What Am I Doing Here? Hint: It's NOT Supporting Candidates!

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:32


Somehow or another a growing number of readers and commentators here at Open Left have gotten it into their heads that I'm in the game of supporting/endorsing candidates.  Let me assure you unequivocally that this is not true.

After having seen Lyndon Johnson crush Barry Goldwater when I was a teenager, on the heels of passing the Civil Rights Act, then go on to pass the Voting Rights, and Medicare, but then pursue the Vietnam War like a man possessed-well, let me just say that it pretty much cured me of any latent tendencies I might have had to regard potential presidential figures as saviors.

What I am about is issues, values, ideology, strategic critical analysis,  and trying to save our country, and our species from destruction.  (The planet will do just fine, even if it does take 10-20,000 years to recover.  That's an eye-blink in planetary time.)

I feel sort of silly having to say this. But I feel even sillier realizing I should have said it much sooner.  I thought it was perfectly obvious that when I said "X," I meant "X."  But, of course, I was the one who would go on and on about content and context and framing, but when people would misunderstand me, I treated like it was their problem.  Well, of course, in one sense I was certainly right.

But I also say that "when one person fucks up, it can arguably be their fault, when a million people fuck up, it's definitely the system's fault."  The "system" here is the presidential primary process, and although the Obama supporters have been the most obnoxious exemplars, long preceding my drift toward writing more about him, they are hardly unique.  So I'm going to say this once, and hope (naively, blindly, stupidly, whatever) that it's enough, and link back to it when it's not:

I am not supporting any candidate!

But I am writing critically about Obama, far more than any other candidate, and I explain why on the flip.
Paul Rosenberg :: What Am I Doing Here? Hint: It's NOT Supporting Candidates!
Obama Is Absolutely Right

Obama is absolutely right that we stand at a time of historic possibility for fundamental change-if anything, he under-estimates how much this is so.

He is also absolutely right that he is the perfect figure to lead us in a new direction.  He doesn't have a lot baggage, he is someone that young people can identify with, he is not deeply embedded in a Washington culture that is far removed from the real pulse of the country. But...

Obama Is Absolutely Wrong

Obama is absolutely wrong in his fundamental political analysis.  The problem in America today is not a polarized political system in which Democrats and liberals are as equally to blame as Republicans and conservatives. The problem is a political system that's dominated by this sort of brain-dead political narrative.  And the longer that Obama promulgates such brain-dead political narratives, the more he squanders his enormous potential.

This sort of brain-dead political narrative dominates our political system because it's highly beneficial to the right wing, which has positioned itself to have veto power over such things.  It's not the ideal narrative for them.  "Democrats are the source of all evil, and should be hunted down like dogs" is the ideal narrative for them.

But they will happily settle for a dominant narrative that says it is equally reasonable-and equally divisive-to say "Democrats are the source of all evil, and should be hunted down like dogs" or to say "no, we're not, we're just sorta stupid, is all."

This is what the right wing will settle for now.  And they have this sort of veto power over political narratives because they've been fighting for it quite shrewdly for several decades now.  It is the result of their engaging in what Antonio Gramsci described as a hegemonic "culture war" or "war of position" to control the broad range of significant social institutions that together shape the fundamental presuppositions of our social, cultural and political thought.

The right wing has been highly successful in waging a virtually unopposed culture war for the past 30 years or so, and the blogosphere is one of the few newly emergent social institutions that has emerged during this time that is not just outside of their control, but actively opposed to it.

The blogosphere, as a result, is one of the few places in which it is commonly taken for granted that we have to fight the right tooth and nail, not just on one particular front or another, but across the whole range of fronts on which they are fighting-some of which we aren't even aware of, much less fighting on.

This awareness that (a) we are in a state of total war, and (b) we have no alternative but to fight back, has been part of the common sense of the left blogosphere since at least the emergence of the Howard Dean campiagn in 2003.  Barack Obama wants to change all that.  He represents buying into the very Versaille/M$M/DLC narratives that the left blogosphere emerged in opposition to.  He winks, and says, "Don't worry, I'm really one of you," but a good number of people simply don't believe him-and I'm one of them.

But that doesn't mean I'm unalterably hostile to him.  If I don't believe him, that doesn't mean it might not be true. It just means that his argument is unconvincing to me.  And I'm trying to articulate why that is, not through mindless repetition of a few set talking points (though I enjoy a good chorus or a killer hook as much as the next music fan, be it Beethoven or the B-52s), but through an exploration of the Gramscian culture war itself, and the larger matrix of historical patterns and forces in which that culture war is embedded.

That's what I'm up to, and why.

Coda-Beyond Obama, and All That

The above explanation describes how my writings critical of Obama should be read.  But, of course, I'm not just concerned with Obama.  I am much more concerned with urging and helping folks to wage the Gramscian culture war more effectively, in order to beat back the rightwing stranglehold on our country.

While I do agree that conservatism in some sense--particularly as a temperamental disposition-has a certain inherent presence and value in human nature, that is actually less so than the the sense in which liberalism reflects the core essence of human aspiration, as well as a superior perspective on how we may live in the world, productively, creatively and at peace with ourselves and others.  It is not through an abstract "balance" of liberalism and conservatism that we will find our equilibrium as a nation, but through the proper subordination of prudential conservative tendencies to the inspiration and direction of liberal thought. 

The struggle to work out precisely how such tendencies should be related to one another is as important in the long run as the struggle to beat back rightwing dominance is in the short run.  But the very fact that it is a long run struggle tells us that it cannot be successfully engaged in without benefit of the short-term relief that comes from success in the short-run struggle.

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
What Am I Doing Here? Hint: It's NOT Supporting Candidates! | 104 comments
Just a question (0.00 / 0)
Could you give me a quotation to support your claim that Obama says Democrats and liberals are EQUALLY to blame? I suspect this claim is simply part of your brain dead analysis of what he is trying to do.
It's Not Always What Someone Says Directly (4.00 / 5)
I want to be clear, and stress this repeatedly that I'm not doing your standard campaign analysis.  My concern is with long-term political change, and the shaping of nsrratives, ideology, institutions, etc.

While your question is a very fair one in the who-really-said-what context of normal campaign coverage, it misses the point of what I'm trying to do, just as clearly as it would be 100% appropriate if that were what I am trying to do.

So let me try to explain.

It's not always what someone says--be they a candidate or not. It's what they take for granted, where they are coming from. That's what matters for an analysis that is focused on the narrative, interpretive and ideological traditins that people come out of, and represent.

As far as Obama goes, he clearly comes from a place where he has to balance criticism of both sides, and as a result often takes ludicrous swipes at should-be allies, such as peace activists.

My criticism of Obama is primarily that he echoes rightwing narratives and rightwing-friendly Versailles narratives, rather than challenging them.  This does not require that he be David Broder, merely that he harmonize with him.

For example--and I discuss this in an upcoming post--in his MLK Day speech, Obama said:

We are told that those who differ from us on a few things are different from us on all things; that our problems are the fault of those who don't think like us or look like us or come from where we do. The welfare queen is taking our tax money. The immigrant is taking our jobs. The believer condemns the non-believer as immoral, and the non-believer chides the believer as intolerant.

Well, sorry, but the believer and the unbeliever aren't equivilent in this exchange.  They're assymetrical, even in Obama's formulation, but Obama just can't see it.  His presuppositions blind him to the plain facts right in front of his face.  And it's his presuppositions that I am criticizing, and trying to draw out into the open, in order to examine and understand.

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

[ Parent ]
I don't think its a fair question at all (4.00 / 3)
Look at how the question is constructed and you see the questioners bias. A fair question takes into account one's own bias and remains open rather than asks for absolutes.  This has been the essential problem with these sorts of candidate debates, This person is looking for a smoking gun when politicians rarely trade in smoking guns. My problem with such questions is that they never seem to aknowledge at least a logical inconsistency in anything that Obama has said or done. Even if one concludes that he has some hidden progressive agenda, one should still be able to recognize that the outward message is inconsistent. I think a fair question aknowleges why people may come away from a situation concerned rather than as I feel all to many Obama supporters do- deny any and all evidence to the contrary of their support. As someone said to me, there is so much out there that challenges at least the consistency of arguing that Obama is a progressive through and through that it's no longer about the evidence. It's about faith. I feel the question really is asking you to disprove the posters faith in Obama.
[ Parent ]
A couple of smoking guns... (4.00 / 1)
The first smoking gun for me was this bit of poetry from Obama;

"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf."-Barack Obama - March 31, 2006

So much for Mr. "against the war from the beginning".

