, that would've still been better than Kerry's own vote to give the President carte blanche, but only marginally so.

And of course everyone piled on him over his record on gun rights.

There were a number of analyses pointing to his centrist record as Vermont Governor, which convinced me at the time to switch my support from Dean to Kucinich, with Gephardt and Kerry as my second and third choices.  While I don't regret supporting Kucinich as my first choice, I think, in hindsight, not making Dean my second or third choice may have been a mistake (which is why I was more willing to give John Edwards the benefit of the doubt and support him in 2008).

---

by: liberalmaverick @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 03:02:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

In my possibly twisted way of thinking (0.00 / 0)

I would say there was no way "they" were going to let someone like Dean (or Kucinich) become President...not before neutering anyway.

---

by: VLaszlo @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 11:52:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

what would that even mean, though? (4.00 / 1)

if they did do a reachout, and it wasn't something that was a felony in Georgia, what would it be?

call people on the phone and ask how their kids are?

give speeches and promise to do great things In The Future?

is there really any point to pretending to care? because that's what it would be, isn't it - a pretense?

i mean, if having Trumka over to dinner makes him so happy he forgets about EFCA and dumps a bunch of money on Democratic campaigns, i guess that's a win for the DC party, but not so much for labor, you know?

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.

---

by: tatere @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 08:23:30 AM UTC

I am surprised here. (4.00 / 4)

As you know there are appointments, cabinet positions, judicial appointments, US attorney appointments, high level executive appointments, consultations, explanations for why you proceed. If you wish to integrate a faction into your coalition you do those things. You might look at the Republicans whose essential nature has been its tie to big capital and big corporations, dealt with their family-values faction, who they consulted with regularly on certain appointments and who were well represented in the cabinet and councils of government under the Republicans. Gibbs for example talked of the professional left; but we know Emanuel consults regularly instead with David Brooks to see how Brooks feels the administration is doing. One of the early complaints on the left was that the left was entirely excluded (save the token Solis appointment which has had nearly no effect even on labor issues) from the cabinet and major advising positions. But the sam group of star-struck admirers of Obam repeated ad nauseum how unimportant that was, no, even worse, how every appointment was chosen for his excellence and experience. (Like the inimitable Ken Salazar, I guess, or Tom Vilsack, or Arne Duncan, or Tim Geithner, or...)

---

by: VLaszlo @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 11:57:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama, like Bush, is more divider than uniter (0.00 / 0)

Despite all his talk about no red states or blue states, only the United States, didn't he have some breathtakingly cynical strategy to allow offshore drilling only along the coasts of reliably Republican states and leaving Democratic states alone, thereby blunting opposition from liberals while conciliating conservatives who want more drilling? (As if the impact of an underwater oil spill would respect state boundaries).

Their grand plan failed, of course, and now we're stuck with the consequences.

I suspected long ago that it would come to this: once the administration's back was against the wall, Obama's people would be forced to demand obedience out of personal loyalty to Obama and demonize anyone who did not comply. Which, at this point, appears to be a large portion of the Democratic party.

It was the inevitable outgrowth of the politics of personality which started with Reagan and escalated with Clinton and Bush II, but which Obama took to new heights.

Once it comes down to "Either you are with Obama, or against him," they're going to divide the country worse than Dubya ever did.

---

by: limpidglass @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 13:25:07 PM UTC

Who cares about "outreach"? (4.00 / 2)

Why would progressives even WANT outreach from people who have made it clear that they're the deadly enemies of everything we want to accomplish? All liberals- including those in Congress- need to wake up and treat them as such. They can't scare me anymore with the Republican bogeyman, when all they can provide is brief interludes at a slightly lower insanity level interrupting periods of Republican destruction. If that's all we can ever get from the Democrats, then this country as we know it is doomed with or without them.

So I'm with Susan S in Florida. We should tend to our local struggles and let the national party and its titular head go hang.

---

by: Steve LaBonne @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 13:25:32 PM UTC

Gibbs as pure outreach fail (0.00 / 0)

What they shouldn't do is blindly compromise their own agenda based upon the fiction that Third-Way Democrats have any interest in advancing liberalism. Liberals should accept tactical alliances with those with differing ideologies when they make sense and advance shared goals.  

Regards,
home equity lines

---

by: rdnp @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 20:19:44 PM UTC