Another quote that reddens my eyes:

"I'm a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.'' - Barack Obama - September 24, 2004

So much for Obama the civil/human rights advocate.
(Just in case the evangelicals didn't get it, Obama toured with Donnie McClurkin to make sure.)

These days much is being said about the racial divide among the electorate.
Clinton is being blamed. But I considered Michelle Obama's call for "people of color" to "wake up and get it" an out and out racist appeal to vote for her husband based on identifying with his ethnicity. She mentioned nothing about issues that would benefit "people of color". Just a pitch to vote for Barack to show that, "'we' can do it too."

I have no "faith" in Obama whatsoever.

[ Parent ]
Reasonable (4.00 / 2)
Reasonable people can disagree whether those are smoking guns. The point of my post isn't that one has to conclude as you do that they are definitive proof that Obama has been playing both ends against the middle.

The point is that the difference between faith and reason is that the later would take the evidence into consideration rather than deny it out of hand and, forever, as is the case all to often with these discussions, demand absolute proof. Like i said, what I really feel like they are asking is "prove my faith wrong."

  In the real world, we are rarely given absolute proof so to request it here is an indication to me of bias. It's not like they can't research this themselves and I have had this conversation- ie, about Obama's chief economic advisor being from the Chicago school of economics and his being right of center. It's not conclusive but it should raise eyebrows. That it doesn't is why I am concerned.

Or I especially realize there is this lack of critical evaluation of Obama when the exact same actions- Clinton's record on the ward since 2005 versus Obama's, for example, are exactly the same, and his supporters never seem to aknowledge even the possibility of what that means.

My point in short is that no proof would ever proove sufficient to demonstrat why there is concern with regard to what Obama is doing. Obama=always right and/or Obama=progressive, and therefore proof would have to be a video tape of Obama saysing I am fooling those foolish liberals. Even then I can see several of them saying he's just saying that because as a black candidate in America he needs to say that to win.

[ Parent ]
This Hits The Nail On The Head (4.00 / 1)
A very insightful analysis, bruhrabbit

Needless to say, I don't want to vote for a candidate on faith.  I want answers.  And the more non-answers I get in response to my questions, the more questions I have.

That's just the way critical inquiry works.

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

[ Parent ]
Returning this concretely to the real world (4.00 / 1)
we vote on candidates based on faith all the time. I am not trying to change that dynamic. One feels one candidate is better than another. There is no reason to believe that, but we do. But in the real world we also need to be able to hold all of these candidates accountable, and more than whom one votes for, this is my concern right now with Obama. That some parts of those who would bring him into office are so blind as to not be able to hold him accountable. Of all th earguments I've heard for voting for Clinton (and I support Edwards still) the best has been that at least no one goes into another Clinton presidency with any illusion about who she is and we would be holding her feet to the fire from day one. My fear is that isn't so with Obama supporters. To many of them live in denial about the tea leaves that Obama is putting out there.
[ Parent ]
Symmetry (0.00 / 0)
The believer condemns the non-believer as immoral, and the non-believer chides the believer as intolerant.
Well, sorry, but the believer and the unbeliever aren't equivalent in this exchange.  They're asymmetrical, even in Obama's formulation, but Obama just can't see it.

I would argue that the effect of this statement is also asymmetrical.  In other words, would you agree to stop calling the believer intolerant if they stop calling you immoral?  As far as a negotiated truce goes, we give up nothing and they give up everything.  Of course we will stop calling them intolerant once they stop calling us immoral; we were going to do that anyway.  They are the ones that need to change, not us.

This is why I'm not sold on the critique that "balance" is a bad frame for progressives.

[ Parent ]
I Agree There's That Potential There (0.00 / 0)
But it's only potential.

And until it's realized it works against us.

My problem with Obama is that, to date, I have seen zero manifestation of that potential.

But, of course, you're right that it exists.

At least potentially.

[Homer voice:] Mmmmmm!  Potential pony! Arrrrgh!"

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

[ Parent ]
There is that the potential earth could fall into the sun (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Potential? (0.00 / 0)
I was talking about the direct effect the words have influencing the listener.  I thought that is what you were discussing as well.

Now that I think if it, though, that wasn't your point.  Instead, you were looking for belief and motivation.

[ Parent ]
No, I Don't Think So (0.00 / 0)
You are describing how something might play out.  But it hasn't played out yet, and the logic of the situation as you see it is not necessarily apparent to others.  Indeed, I think that the "you're both wrong" frame is clearly established by the larger context of Obama's speech, so people have to work against that, as well as their own preconceptions.

I'm persuadable otherwise.  But that's how it appears quite clearly to me.

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

[ Parent ]
truce == victory (0.00 / 0)
To me, the conservatives need to win the culture war, where for us there is no difference between victory and declaring a truce.  They are the insurgence, not us.
[ Parent ]
Not So! (0.00 / 0)
Conservatives have been running things since before the first pyramids were built.  The notion that they are insurgents is one of their prize fantasies.

Or did I miss something, and it's Donald Trump, Rupert Murdoch and Michael Bloomberg who are being bounced out on the street, while tens of millions of new homeowners have just had their subprime mortgages taken over by the re-created FHA, and refinanced at half their going monthly rates?

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

[ Parent ]
Gramsci (0.00 / 0)
I meant in the Marxist and Gramscian sense.  They have deployed specific tactics and strategies to prevent the natural demand from the masses for equality.

Since we already have democracy, no additional insurgency is needed.

[ Parent ]
You Lost Me! (0.00 / 0)
We have democracy. But it's far from delivering equality.  Most people have only the foggiest notion of what that would even mean.  There's certainly nothing close to a sustained political discussion of it. Surely this should be obvious.

Again, I think you're focusing on the metaphoric source domain, and that's got you all tangled up.  The whole purpose of using metaphors is to talk about the target domain, not the source domain.  A wee bit of conscious attention to the source domain can help things along, but obsessing over it just totally derails any rational discussion.

No amount of fiddling with the metaphors is going to alter the basic condition--conservatives are winning the culture war hands down, because we're not even fighting it.

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

[ Parent ]
Not lost in metaphor (0.00 / 0)
I'm not lost in metaphor, I understand what I believe.  I am trying to use your language to explain my point and apparently failing badly.  The strange thing is the more I read what you have to say on the subject the more it seems my basic assumptions are pretty accurate.

Here is my basic understand based on what you wrote and my own interpretations:

1) Marx claimed a popular uprising against the capitalists was inevitable.

2) Clearly, he was wrong.

3) Gramsci claims that Marx missed how the capitalists could and do engage in a 'culture war' (different than my normal usage of the term) to prevent the natural uprising to take place.

4) My point is preventing the capitalists from waging the culture war is equivalent to winning it.  If the culture war ends, we revert to the state of Marx's assumption where worker demand equality.

5) In a democratic society, the 'uprising' takes place in the ballot box.

(Now, I'm not a Marxist or communist, so wouldn't want the full Marxist assumption to be true, but thats another issue entirely.)

[ Parent ]
Well, Now At Least I Understand You (0.00 / 0)
The problem is, the very functioning of capitalism involves culture war at some level--but it's more like the post-major conflict phase of pacification and occupation at its core--at least until challenged.  Gramsci was describing the need to wage war against the existing order precisely because the occupied structures of cultural heremony were all in capitalist hands.

My point is two-fold: first, that this is as true as ever.  (Just look at the "bipartisan" stimulus package!) And second, that it's not just capitalism.  It's also patriarchy and white supremacy as well.  These things will not just shrivel up and die on their own because people can vote.  To the contrary, they have a virtually unstoppable tendency to determine how people vote, unless they are systemically checked.  Unless we engage in a culture war to stop them.

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

[ Parent ]
Edit (4.00 / 1)
Typo in your shout line, Paul.
Grrr.... Argh! (0.00 / 0)
What typo?  Do you have a screen shot to prove it?  I did not have sex with that woman!  The WMDs are in Syria, and the check is in the mail!

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
lol (0.00 / 0)
Otherwise, keep up the good work...
[ Parent ]
We keep coming back to framing. (4.00 / 4)
Your penultimate paragraph captures it best, at least for me. I am reminded of what I think is one of the all-time great analytical comments ever about politics:

"Politics is not a battle for the middle. It is a battle for defining the terms of the political debate. It is a battle to be able to say what is the middle." (Armando Llorens)

Democrats have often been exceptionally poor at defining the terms of the debate, and, IMO, it doesn't help to have a candidate who wants to muddy the waters. For instance, true conservatives--the John Deans and the Bruce Feins--are as much for the rule of law as liberals, progressives and populists. Chris Dodd has finally understood this, but now he stands among only a small group of Democrats who are willing to claim openly that the rule of law is central to Democratic values. Most of the time, the average voter is confused as to what the Democrats stand for; and people aren't going to hop on the bus with you if they don't know where you're going.

The recent Senate battles over FISA provide a classic example of the problem. Neither Clinton nor Obama have taken this opportunity to step forward boldly and claim Article IV of the Constitution as an essential American liberty. In spite of all the press they could receive by doing so, neither has been willing to say that 7 years of using scare tactics to deprive us of our civil liberties has not made us any safer. If one or both of them just sneak into the Senate chamber on Monday for the cloture vote, what do we really know about the kind of leadership either of them would provide?

Exactly! (4.00 / 1)
Or, more broadly, "the essence of politics is the definition of the political."

Not just what constitutes "the middle," but also what can even be considered at all--and what remains "beyond the pale," beyond the edge.  which, of course, is intimately tied to what gets defined as the middle.

I have nothing at all against the desire to find common ground.  As you point out, there are principled conservatives we can find common ground with.  But pandering to the worst in the conservtive movement by pretending it doesn't exist doesn't just do nothing to accomplish this--it dishonors and undercuts the John Deans and Bruce Feins of the world, as well as dishonoring and undercutting the liberal tradition itself.

"Idiotic" doesn't even begin to cover it.

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

[ Parent ]
Framing (0.00 / 0)
I would tend to agree that framing counts, and it counts more than liberals want to admit.

In following with Paul's theme that conservatism is based on playing on our fears, and liberalism is based on playing on our highest hopes, I think that sometimes liberals hope too high for their own good. Let me explain before you freak out.

I don't mean that liberals want too many good things for society. Rather, that liberals misunderstand the current state of society, which is to say, we're a society of mostly idiots -- idiots who are easily swayed by messages not arguments, by demagoguery not rhetoric, and by cheap stunts not by presenting the best ideas.

I realize that this is somewhat of a cynical attitude, but I believe it's also a realistic attitude. The people have proven that they're absolutely no good at making choices about who should govern. Republicans are better at tricking them than Democrats are, because Republicans have no shame in resorting to trickery. Democrats often think themselves above this, and we see the results.

So basically what I'm saying is, Democrats need to play dirty to win, resort to coming up with empty messages that resonate with the population, in order to win.

Remember, our style of democracy is still an experiment. It is not a system proven to work as long as you consistently uphold its highest ideals. It is, however, a system that can be made to work for you if you understand how to gain power.

[ Parent ]
I Only Partly Agree (4.00 / 3)
I do think that liberals tend to have an idealized view of politics.

But the primary answer, IMHO, is not to fight dirty, but to: (A) develop a more realistic view of how ordinary people understand politics, and take advantage of it in the most elevting ways possible.  Not every resonant message is empty, or worse yet, deceptiv.  And: (b) be organized, disciplined and relentless.  Drag-down dirty appeals only work because we don't spend enough time and energy immunizing people against them.  They tried this same sort of stuff repeatedly against FDR, for example, but people were largely immunized against it.  That's something we've got to get back to.

Of course, there's nothing dirty about exposing real GOP scandals, holding them accountable, and then explaining how it's not just a few bad apples, but the essence of their governing philosophy.

That workds, too.

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

[ Parent ]
Don't be like them (4.00 / 3)

So basically what I'm saying is, Democrats need to play dirty to win, resort to coming up with empty messages that resonate with the population, in order to win.

This undercuts the progressive mission.  If we're going to come up with empty messages that resonate, they need to be empty messages that at least lead people toward the truth.  If we are going to change the terms of the debate by accepting the status quo as it is, we need to use the language of the current debate in a way that destroys the current debate, like how Newton wrote the Principia Mathematica in the language of Aristotelian physics, even as he fundamentally undermined Aristotle. 

If we have to speak in the language of our broken debate, fine.  But there has to be a goal other than just winning. 

[ Parent ]
"Democrats have often been exceptionally poor at defining the terms of the debate" (4.00 / 2)
That is because, obviously, Dim pols always already start within the same frame of reference as the Pukes do, and hence concede the validity of the Puke frame. They cannot reframe the debate from within, because they have conceded the 'definition of terms' to their antogonists.

That they are only marginally different from the Pukes in terms of their agendas is obvious to anyone slightly more sentient than a sponge. The leadership of both so-called parties are committed to the same vision: an authoritarian, corporatist, globalist super-State.

Neither Clinton nor Obama have taken this opportunity to step forward boldly and claim Article IV of the Constitution as an essential American liberty.

That's clearly because they have no stake in protecting the 4th Amendment. The 4th Amendment is an obstacle to the corporatist attack on the privacy of the individual, which is a threat to corporate hegemony in information collection and sales.

 

[ Parent ]
Give us a break Mr. Rosenberg, spare us your self-deception (2.00 / 2)
I've heard these protestations coming from people all across the Internet, and they are disingenuous and unacceptable.  The idea that one can remain objective in a political campaign is ridiculous assertion upon its face, and I reject and condemn those who attempt to carry-on such a pretense.

I've seen shameless advocacy carried on by those who proclaim their objectivity, even in the face of what is quite obviously to anyone with any intelligence, obviously biased presentations of candidates.  One particular instance and blog comes to mind, TalkLeft, which was once a fine site, one of the better political and legal blogs on the net.  But it has been reduced to a shameless propaganda rag for the Clinton campaign, where the lead writers Jeralyn E. Merritt and Armando Llorens continue to proclaim their objectivity, while carrying out one of the most one-sided Barack Obama smear operations to be found anywhere on the net.

There obvious hatred of Barack Obama runs so deep, that I believe they've lost touch with reality to some degree.  One can only speculate upon the motivation for this hatred, but it is quite obviously not based in any irrational or fair evaluation of the candidates.

It's political theater over there, where Armando and Jeralyn pretend that they are just presenting "the facts" but what they're really doing is following the lead of the Clinton campaign and trying to deceive their readers, and in so doing they've destroyed all semblance of credibility that they spent years creating. Here's a post which exemplifies their deep denial, an obvious rejection of what the polls actually show. South Carolina Whites Are Not Moving Away From Obama

So here's the way it is, you either declare yourself for candidate in this campaign, which is becoming extremely ugly, specifically as a result of the Clintons tactics not the Obama campaign, you declare yourself and your objectives, otherwise you have no credibility, otherwise you're fooling yourself and attempting to fool your readers at the same time.

So have some guts and take a stand on principle, otherwise everything you write is suspect, that's the way it is.

I see you're comfortable with a number of convenient mischaracterizations and oversimplification's in order to make your point as well Mr. Rosenberg.  Here's an example.

Obama is absolutely wrong in his fundamental political analysis. The problem in America today is not a polarized political system in which Democrats and liberals are as equally to blame as Republicans and conservatives. 

I defy you to provide a quote from the Obama campaign, or Barack Obama which makes such an assertion.  None of Obama's deeply progressive supporters believe that or would make such an assertion. Obviously you have no real understanding of what Barack Obama is trying to do. 

The presidency has been handed to Democrats by George W. Bush.  The Bush presidency has done more for the Democratic Party and the cause of progressive liberalism than anything the Democrats have done in the last 25 years. The American people have not made some fundamental shift to the left, they've rejected those who would sent a president up as a monarch over us all, and replace the People's sovereignty with executive sovereignty.

It's a fantasy for progressives to assume that the American people want to watch as the Democrats play tit-for-tat and try to marginalize the Republican electorate and the Republicans in the government and continue this highly destructive ideologically based culture war that is doing enormous damage to our country.

Hillary Clinton is not a leader who will bring this country together, she's the Democratic version of George W. Bush and her presidency will bring down the Democrats just as surely as Bush brought down the Republicans.  We can't afford to keep playing this game in America, because it will destroy us in the end.

I urge you to wake the hell up.

Clueless on several levels... (0.00 / 0)
Paul doesn't hate Obama. You are the one with the hate problem. If there is one thing that I have experienced myself which has convinced me that Obama would be a disaster it is such vile assertions as that from such low-info fools like yourself. Any criticism of 'The One' is meet with uncontrolled rage; take a step back and look at yourself in the mirror pal. It's not a pretty sight.

You sound exactly like David Duke or Strom Thurmond in their heyday.

I respectfully invite you to STFU!

You are obviously incapable of contributing anything to the discussions here due to your quite obvious mental problems. I don't always agree with Armando but the idea that he and Jeralyn are also Obama Hatah's is delusional.

I TRed you for this stupid and asinine comment which I don't deem worthy of unpacking.

Do this again and you will not be so lucky next time.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
I Am Standing On Principle (4.00 / 4)
So have some guts and take a stand on principle, otherwise everything you write is suspect, that's the way it is.

My principle is simple: the most important thing to do is to engage in, and win, the Gramscian culture war which the right has been engaged in since the 1960s and 70s.  This is what I'm about, first and foremost.  My criticism of particular political actors is ultimately determined by their relationship to that struggle.

Of course, a city councilmember may have only a very tenuous obvious connection to such matters, but with anyone running for federal office, if their relationship to this struggle is not clear, then that very lack of clarity is itself a major consideration.

I see you're comfortable with a number of convenient mischaracterizations and oversimplification's in order to make your point as well Mr. Rosenberg.  Here's an example.

Obama is absolutely wrong in his fundamental political analysis. The problem in America today is not a polarized political system in which Democrats and liberals are as equally to blame as Republicans and conservatives.

I defy you to provide a quote from the Obama campaign, or Barack Obama which makes such an assertion.

As I explained in my previous comment, it is not necessary for Obama, or any other political actor to say something explicitly, if it is either implicit in what they say, or evident in their actions.  I would be extremely pleased if Obama made it perfectly clear that he does not believe this.  But the best he can do, apparently, is make this perfectly clear on Monday, only to return to bashing fellow progressives on Tuesday.  I fully agree that the Clinton campaign and others have pounced on this, and that many have mischaracterized it.  But they did not make it up out of thin air.

The presidency has been handed to Democrats by George W. Bush.  The Bush presidency has done more for the Democratic Party and the cause of progressive liberalism than anything the Democrats have done in the last 25 years.

The same could have been said about Hoover and the Republicans in 1932.  It still was no reason for FDR to run as Hoover Lite.

The American people have not made some fundamental shift to the left, they've rejected those who would sent a president up as a monarch over us all, and replace the People's sovereignty with executive sovereignty.

Actually, (a) they've done both, and (b) they were already well to the left of where Versailles assumes them to be.

See, for example, the "Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007", subtitled "Political Landscape More Favorable To Democrats" on the fact that people have made a fundamental shift to the left, and see my various previous posts on how even conservatives support the welfare state.  Also, consider the fact that it's been 70 years since the last time conservatives were fully in charge, and that's given them a loooong time to misrepresent themselves and their record.  People are only now waking up to what they're really like.

It's a fantasy for progressives to assume that the American people want to watch as the Democrats play tit-for-tat and try to marginalize the Republican electorate and the Republicans in the government and continue this highly destructive ideologically based culture war that is doing enormous damage to our country.

Thank you, David Broder.  And thank you for making my point about where Obama is coming from.

Unfortunately, investigating Bush/Cheney for a concerted 8-year effort to subvert the Constitution is not tit-for-tat for the GOP's "Hunting of the President" in trying to find a crime to hang around Bill Clinton's neck.  And the more folks like you and Obama insist that it is, the more you do to strengthen the GOP when it has justly been thoroughly rejected by an increasing number of Americans, including some--such as Pete McClosky--whose families have been pillars of the party for more than a century.

Hillary Clinton is not a leader who will bring this country together, she's the Democratic version of George W. Bush and her presidency will bring down the Democrats just as surely as Bush brought down the Republicans.  We can't afford to keep playing this game in America, because it will destroy us in the end.

I am no Clinton supporter, and if forced to choose between the two would not hesitate a millisecond to vote for Obama.  But you are clearly delusional.  This sort of statement completely undermines everything you've said before.

I'm glad you said it, so people can more accurately judge where all the rest of your seemingly rational argument may be coming from.

I urge you to wake the hell up.

You know what they say about doctors and their own medicine.

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

[ Parent ]
I read these posts (0.00 / 0)
and I have to say this: where is the evidence that your approach can win an election?

And make no mistake: elections are where these battles are won or lost.


[ Parent ]
I read the posts too (4.00 / 3)
the reason why there is not evidence on the Democratic side is that the party never tries this approach.  I am therefore a little confused by the request for evidence to prove strategies that the party steadfastly refuses to try. I suppose if you want evidence you would have to look to the GOP for it since they are ones who ran on this for several decades and moved the country center right.
[ Parent ]
But There ARE Some Scattered Examples (0.00 / 0)
It's a bit contradictory, since what I'm calling for is an integrated approach, so scattered examples are oxymoronic at the most basic level.

But as for the building blocks, well, that's a different story.  Howard Metzenbaum's victory in 1988, at the same time Dukakis was going down in flames with the exact same voters would seem to be a pretty powerful example, for one thing.  Especially since Ohio is regarded as the swing state to end all swing states.

And, of course, there's Bernie Sanders' record in Vermont.  Of course, he's not a Democrat.  But that's what makes it all the more impressive.  When he started out, he was winning 1% of the vote.  And in recent times he's been cleaning up in Vermont's reddest precincts.

Down in Orange County, one of the most impressive politicians over the past 20-30 years has been Larry Agran, another example of someone who has bucked all the CW for election after election after election.

The problem is, the party as a whole routinely runs away from these shining examples.

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

[ Parent ]
I don't believe they don't know this (0.00 / 0)
I simply thing they have more to gain with continuing the system as is. Honeslty I am a Democrat by default at this point. My cynacism is that high. These are smart, creative and ambitious people. No way in hell they don't know that their strategies are failing or why. They simply gain more with the ecosystem as is.
[ Parent ]
Or Russ Feingold and Tom Harkin, for that matter (4.00 / 1)
It's not like Wisconsin and Iowa are hard blue states, yet they produce these two solidly progressive senators.
[ Parent ]
By his approach, what... (4.00 / 1)
exactly are you referring to?  If I interpret Paul correctly, he is saying that we (Democrats) need to set the terms of the debate, not parrot the GOP frames (as Obama did with his Social Security comments).  We have been working within their narrative for so long that we don't even realize what we're doing, or worse, as might be the case with Obama, doing it on purpose.

Drawing a distinction between us and them is how we win.  Questioning assumptions about where the country stands is how we win.  It's difficult to give examples of the success of Paul's approach because it hasn't been done very much.  Didn't Markos and Jerome discuss it in their book?  Was Jon Tester an example? (Sorry my brain's not fully functioning today.)

[ Parent ]
It's How you argue that counts (4.00 / 4)
What I like about you, Paul, is that you're arguing a position, and you've argued it in such a way that it stands on its own.  It requires no bullshit analysis of "motive".  There are far too many commenters who argue, "You're only saying Y because you're for X".  They completely discount the possibility that I'm for X because I think X is better on Y.  They constantly invert cause and effect, and it becomes annoying.


I am no Clinton supporter, and if forced to choose between the two would not hesitate a millisecond to vote for Obama.
 

I reach the absolutely opposite opinion on this question.  If forced to choose, I've decided for Clinton.  That you have reached the opposite conclusion does not detract one iota from the respect I have for the arguments you've made here, your motives, or thought processes.

We had dinner with old friends last night who were all supporting Obama.  I was the only one who said they'd support Clinton over Obama if forced to choose.  (I'll vote for Edwards on Super Tuesday with no expectation whatsoever that he'll win.)  But it was an amiable discussion that honestly probed each candidate's strengths and weaknesses.  Nobody assailed my motives - my friends know I have nothing personal to gain from my opinions.  One friend thanked me for making the case for Clinton, which he'd not heard anyone do before.

The case, in case anyone cares, basically boils down to this:  On domestic policy both Obama and Clinton are to the right of where I think they should be, Obama slightly moreso.  On foreign policy I see no significant differences, and yes, I discount Obama's 2002 speech because he's done nothing since he's been in the Senate to build on that impressive beginning.

More importantly, I think Clinton's a fighter and Obama seems not to be.  We need a fighter.  We need to tear down as much of Reagan-Bushism as we can, and it will require a fight.  Obama's "inclusiveness" sounds an awful lot like leaving things in the out-of-whack place they are now, in the name of avoiding the fights. 

And this is where my friends are coming from too.  Longtime activists of impeccable progressive credentials, they fear getting dragged into all the old fights they're sure the Clintons will attract like flies.  My counterpoint is there's no way around these fights.  We have to have them if we're ever going to get to a better place.  There's no easy way around our Republican opponents.

To those who read this: Agree, disagree, but respect my motives, as I respect yours.  Enough of this psuedo-psychological bullshit.  You don't know me.

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

[ Parent ]
Awesome! (0.00 / 0)
That's the first word that came to me after reading this.

phat

[ Parent ]
I Understand Your Position Perfectly, sTiVo (0.00 / 0)
In fact, about 40% of me feels exactly the same way.

But 60% feels that we've already seen the Clinton movie before, and as a contrarian, "better the devil you don't know."  Something unexpected could pop out.  (For one thing--closest I get to rational thought here--by the time the campaign's over, Obama would have to have some clue about what's to come.)

However, it's quite clear to me that there is no rational foundation for this.  How could there be?  It's just blind hope, either way.  I just know that's what I feel instinctually.  And I know damn well that there's no point in arguing instinct.  You just cause confusion of both reason and instinct when you try to rationalize like that.

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

[ Parent ]
Blind hope??? (4.00 / 1)
How audacious of you!
[ Parent ]
As I said to my friends (4.00 / 1)
I'm probably 51-49 for Clinton over Obama.  I probably lied, I'm more like 53-47.  The point is that many of us are arguing small shades of difference and inflating them into Grand Canyons. 

Since most of us will probably end up supporting the nominee whoever it is, exaggerating differences is limited as a strategy.

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

[ Parent ]
the 60% (4.00 / 1)
I feel like we shouldn't assume Hillary will be Bill redux so automatically.

A) They've both probably given a lot of thought to the problems they had, and the fact that White House (and Dem in general) strategery during the 90s didn't produce earth-shattering results.  They've both probably got different thoughts on how to do things this time around.
B) Hillary isn't Bill.  Without evidence to the contrary, I have to believe she's her own person and her own politician.

Looking at Hillary as Bill redux by default may be unavoidable, but I'm not sure it's fair, and I don't think we know enough to even guess that it's true.  I'm betting that we've seen a Clinton movie, to follow your movie, but I think this one could be different.  It's possible, and I don't think I've seen strong evidence of its improbability.  But whatever, this kind of talk is all pretty touchy-feely for my tastes anyway, and, like you said Paul, this isn't exactly the realm of rational thought we're in right now, is it? =P

Full disclosure, I'm a Tsunami Tuesday-stater leaning toward Edwards.  Five bucks says an Obama supporter solicits my support somewhere in the replies, lol.  I kid, I kid. =D

[ Parent ]
It Won't Be The Same Movie (0.00 / 0)
But the only thing we don't know, I think, is whether it will be a sequel, or a spin-off.

It won't by like Monty Python.  We're not going to get "something completely different."

But, on the plus side, we're not going to get the Spanish Inquisition, either.

With Huckabee, well, you never know.

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

[ Parent ]
Propaganda? (0.00 / 0)
When has TalkLeft engaged in lies or distortions?  Examples.
[ Parent ]
Open Left objective (0.00 / 0)
Elections choices are best made on review of facts. This demands critical thinking based on information we are given. It is the voters job to sort the results of that information.

Frankly I do not care who you support, I care about my choice of a candidate. Your opinion is not the focus of this process, your information is. If I wanted personal opinions I would listen to MSM.  Your obligation is to verify your facts and present them for review.

If You've Got An Objection, Spit It Out! (0.00 / 0)
Open Left does not exist for the sole purpose of this election.  It has much more long-term objectives, which is why I have been here from the beginning (or as close to it as pacified's glitches allowed!), and why I am both pleased and comfortable posting the sorts of diaries I do.

I'm both bored and appalled by your pedestrian Manichean attempt to separate fact from opinion, thereby eviscerating the very essence of judgement, which consists of how the two are conjoined.

My obligation is the same as any other blogger, political or otherwise--to do my thing and "to my own self be true" and thence to find my place in the group ecology of mind.

If you don't like it, then don't read it.  It's very simple, really.

Vague admonishments, however.  Well, now, those really are the purview of the M$M.

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

[ Parent ]
vague admonishments (0.00 / 0)
Again, it seems to be more about you than the candidates. 
I will take your advice and limit my seach for information to more objective sources.
[ Parent ]
Good! (0.00 / 0)
I'd rather be taken for chopped liver than for a teletype machine.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
Chopped Liver (0.00 / 0)
Your article on framing was excellent and that is the point. Stick to what you do best.  We needed the framing information far more than your defensive position on a candidate.

If people leave this site because you prefer to insult rather than inform you risk losing your influence.  Bad choice.

[ Parent ]
I Can't Help It If You Ignore What I Write (0.00 / 0)
I wrote a diary explaining that I wasn't in the candidate game, just because I'm exploring a candidate's presuppostions as a way to probe the nature of the political challenge we face.

You totally ignored what I wrote, and chose to interpret it as exactly the opposite of what I said--as a veiled candidate diary.

"A man hears what he wants to hear
and disregards the rest"
    --Paul Simon, "The Boxer"

Nope. That wasn't a coded message, either.  No hidden reference to the former Illinois Senator.  Put away your secret decoder rings.

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

[ Parent ]
Motives (0.00 / 0)
It is impossible to discuss general principles while mentioning a candidate by name without your motives being questioned.

You have to decide whether you want to stay clear of the campaign or deal with being seen as partisan.

Once you are seen as partisan then everything you write will be filtered through this lens and you will diminish your effectiveness.

A perfect example can be seen currently with Paul Krugman who has now been branded as having a favorite.

Discussing the race (especially during the primaries) seems a fairly pointless effort. Whatever one says or believes will just be mingled with the opinions of other "experts". Two thirds of these opinions will amount to nothing as two of the three are going to lose. All that ink spilled for what?

There are enough fan sites, stick to your fundamental analysis, such writing is in short supply.

Policies not Politics

I Respect You Robert, But... (4.00 / 1)
Obama's misreading of the current political situation is quite eggregious, and discussing it provides an opportunity for significant in-depth discussion of important issues--such as the nature of the culture war we find ourselves in.

Furthermore, the more intelligent Obama supporters reognize this as a serious issue, and either share my concerns, or can provide intelligent counter-arguments which I look forward to hearing and learning from.

The hacks... will be hacks in any event, and I cannot run my life by worrying about them.

I hope you'll continue to read what I have to say, even if it does cross this forbidden threashold. And even better--comment.

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

[ Parent ]
Time (0.00 / 0)
It's all a question of how you wish to spend your time, defending yourself for being misunderstood or educating people about issues of psychology, public attitudes and all the other areas where you have expertise.

Personally, I don't have the patience or energy to fight over candidates.

Look what will happen. Obama will not be the candidate, in which case all this invective was so much smoke (unless you think that the fan clubs are really making a difference) or he will be the candidate, in which case the criticisms will be dredged up by the GOP and used in the real campaign.

I'm not suggesting that all the Dems be given a pass when they say things that are stupid, wrong, misleading or pandering, just that it is more valuable using the effort against the GOP.

I see any of the Dem candidates as vastly preferable to all of the Repubs. I think the differences between them (given institutional inertia, big money influence and the future makeup of congress) will be slight.

People are losing sight of the main objective. That's why Dems lose so often, they assign too much weight to ideological purity and can't adapt to the fact that no candidate is perfect.

Policies not Politics

[ Parent ]
I Accept That None Are Perfect (0.00 / 0)
But I want to work on their flaws, nonetheless.

You make good points.  But I'm like the scorpion in the story in The Crying Game--it's just my nature.

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

[ Parent ]
Will the Republicans use (4.00 / 1)
"Progressives don't and never have fully trusted Obama to be a true progressive" as a talking point?

[ Parent ]
Revealing use of the passive voice there (4.00 / 4)
I like the passive voice in:

... Paul Krugman who has now been branded....

Funny, or not, how Obama's Fan Base "branded" Krugman, a genuine progressive who was there for us in 2000 when literally nobody else in the mainstream was speaking out, an "enemy" while at the same time accepting the endorsements of Republican operatives Kristol, Sullivan, and Brooks, as well as Village elder Broderella, as completely unproblematic. Why would that be, one wonders?

The obvious answer is that Obama is running right because he intends to govern from the right, and the Village knows this and approves it, and that Krugman arrived at the same conclusion the Village did, but called bullshit on it the same way that he did with Bush. The OFB then shamefully spread the rumor that he wrote he did because he hoped for a job with the Clinton administration. What happened to that "new politics"? Did it become inoperative?

For the Village, the upside of Obama and his "Unity" theme is that at a minimum, no Republicans will be held responsible ("The nation needs to heal"); and at a maximum... Well, who knows...

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

[ Parent ]
Yeah, Well (0.00 / 0)
There are worse things in the world than to be branded "Just Like Paul Krugman!"

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
Krugman Is Neat, But (0.00 / 0)
He has been a figurehead of a movement that has consistently lost elections, and lost policy fights.
[ Parent ]
Krugman has been at the forefront (4.00 / 1)
of a newly-reborn Progressive movement.  The struggle to build is long-term.  It took decades for the GOP to get their footing, do you expect us to be there in a couple of election cycles?
[ Parent ]
Again I don't know where to begin (4.00 / 4)
How old do you think this movement is? Just curious, because the Clintons were in office until Jan 2000. So what is this long time you are referring to? The GOP took decades to build their power base, and indeed, I don't know how young you are or your knowledge of history- it must be remember that the FDR coalition lasted for 75 years. The GOP coalition lasted for all of 10 to 20 years. So when you say we aren't "winning" it seems it lacks any historical context at all. You wanted to discuss context with regard to Obama's record so again be consistent here by admitting that historically your argument under the context doesn't hold water other than a talking point.
[ Parent ]
Not to mention that the Democrats started running (4.00 / 2)
on a platform that had anything to do with Krugman's message sometime around 2006 (2004 if you stretch). 

How'd the Dems do in 2006 again?

[ Parent ]
So Then... (0.00 / 0)
So then you support John Edwards. Way to stick to your guns!
I Will Vote For Edwards (0.00 / 0)
Now that Kucinich has dropped out, he's clearly my first choice.

But he still hasn't crossed the threashold where I will devote time and energy to advocating for him. 

Edwards definitely has a better handle on where the lines are drawn and why.  He also has the right enemies.  But has he put together a compelling, coherent alternative vision?  Enough for me to vote for him, but not enough to go further.

I wish, for example, that he hadn't simply rejected the "war on terror" frame, but worked out an alternative.

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

[ Parent ]
Agree To Disagree (0.00 / 0)
My feelings on Edwards are pretty similar to Feingold's. To sum it up, it would be something along the lines of "unmitigated gall."
[ Parent ]
my feelings that (0.00 / 0)
this could be said of all three so when someone tries to place one on the pestal for a speech, not action on Iraq, then I've got to conclude that America, including th eleft, has descended into pure form over susbstance. I've been challenging others to this- but substantively demonstrate to me on both votes of which they both participated and rhectoric with regard to what they will do as President- what's the difference between CLinton and Obama? I also ask that you do so going forward from 2005 until the present rather than having to go back to a speeach, which, again i find irrelevant since you are all claiming that edwards change of heart means nothing because its just words.
[ Parent ]
Votes Are Not The Only Thing That Exists In The Record (0.00 / 0)
I reject your frame of only viewing the candidates through the last three years. I think that's a ridiculous idea. Why toss out perfectly good information about these people?

Votes are very important, but they exist in context. For example, the context of Hillary's war vote was that either she  was so easily fooled by Bush's hoodwinking that she got on board the bandwagon, or she decided to lie us into war for some other reason. Either way it's awful.

Obama on the other hand was on the record as being able to see through Republican lies, and stand up against them. I think that counts for a lot.

As for what they'll do as president, Obama has clearly stated a very progressive media policy, especially concerning net neutrality. Clinton's policy is to turn the Internet over to a few large corporations. The Internet is very important, and it's very important that it's regulated well. Obama understands this. Clinton thinks that the Internet is something she can sell out to her corporate friends in order to get some favors.

[ Parent ]
I hardly know where to begin (4.00 / 2)
I'll just start by saying prove my point here and above in this diary. This isn't about evidence but about your belief. 

You wrote as response to Edwards that we can't trust him due to his record in the Senate (because that was what the other Senator was referring), and now when I point out Obama's record in the Senate, we shouldn't use that because it doesn't tell the whole story. 

Do you tell me what story it isn't telling? No. You simply say he saw through the GOP lies. I am not even sure what the hell that means, but apparently you  think you do. I find the faith based analysis frustrating.  That is what it is by the way. You offier no evidence, anlysis, facts- nothing. Just assertions. We should trust him. That's it. That's useless because who can argue with it? How do I begin to argue with it?

It's the flat earth argument with the right all over again exported to the left. I believe the earth is flat and there is nothing that you can say that will convicne me otherwise. You deny the facts. Utterly frustrating to even have this conversation with you because it so lazy to be honest.

I can't prove or disprove anything with you because the line will change based on whom you do or not have faith.  You would not catch me saying what you are saying with regard to Edwards record. I make no excuses for it as you do with Obama's record. That ultimately places us in incompatable spaces. Obama=always right and/or Obama=progressive. How does one who is foucsed on principles and what the candidates are saying and doing now argue with this? With the inherit inconsistencies?

Let me give you a link to an excellent diary by Steve M at mydd:

http://www.mydd.com/...

There is also this by me:

http://www.mydd.com/...

I find your post exceeding frustrating. You keep moving the line.

[ Parent ]
Faith Is It Exactly (4.00 / 1)
In fact, I think that someone trained and practiced in studying apologetics would feel right at home reading posts like these we see so regularly from Obamaphiles.

I decided long ago not to be swayed negatively by them.  It took a real act of will at first.  But by now, it's a reflex. 

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

[ Parent ]
No One Is Moving The Line (0.00 / 0)
Obama's policy on the war has been pretty consistent, which is basically that he opposed starting it, but supports funding it once its begun. That's a coherent, consistent policy. It's not a policy that I 100% believe in, but it's his policy.

Hillary's policy on the war was supporting starting it, then funding it, then saying that it's not her fault at all that it ever started. That's just a lie, compounding the lies she told to start it.

These are two different policies. One is coherent, the other is just insane flailing.

As for Edwards, it takes a lot of gall to say things like "I've been fighting for poor people for all my life." when he did things like vote for the Bankruptcy Bill.

So, it's not as simple as you suggest. You can't just say "Look! You said this guy's rhetoric counts when this other guy's rhetoric doesn't count! You're a hypocrite! You're clearly blinded by candidate-worship!" Rhetoric and votes both happen in context. One must understand the context.

Edward's rhetoric does not count because it's a lie. He has not been fighting for poor people all his life. He has in fact been working against poor people for a significant portion of his life. A calm look at the record shows that Edwards is simply full of shit.

[ Parent ]
Again, where do I begin (4.00 / 2)
I was about to debunk most of your post because most of it is factually wrong, but, then, I thought-what would be the point? There in lies the problem. This isn't about facts. You picked a candidate, circled the wagons in your brain and the partisan brain isn't interested in talking facts.

  I am betting you didn't bother to go to the links I provided. The diary by Steve M illustrates the point perfectly- the exact same political behaviors by Clinton and Obama are attacked as crass by Obama. The part that's instructive is the line of reasoning offered up by Piuma along the thread. Logically inconsistent analysis that pretty much does what you do here.

I am not going to argue facts or even provide you facts here. These are things if you were remotely open you would know are false. But you choose not to find out. I am simply responding to the mind set because that's the problem. As long as it is the chief way upon which you view politicians (they are all politicians) there is no way for us to hold people accountable.

Rather than continuing this fruitless exchange, let me simply post something that merbex said along the thread of the diary that I wrote. This comment sums up my broader concern.

"I was speaking of activists who I know and am friends with who could not understand why I wasn't jumping on the Obama bandwagon last March( could have been April need to check my calendar).

At that time I already knew he had supported Joe Lieberman, Tammy Duckworth over Christine Cegallis(spelling), and I knew despite the popular impression in the public that he was against the war, he hadn't even supported Murtha's plan for redeployment.

His rheteric was not reaching me either - "ending partisan bickering" giving us a "new kind of politics" - I was watching the governor I had worked so hard to elect( Patrick) get rolled by entrenched politicians in MA at the State House - he too wanted to "change the tone". The reality was, those entrenched politicians and interests aren't going to change unless you take them on.

So I kept going up to NH and managed to see all 8 candidates( Edwards 6 times, Obama 5 times, Clinton 3 times, Richardson 3 times, Dodd, Biden Kucinich and Gravel 1 time each); Obama with the Peru trade deal, missing Kyl Lieberman, moveon vote, just wasn't registering on my progressive meter at all as a matter of fact the arrow kept pointing to the right :)

What I noticed was that those that got on board early had made an emotional and financial investment in him and as Drew Westen writes that usually means that they had developed a "partisan brain"about him. Nothing I, or anyone else who was either an Edwards supporter or an undecided progressive  voter would say could get through to them.

They refused to discuss anything that challenged their view of him as a progressive.

Look, I wish Edwards had voted differently on a score of issues, I wish he hadn't worked for the hedge fund. I have to make a judgement on whether his "change of heart is sincere" - it seems to me as if it is. If something should come to light that would change my perception, I hope I would weigh that new information carefully and be willing to change my vote if the information warrants it. So far, it's Obama that keeps giving reason after reason for his progressive supporters to change their vote and they haven't - confirming Westen's theory about a partisan brain.

The link you gave about Obama's economic advisors is another eye opener that is important but technically useless to give to a person who supports Obama - there is so much out there that challenges his presentation as a progressive that one more thing isn't going to do much.

What is hurting him is that as each primary and caucus draws near( since Iowa) the general public which historically are late deciders are getting this information abouthim aand are questioning the very foundations of what he is running on - Rezko?looks like old politics to me, partisan bickering - the back and forth with Clinton looks like what? His record is getting a closer examination too and the voters are responding."

[ Parent ]
Empire (0.00 / 0)
"The link you gave about Obama's economic advisors"

I gave no such link. I think maybe you think you're talking to someone else?

Either way, to make my position clear. I simply can't consider a candidate to be progressive if that candidate chose to lie in an attempt to start a imperialistic war.

This issue is the elephant in the room. Paul can talk about coalition building, and the flaws of post-partisanship all he wants. He has some great points to make, and he's often right about these issues. However, we can't overlook the fact that we are, right now, at war. And we're at war in part because of Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

Hillary has made no attempt to make a progressive turn on the war. Edwards has, but I simply find his 180 to be disingenuous. I don't believe him.

United States imperialism is the greatest threat to the world, and to ourselves. How we view partisanship is important, but it's not the biggest issue our country faces now -- not by a long shot.

[ Parent ]
My post was about whether your belief about Obama is backed up by reality (0.00 / 0)
Nothing in this subsequent post by you responds to that concern. It does what is all too typical- a ranting voter projecting all his asperations onto a politician. The diference ultimately between you and I are not ideas- it's that I don't trust any of them- not Obama, not Clinton, not Edwards. None them. That's your shit, and that's why my post is beyond.

  You can try to keep turning this into good versus evil all you want. It's frankly your perogative to be loony.  But you certainly aren't in this rant worried about accountability or how you achieve the objective you claim you want. Or else you would give a shit about actual records of the policitian you are endorsing  They (all politicians- Obama, Edwards whoever) will never be responsible under your mentality because's the mentality of dictatorships.

[ Parent ]
Not Dualistic (0.00 / 0)
I'm not trying to frame our discussion in terms of good vs. evil, and I'm sorry if it came across that way.

I don't believe that Obama is perfect, or anywhere near the ideal candidate. Hell, I think that Russ Feingold isn't progressive enough for me. But, I do believe that among the actual candidates, he is a stand-out the most important issue, the war. That's all.

My Obama support isn't about dualism, it's about hierarchy, or perhaps even a wholearchy. I'm ranking the actual available candidates, and in my estimation Obama is the best one we have this time.

[ Parent ]
I Continue To Be Amazed (4.00 / 1)
by how little the historical reality matters for so many on the left.

I take it as a given for those on the right.  After all, one cannot squarely face Vietnam and remain on the right.  It simply cannot be done.

But for the left, it should be a source of invaluable instruction.  God knows enough people suffered and died, that we ought to wring every last ounce of insight out of it that we possibly can, in hopes to never repeat such tragic farce again.

And, yet.... And, yet.... And yet, nothing.  No recognition whatsoever that Clinton and Edwards were being played the same way (though not in the same manner) that LBJ was in 1964.  No attempt to grapple with the deeper root causes that lead to putting folks in such a situtation.  In fact, virtually no distinction whatsover between those who reluctantly go along with war (virtually all the Democrats involved, even LBJ) and those who positively revel in it (virtually all Republicans).  And certainly no analysis of what fundamental change in outlook could prove decisive in preventing future repetitions.  (And here I am not speaking of any airy-fairy, grand "Come to Jesus" revelation that turns our entire establishment into a band of DFHs, I'm speaking of imminanently possible, sellable-in-terms-of-naked-self-interest kinds of change.)

In short, I see noting useful whatsoever in your purer-than-thou posturing, quite apart from the facts pointed out and arguments made by bruhrabbit--all of which stand quite well on their own with no need of assistance from me, although they do ultimately converge quite nicely with my point.

I don't mean to question the sincerity or virtue of your passion.  But. Good intentions. Road to Hell. Halliburton/KBR.  Yadda-yadda-yadda.

It's simply not good enough to feel, or even be virtuous.  One must also study, think, learn and question.  Otherwise, virtue is sterile.

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

[ Parent ]
Just Don't See It (0.00 / 0)
"I don't mean to question the sincerity or virtue of your passion." Nor I yours.

Speaking of purity, I'm not as pure as I used to be. If you're interested in where I come from politically, I'm a former Naderite. I worked on two of his campaigns. So, the idea that I think that Obama is the Messiah is quite misplaced. I'm doing quite a bit of nose-holding to get on board with Obama.

I think that we have very similar goals, you and I, and that the candidates do a great job of obfuscating the issues, so that we can't really figure out what is going on.

So, you seem to think that Edwards would be better at eliminating the root causes of an Imperial United States. I just don't see it. I see Edwards as a man who has accomplished little in his life, and who has during his tenure as Senator, been a staunch advocate for capitalistic hegemony and an Imperial United States. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see it.

[ Parent ]
But Nader Is Saying Nice Things About Edwards Now! (0.00 / 0)
And you say you can't see it?

I'm deeply puzzled by this.  I could see you saying, "well, it's not enough."  That would make senese.  But " I just don't see it"???

From this comment I get the sense that how you think may be quite different, but the way you communicate comes off quite absolutist, not at all reflective of the dubious attitude you self-report.

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

[ Parent ]
What Are Those Things You Wear On Your Feet At The Beach? (0.00 / 0)
OK. Let me clarify. I think that Edwards' rhetoric is the best of the three candidates. I just don't think he's credible. I do not believe him. I don't think he has any intention of governing in the way that he campaigns.

I view him the same way as a lot of Republicans probably view Mitt Romney. Edwards is throwing red meat to the liberal base right now, because he knows it's his only shot of winning. The problem is, this populist progressive talk is a recent turn of events for him. It was not so long ago that he talked just as passionately about the need for empire, and the need to transfer power over to the rich.

[ Parent ]
I believe the earth is flat (4.00 / 1)
it's about the eqivalent of what you are doing here. Fact: Edwards came to his views before the general public changed its views. Look it up. Fact: Most of the public at one point was for the war. Do you think they are lying to when they say they have since changed their minds? Fact: Obama (since we must compared) has not supported even the Murtha plan for redeployment, and preferes instead to pretend defunding meant he wouldn't support the troops. Let's pretend for a second that Edwards and CLinton are as crass as you say. ANd far be it from me not to admit politicians aren't crass. Why is this behavior now, given what we know of the acutal plan set forth, isn't crass? How does one explain his missed votes? How does one explain how in every case his frame is always to move to the right- facts- look at SS, at healthcare, at the gay rights issues, at trade, at any number of actual issues. Easy to point a finger at others. Hard to look in that mirror. I am not advocating that you find Edwards or Clinton to be saints. Iam saying Obama is a politician. As such, what was written in this diary was about getting him to be accountable for what he says and does. Reducing (not you personally) all of it to "you are just a hater" isn't cutting it. And yes, I 've heard grown ups walking around saying shit like that in response to my criticism of Obama's approach.
[ Parent ]
hey d'arby (0.00 / 0)
I think Bowers had a really good post addressing some of this.  Maybe you caught it the first time and disagreed, maybe you'll read it now and disagree...just think that if it's new to you, it might give you some perspective on where some of the folks who have the same facts you do but still disagree with you on Edwards are coming from.

Bowers on the progressive conversion of John Edwards.

[ Parent ]
Obama had everything to gain and nothing to lose by opposing the war (4.00 / 2)
At the time, he was a longshot Senate primary candidate. 

His situation was not analogous to Clinton, who at the time, was one of the most prominent Democrats in the Senate.  If you want to compare Clinton to Jon Corzine or Russ Feingold or Barbara Boxer on this, great. 

But the most you can say about Obama is that he doesn't have this check mark against him.  It took far less courage to oppose the war when you were trying to distinguish yourself from a crowded field than it does when you're sitting in the Capitol.

[ Parent ]
Still (0.00 / 0)
IF he had continued in that same vein, there would have been a strong case for him.  Instead, there's a strong case for pretzel logic.

He supports Lieberman.  Opposes Murtha.  Trash talks the "No blood for oil" crowd, then praises the ISG Report with its "Blood for Oil" premise that the oil law has to be passed as part of US policy.

I'm at a loss to find anything that distinguishes him as progressive on Iraq once he gets to Washington.

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

[ Parent ]
This poster to whom you are respond (0.00 / 0)
could care less about the issues he discuss or else he would put them before teh candidate. The fact he or she is trying to justify things that are in opposition to his or her principles is all I need to know about whether he or she means to whole politicians accountable. It's clear that this is about electing Obama, not the Iraqi War. Like I said- its about accountability, if this were present in theri argument they wouldn't be coming to the conclusion they are coming. I have a friend who supports Obama- he understand Obama is a politician and makes bad choices, and he has said as much. What I can't stomach are rants such as the one here where they act like a duck isn't a duck or that they can walk on water despite the fact that 5 years have passed since the speech and we have 5 years of history on which to judge these candidates. But no, we are suppose to remain stuck and make excuses for the last 5 yearsl.
[ Parent ]
But all the options are horrible (0.00 / 0)
Part of my reaction to Feingold's comment was "I know.  Why the hell aren't you running?  You could have made a huge difference this campaign season."

There was not a single good option this campaign, at least until Chris Dodd started speaking up about FISA, and it was too late for him then.

[ Parent ]
Paul, this is a terrific analysis! (0.00 / 0)
You might want to run it through a spell-checker, because some of us will want to quote this, y'know, liberally.

If you haven't seen Correntewire's wall-to-wall coverage of Obama's embrace of rightwing talking points, please do:

http://www.correntew...

Thanks for a great post!

Damn (0.00 / 0)
Not to meta-pimp here, VastLeft, but I hadn't realized, myself, how intense our coverage has been. Fortunately, there's help:

Obama's gonna give me a pony!

I love ponies!!!!!!!!

I'm gonna name my pony Unity!

Uncle Mitch says he's gonna come by tomorrow and show me if My Pony is bi-partisan or just curious LOL!!!!

I love my pony!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

[ Parent ]
It's True! (0.00 / 0)
I don't visit Corrente Wire nearly as often as I should.  And every time I do, I ask myself, "Why don't come here more often?"

I think, perhaps, it's just too much fun, and I start feeling like I should feel guilty or something.

Can I have a pony, too?

Oh, and a stable.  Don't forget the stable!  Stability is very important!

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

[ Parent ]
No ponies for h@t0rz! (0.00 / 0)
Why do you hate the Unity Pony?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
The Dark Horse Was A Pony Once! (0.00 / 0)
What does it mean?

Use your intuition, Luke.

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

[ Parent ]
Paul, if Obama doesn't give you a Unity Pony, we will (0.00 / 0)
Or at least a slightly-used hamster.
[ Parent ]
The good news... (0.00 / 0)
The hamster comes with a full-sized stable.

We found this faith-based stable-maker, and they got a big check from the government to make hamster mangers the size of the U.S. Embassy in Iraq. Sweet deal, eh?

[ Parent ]
Hopefully Good Now (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Yes, thanks! (0.00 / 0)
My bleary-eyed scan shows it's much better.

And why am I bleary-eyed? Here's why:

http://www.democrati...

[ Parent ]
I always enjoy your posts (4.00 / 1)
While I am supporting Obama in the primaries, your insights are very valuable.  My support for Obama runs along the Mark Schmitt "Theory of Change" argument, meaning that I think Obama has the best potential to neutralize the opposition effectively by winning with a real mandate and helping Democrats down-ticket.  That being said, he could have done this while running more progressively than he has.  On a lot of the big issues, from the war, to trade, to FISA, independents are not in the middle between the right and the left, they're firmly on the left.  In other words, he could keep the big tent narrative while staking out more progressive positions and still win big.  This is what Reagan did in 1980.  Had Obama done this, the primary campaign would probably be over and he would have the nomination by next Tuesday.

Going into Feb 5, Obama needs a game changer to beat Hillary.  My view is that Obama could seriously weaken Clinton by staking out more clearly progressive stands on issues where Clinton is weak.  I think FISA offers a big opportunity.  Residual forces in Iraq is another.  We'll see what happens.

I Agree 100% (4.00 / 1)
Why he listens to David Broder rather than just reading the polls for himself is an utter mystery to me.

I want to believe he's a genuine progressive.  I used to believe he's a genuine progressive.  But he seems to go out of his way to keep me guessing, and I'm guessing it just might cost him an almost sure-fired shot at the Presidency.

Very strange.

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

[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
The fact that he hasn't staked out a more progressive position could just mean he's not one.

phat

[ Parent ]
True (0.00 / 0)
But, you know.  Sometimes it's best to leave things unsaid.

Lets them grow in the subconscious, don'cha know!

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

[ Parent ]
I'm not known for my subtlety. (0.00 / 0)
phat
[ Parent ]
Agreed on Obama and FISA (almost) (0.00 / 0)
On FISA, you'd think that a professor of Constitutional law (as we are constantly told Obama has been) would get this right, and be on the floor defending the Fourth Amendment, not to mention the rule of law, by speaking out against retroactive immunity for the telcos.

If Obama had wanted to totally change the game, he would have joined the filibuster during the initial filibuster by Dodd.

If Obama had wanted to change the game, he already would have been on the Senate floor.

If Obama manages to resolve his "scheduling conflicts" (!!) and speak on the floor Monday, alas, it will look like too little, too late, and opportunism.

Re Constitutional law: Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Sigh.

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

[ Parent ]
Not So Fast! (0.00 / 0)
As the only non-teacher in my family, I must object!

Re Constitutional law: Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Sigh.

Those who teach, do.  Those who can't teach, run for President.

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

[ Parent ]
Good post. (4.00 / 1)
Cynically I fear pleas such as this fall on deaf ears for those that need to hear them, but still a necessary effort to make.  At least it gives you something to link to every time you're accused of being some kind of secret Hillary lover when you criticize Obama without "balancing" it with Hillary criticism or something.

I'm thinking back to MyDD in 2005/2006, and some very hostile commenters who were constantly accusing Chris, Matt and Jerome of ill faith treatment of a variety of things.  It's hard to tell if this type of thing is any worse with Obama, and it seems like it might be, since he is unique in his emotive appeal.  Since he inspires such devotion, it seems a fair hypothesis that his supporters would fall into the traps of slavish devotion more than others.

But then, the continual rate of Edwards diaries taking up 3/4 of the DailyKos Rec list over every little thing Edwards does or every 1 point bump he gets in a poll perhaps speaks against this (He was on the rec list for most of yesterday for releasing a statement about FISA; wake me when he travels to washington to stand in solidarity with Chris Dodd on the Senate Floor). 

Quantitatively I really can't tell if this kind of thing is any better or worse than previous election cycles.  I think it's a worthy problem to tackle, as it does approximate some of why so many people support Bush (but not totally, Bush followers being authoritarians to boot).  The difficulties people have in releasing their personal emotional investment in a candidate is an important part of changing minds.

Er, JRE is not a sitting Senator (0.00 / 0)
So he can't "stand in solidarity with Chris Dodd on the Senate Floor."

HRC and OHB can, however, and you might think that Obama, who taught Constitutional law at Chicago, might have a special duty to uphold what, as a professor, he professed.

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

[ Parent ]
yes, he can (0.00 / 0)
He's a former senator and they have access to the chamber.  He can't address the senate, but the point is to do something unusual to attract attention to Dodd's fight.


[ Parent ]
Agree (4.00 / 1)
all three have failed on FISA
[ Parent ]
You hit the nail on the head (0.00 / 0)
I also liked your hegemony and history diaries (Jan. 27).

Banned for posting five straight diaries.
What Am I Doing Here? Hint: It's NOT Supporting Candidates! | 104 comments
For each DVD you purchase, Brave New Films will donate $5 to OpenLeft.com to support our various projects. Please click on the buttons above to make a purchase.
SEIU will donate $1 to OpenLeft for each individual who signs up for their campaign to pass health care for all Americans. Sign up here.
Donate to Open Left

--Senate Whip Count
--The Progressive Block
--Senate 2010 Forecast

QUICK HITS

blog advertising is good for you

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox