Comments are moderated. Please stay on topic.
As Molly Ivins used to say, you gotta dance with the one who brung ya. Obama's behavior is quite clear. Since the corporate media installed him as the democratic nominee, he is going to do the corporate media's bidding.
If "the Village" is, as I understand it, that population of supernumeraries, satraps and functionaries who supply the various labors by which the oligarchy maintains the sham of "democracy" in the Capitol City, unless you're planning wholesale deportations (not a bad idea, per se, butr impractical), and absent the generous application of torches, tar & feathers, please, what expedient do you suggest by which the Village may be flushed, or relieved of its retrograde influences?
>[Obama]...has less freedom of movement than someone like a John Edwards might have had....We chose serious symbolic change that has deep cultural meaning over serious ideological change that has deep political meaning.
However progressive Edwards sounded when running for President, his Senate record was to the right of Obama's - Iraq, free trade, etc. He didn't walk the walk, and didn't start talking the talk until he was campaigning and trying to position himself. I don't know that any of the candidates (other than Kucinich, perhaps) offered real ideological change.
But nothing comes free and having a politically moderate president at a time when a more explicit progressivism might have gotten a boost is the price we pay.
How about a "politically moderate" President who went out of his way to sell himself in the primaries as a progressive, attacking the policies of his main rival as too moderate? And who then, primaries concluded, rival disposed of and nomination secured, promptly threw his progressive backers under the bus and adopted wholesale the policies of said departed rival?
--
Digby,
Once again you demonstrate why you are considered the most illuminating blogger in the biz. How I wish I could see your byline in the NYT--not that they'd give you enough space, or space at all. I just wanted to say that as usual you have explained what is right in front of us, in language we can all understand.
Thanks for all you do.
aimai
Who was the ideological change that could have been chosen? Seriously.
I agree with you in part, but I'm not so sure it's the pundits that are swaying the Democrats to the center so much as they're both symptomatic of a larger problem; namely, the corporate donors that fund Democratic and Republican candidacies alike, and also pay the pundits to be their mouthpieces. With all the activist spirit in the air today, I'm surprised this isn't talked about more. One thing I'd like to understand better is why the US seems so much more susceptible to this problem than other countries which more successfully resist the influence of multinational business interests.
It's all about Obama, and that is all it's every been about. That fact that you couldn't/can't see that is pretty alarming.
Woody,
I think tar & feathers would make a nice antidote to the Broders, Cohens, Matthews' and the rest of the village idiots in the Capitol City...
SP
As the Republicans fall back and regroup, Democrats have decided to use some of their political advantage of the moment to advance something important: the full equality of African Americans.
Democrats have decided? Um, a large number of us have been left out of this selection process.
Unfortunately, your advancement of Obama was carried out in such a sexist, divisive way that it is going to cost you the general election.
Digby,
Thanks....nicely done.
At the end you said you said that "If we want real political change, it's time to change the Village."
I am not as eloquent as Woody above but would appreciate your definition of the "Village" and what you think could be done to really change the Village.
I keep pushing structural change back to previous postures of America like the original American Motto and corporate rights which seem realistic to me but not to others. While I agree with the grassroots development of people to elect better congresscritters I guess I think that it is too little too late.
I would like to hear from you about what you think the touchstone components of Village change would look like.
" Who was the ideological change that could have been chosen? Seriously."
Neil Patrick Harris.
Seriously.
My initial observation is that "The Village" and "The Establishment" are the elites, for the sake of baby Jesus, I'm a freaking elite?
The god damn Democrats listen to the gasbags too much, yet we must change the Village for real change?
What this means is a media with such over-arching power that they have the Democrats completely under their control. Is that why they have horribly failed for eight years? Because they never can under the corporate propagandists?
Rationally I'm supposed to take this chasm leap of faith my work-to-the-bone cash--I worked hard for it, motherfuckers, you ask so casually for it--that the "new" Democrats that might get elected for "better" Democrats will somehow happen and the party will really change.
Steny Hoyer will still be there, right there with that asshole Jerry McNerney (talk about knifing your people in the back) and Stephanie Hersethanol. The Democrats will be New and Improved. I'm so sure.
Perhaps I will. Not today, not fucking hardly, no way. I don't forget. Somebody out there has to convince me New and Better Democrats isn't simply a form of enabling and being a sucker, 'cause I need it.
Thank you for speaking so clearly.
What do we do about the Villagers? I'm tired of feeling helpless about them. I'm frustrated when popular voices like Froomkin or Phil Donahue are marginalized because the corporate bosses don't like what they say.
We need a plan.
I think the Village is changing, but not as fast as we'd like. Remember Matthews' mea culpa on sexist comments, or when the audience booed the moderators during the last democratic debate? Remember people at a Clinton rally booing her when she mentioned the whole bitter fiasco? The political/journalistic climate is changing, but we won't know how much until the election. It's a mistake for Barack to stray away from what he was doing during the primary (staying above the fray and not engaging in the "usual" politics); I believe he will lose new supporters if he flip-flops on issues that he has defended. We need character now, not calculation.
That is brilliantly written, insightful, and undoubtedly accurate. And yet, with the situation at hand, something still lingers, a bit of an aftertaste.
It seems there are layers of truth here. It is true about the Villagers, of course. And the importance of the symbolism is undeniable. Getting elected is the most important truth.
Now, we all know why this explanation is so necessary to revisit right now. It is because Obama has taken a disappointing position on FISA. To some, his stance has created a conundrum.
On the one hand, his speeches soar, reminding Democrats of promises made long ago. His speeches brought Caroline Kennedy into this election, for the first time.
On the other hand, there is that FISA aftertaste, that sudden lean toward moderation. Would so much political capital have been spent had he taken a principled stand? Obama taught constitutional law. He knows what the FISA legislation is not, if anyone does.
Obama has said about Iraq, that is a debate he is willing to have.
Is right and wrong a debate he is willing to forego?
The only way to counter the adolescent framing of the Village is to Speak Truth to Puer. And bloggers will take on the brunt of it.
Paul Rosenberg at Open Left has two recent posts on just how popular the right wing agenda is with the public going back decades that might interest people, if you have not seen it:
http://openleft.com/showDiary.do...do?
diaryId=6656
And a follow up piece here:
http://openleft.com/showDiary.do...do?
diaryId=6662
Both have useful data for this discussion...
But as of right now, there remains a strong belief among all the Democratic players that liberals are losers --- and they want to win. I don't think we're going to change that in the next four months.
No, not in the next four months. It will take some time. But we can start right now by not helping centrists Dems win. And we can work against centrists and take them out one at a time. Let's start with Obama.
Think about it-- the next four years are going to be bad either way. Let McStain have it. In 2012 we will have a chance to nominate a liberal. Obama is not going to do anything but embarrass us anyway. And I hate to think what his nominations to the Supreme Court will look like.
Brilliant as ever. This whole "move to the center" meme annoys the hell out of me. What in fact the pundits mean is "move to the right." the reality, studiously ignored by the Villagers, is that the political center in this country is in fact well to the left of most leading Democratic politicians, including both Obama and Clinton. This has been revealed consistently in the polling data on political positions and attitudes (the ONLY meaningful measure of this) for over a decade. why the Democrats cannot win elections is another matter, but I think you are on target about the lack of obvious commitment to set of principles (ANY principles).
I think that maybe Obama chose FISA to be his "Sister Souljah," demonstrating his willingness to disappoint the netroots. Maybe I'm wrong, but in any event he can't go back now, without looking like he caved to the netroots. And wouldn't Fox News have fun with that?
clinton connected far better to our true base -- the working class -- barack doesnt even seem to think he needs them. they dont even have to make shit up about our candidate this time. how stupid is that?
No matter what Obama does, he is going to get hit with the Liberal label. He needs to prepare for that in a way that does not try to dodge it, but embrace it by showing that liberal values are American values.
Kerry got hit with the Liberal label during the debates and it was his worst moment. He was clearly a superior debater to Bush, but when he tried to evade the Liberal libel, he blew away much of his advantage. Overall, that may be attributable to the fact that Kerry was a technocratic liberal. He knew he liked certain policies, but he couldn't articulate the valued behind those policies. He was all head an no heart.
Obama is different. He clearly has some core values that drive his policy choices. So when he is hit with the liberal label, what he needs to do is to equate his values with liberalism and show why liberal values are values that most Americans agree with.
If there ever was a time to resurrect the liberal label, now is it. The consevative label is absolute trash right now, or at least Obama can make it trash. What he needs to do is to equate everything Bush has done to conservatism and show what a disaster such an ideology has been. Now is the time for liberal to do to conservatives what they did to liberals in the 70s and 80s.
The Village worked hard to take down Edwards. They're just getting started on Obama.
Controlling the narrative and dumbing down the discourse are very important for (and helpful to) the media and the conservatives. Somehow, there's never enough time on the MSM to really compare, like grownups, liberal and conservative policies or philosophies. There's only time for soundbites, celebs and sensation.
It's easier for the right to blow the dog whistle with one-liners like, "Bomb bomb Iran." It's easy to say that you're going to sit the Sunnis and Shiites down and tell them to cut the crap. Bumper stickers are cheap.
It's much harder to explain why our civil rights had to be fought for, and why it's important to protect Social Security, etc. It's harder to explain what the New Deal was and why it was important.
It's harder to explain why torture is a bad idea and why the Iraq invasion/occupation was and is a mistake.
Shockingly, using intellect is asking too much of the current administration. Bush and Cheney have made careers out of taking advantage of people's ignorance of history and science.
If our society, through our media, doesn't learn the truth about Bushco, we won't learn to avoid such scourges in the future.
It's definitely time to change the Village. Long live blogs like this one.
i agree with "paradox" and others about the need to convince me of this change. i had hope but with the FISA fiasco and funding the war again, it seems we've been snookered once more. the 2006 dem sweep was going to be the beginning of the end of politics as usual. was the village responsible for what has happened...i think not. they are entertainment! they have served brilliantly to distract all of us from the reality that IT'S BUSINESS AS USUAL in congress. no impeachment, no controls over the market and speculators who drive up prices on everything, the sellout of the mortgage crisis on the backs of the taxpayers, funding of programs that help business and screw the people (healthcare,medicine,war,vets benefits,trade treaties,etc), environment,immigration,katrina - you get the picture, right. now Obama reneges on his promise on FISA just like bush did with his CO2 promise and Barack isn't even president yet. unlike you digby,i had hope; not any more. i wish that all our liberal/progressive dreams would come true but i am learning to curb my gullibility after years of being fooled. here's a question for us all-what will we do when Pres. Obama decides that we need to stay in Iraq? he will have his reasons and explanations and the backing of a bi-partisan majority but not us. rely on your hope? i think you are smart and speak well to all the issues but either i am too cynical or you are as gullible as i used to be. we will only have a democracy when we the people make it happen and our dependency on the failed party system that exists today will only prolong our agony and frustration. former leaders have warned us of the ruin of our freedom and constitutional rights. from Jefferson to Eisenhower. maybe this net web and the act blue candidates are a beginning of a "peoples voice" party but i feel that if we rely on the dems in power now and those who have shown their loyalty to compromise(read:corporate),we will be sadly and painfully disappointed. it will take much more than hope to make this change. what we have blithely asked of our soldiers will be demanded of us, civilians, if we wish to reinstate the rights recently stripped and those that will be, not to mention the dismantling of the constitution and implementation of the "king" and his kangaroo court.
I've read Fred's links before. Short version - if you hide the party affiliation and then you ask people which policies they prefer, they overwhelmingly prefer the democratic position on major issues like healthcare and the war.
The Republicans are good at making the water muddy. Are you really going to vote for a metrosexual? A gay hairdresser? A castrating lesbian bitch? When you put it like that, people vote for the republican. And the village helps them sell this garbage.
So what can be done? Nothing, as long as Democrats split their vote like Digby posted a couple days back. They need someone to really take the lead and get some discipline along the lines of what people really want to see happen. But that is a pipe dream. Obama is not going to do it...he has made that clear.
Regards.
We wanted "politically moderate" all along?
Coulda fooled me.
As I continue to read the comments here it brings me back to the changes I push for.
What better time is there to put the damn God thing back in the bottle? What part of E Pluribus Unum would not resonate with all but the fundies and fascists? We DO need to come together to face the challenges that face us and the world.
Maybe it is too much to expect the corporate face men/women that the fascist media have "allowed" to come forward in this election to lead what once was a great nation.
A guy's got to dream.... that or go crazier.
Not moderate; conservative. Obama just isn't a right-wing nutbar.
Fred, thanks for the links!
It's a nice story, but I am not buying it. The run to the center, whether wise or not, is an attempt to cover a larger proportion of the voting electorate. Claiming that the Democrats are already in a majority is a nice intellectual claim, but is a sure cocky way to lose elections.
The center is not like the North Pole; it's a moving target. The move to that subjective position is determined by the candidate and is highly dependent on the candidates views.
Obama's FISA vote is his attempt to gain national security credibility. It turns out to be judged as a run to the center, but actually is a grab of the blanket to cover more of Obama. We may think that it's a useless attempt, but gasbags or not, national security is and was a major issue in American politics. This move may not be needed in 2008, but why risk it.
The real question that should be asked is whether a candidate remains faithful to her/his vision. Although the answer to this question will come only after victory in November, objecting to a candidate to expand her/his appeal is like objecting the wedding goan of the bride.
What's the point?
I think that we should keep mind that liberal hero FDR wasn't actually so heroic during the first 100 days. But the left kept pushing and got the policies which remember today as the core of the New Deal during the sdecond hundred days.
We have to figure out ways of making Obama do what we wish, by uncovering the levers of power that we can pull. Seems to me that, imperfect as he is, we have a greater chance of seeing a progresive agenda enacted than we have in decades.
You've got to hand it to Dick Cheney for one thing... he wasn't afraid to tell a Sunday morning flea circus questioner: "I reject the premise of your question". If Obama does get elected and the Dems increase their majorities in congress, they must start cuffing the media around like the Pugs have for the last 30 years.
I think "national security" as a major issue in American politics is so much BS. America has most of the nukes and spends more on military that everyone else combined...do you feel more secure?
We are vilified by the world for our imperialistic and anti-humanistic ways. We have been convinced by the theocratic/fascist cabal that we deserve to screw the world and everyone in it. That is not a christian value (at least that I was taught) but is a fundie one....hate everyone who doesn't believe like you do.
Security is ephermeral, both on a personal and national level. When you don't have anything to lose, as is the case in much of the world, why wouldn't you continue to beat on the folks holding you and those around you down. No amount of nukes or modern weaponry will ever succeed in extinguishing the human desire for a more just life.
This is mostly appeasement based bs. Obama is gonna be a disaster. Not just for progressives, yeah...he'l say he is one, but for the nation.
The days when a bunch of ignorant do-nothings called The Village can be allowed to treat the governance of our nation like a high
school, if they ever were here, are ovah!
Ovah, Digby!
Folks are dying like flies now from heat, air pollution and lack of medical care.
Yep, right now over 5000 folks die every year in the LA basin because of air pollution.
Government, which the people created to serve them, is failing the people. Utterly and without any excuse or shame.
I say this.
Obama and his clown circus better hope they DO NOT win as the next thing that happens to the frikin' 'Village' is....
We burn it down.
.
I agree that Obama has less room to push a progressive agenda than a white male candidate might. The problem at this stage is that American political discourse has moved so far to the right that trying to prevent the president from accruing extraordinary powers without oversight and trying to prevent blatant violation of the 4th Amendment has somehow become a "progressive" agenda. Since when are checks and balances and the Bill of Rights progressive? We're living in bizarro world.
one of the best posts i've read here in a while. nail right in the zeitgeist, useful and timely overview.
Glenn may get the technical stuff but you get the "practical" stuff. Thanks for keeping us focused.
I'm becoming more and more convinced that Clinton could have roughed up the Vilage, which is sorely needs.
If Obama does get elected and the Dems increase their majorities in congress, they must start cuffing the media around like the Pugs have for the last 30 years.
Ha...ha...
We should all be careful about adopting an over-simplified media narrative when that narrative happens to fit our own prejudices.
Some of Obama's flip-flops are quite real and quite disturbing.
Some of his other alleged flip-flops aren't really flip-flops, they're just re-statements of his long held positions. (For instance, in favor of "not just for militia" second amendment rights, and in favor of the death penalty.) Those are positions that the Weekly Standard was praising, six months ago, when they saw Obama's campaign as an inevitably futile challenge to the unbeatable Hillary campaign. Now, of course, the Weekly Standard is talking about how Obama is the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate.
Back in December, when it served their purposes, the Standard told the truth about how conservative Obama is.
Now their purposes are different, so they alter their spin.
Okay, nevermind the Standard . . . how about observers with a record of honesty and perspicacity?
In January, Paul Krugman wrote,
http://nytimes.com/2008/01/14/opinion/ 14krugman.html* * *
I know that Mr. Obama’s supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals [Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards] on matters of domestic policy.
- - Paul Krugman 01/14/2008
Krugman's parsings of the position papers have been astute.
Many people who didn't do their homework - - who didn't look at those positions - - deluded themselves that Krugman was a Hillary-bot.
Myself, I almost always agreed with Krugman's columns, but for various reasons I didn't care much whether Obama or Hillary won the nomination.
Why?
Because there wasn't much difference between them, and because each had some advantages and disadvantages.
I don't like Obama's position on school vouchers, for instance, but, well, the (neocon "think tank") Manhattan Institute flip-flopped on their previous support for school vouchers (cause they don't actually work as advertised), so I could hope that President Obama, too, might eventually do a flip-flop on those.
In the end, I gave more weight to foreign policy, and less weight to domestic policy, so I voted for Obama, but I was still wavering when I entered the voting booth. My spouse went for Hillary. Our district elected four delegates, two for each candidate. That pretty much represented how I felt.
Anyway, President Obama can't just do whatever he wants on domestic policy.
Congress does impose constraints on domestic policy.
For instance, a president, unlike a British PM, can't simply announce a new tax policy and then get it passed in a week.
In foreign policy, where Congress has less inherent power and where Congress is also less inclined to even attempt to impose constraints, so the presidency matters more - - Obama's judgments have generally been the best (or the least evil) of the major candidates.
So far.
On domestic policy, some of the people who think that Obama has flip-flopped are people who should have paid more attention to Krugman, or to Obama himself.
So, let me see if I can translate the new GE strategy:
"Yes we can" has become " No we can't, or "Well, we might."
And there won't be much "change," cuz the new boss is just like the old boss.
And "Don't tell me words don't matter" becomes "Well, I didn't really mean that, cuz now getting elected is more important."
Have I got right, Digby?
So, my choice to be an Independent cuz I saw this coming before I gave the DNC any more money was EXACTLY the right choice, right?
And all those far left assholes that bashed the Clintons for "triangulating" still get to feel superior?
And those "Appalachians" that were bitter & clingy and uneducated and trailer trash to the elitists in the party----they're now actually the ones who had pragmatic, practical middle of the road values, right Digby?
And all those idiots at Daily Kos who ran the rest of the Democratic Party off permanently, possibly risking a November loss, are now screwed by their own fearless leader, right?
You have copped out, Digby.
Who got to you?
The problem with Obama's FISA stance is that he appears WEAK because of it, i.e. a non-fighter -- and not just to progressives, but to EVERYBODY.
Including my Republican family members who -- amazingly enough -- have actually been thinking about voting for him over McCain.
Obama rolling over on FISA does nothing to win him those votes. Or anybody's vote. It does the opposite.
And one more thing:
Are you excusing Barak Obama's hesitancy/moderate/small increments without big bold ideas........BECAUSE he's Black?
When did we as a party decide to elect the "first Black candidate" and move on THAT idea, instead of our strong progressive ISSUES?
John Kerry said Barak Obama was the best candidate "because he's an African American."
THAT's what we decided as a party?
REALLY????
Digby: You again overlook a salient fact. A cocked gun has never been stuck in the ear of any democrat who has dealt with the corporate media during the past 30 years. A gag has never been stuffed in a single mouth. Every righteous point you've made in this post could as easily have been made by any number of them, on-air and in prime time, but for their unhealthy, unreasoning, unpatriotic fear of... well, what exactly it is they're afraid of, I don't pretend to understand. I certainly can't name it. Truth be told, I no longer think fear has much to do with it.
You cast the primary onus of the unhealthy state of our political dialogue on the corporate media. I place it squarely on the shoulders of liver lillied, weak kneed, gutless democratic politicians. Any lawmaker, much less a leader, who can't hold their own (and then some) with those paid flacks should not be a member of congress. Yet, they are not stupid people. On the contrary.
So what's happened? With a decent number of notable exceptions, something is obviously terribly wrong with the democratic party as a political organization.
The rot in the that party runs far deeper than you are prepared to acknowledge. They haven't been bullied by the Russert's and Mathews, so much as they have collaborated with the corporations that have hijacked the airwaves. Indeed, they helped grease the skids for that takeover.
I wish I had faith that today's party of Jackson will even begin to right the boat. But I've none, zilch, nada. In trite terms, it's part of the problem, not the solution. That said, I hope time and events prove me wrong.
Don't know why Glenn linked to this.
"Democrats have decided to use some of their political advantage of the moment to advance something important: the full equality of African Americans."
Are you serious. The Dems voted for Barak because he's black? Jimminy Christmas, they voted for him because he said all those cool things, stood up to the Repubs and told them to shove it on race, on security. He didn't vote for the war.
Now the FISA thing and we have disaster all over agin. I am so absolutely ashamed that I might have to vote for this vile weasel of a candidate only so that the demented, crazy one doesn't get into office.
Here's a question I put to you and Glenn - if we keep voting for crap Democrats simply because to keep the Repubs out of office - and if the Repubs keep marching towards facism - what keeps us from electing facist-lite Dems?
When is it time to pull the plug?
And the whole "it's the village" meme is overused. If we had a leader, this country would rock right about now. People are primed, and thought Obama was IT! And now that he's not, he'll get crucified by the press and don't look to us for support. If he wins, I really believe it will be a disaster that will make Carter seem small and usher in another generation of Republicans. Will we be able to survive that?
Party of Jackson?
Mmmmm, genocide.
Yes there were also some good things about Jackson's populist style, but why doesn't it bother people that he's on the twenty?
Get rid of ALL the dead presidents on the currency.
How about some poets and scientists?
Which means Benjamin can stay.
The word "elite" seems to denote anything attractive.
My Dear Digby:
You nailed it.
Again.
As usual.
I had to laugh when Greenwald confessed to regularly watching and fussing over Olbermann on the tube. What a joker!
And did you know Cesar Romero's nickname was "Butch?"
Digby,
This is the kind of post that is indicative of why I read your blog. I wouldn't read this type of insight anywhere else.
Thank you.
Symbolic change vs. ideological change???
Huhhhh?
So much for the reality based community. Turns out those cultural wars aren't over.
only a Republican can go to China...
And only a Democrat can privatize Social Security and Medicare. You read it here first.
My personal favorite solution for the Broders of the world would be to drop-kick them out of a cargo plane about 100 miles out over the Bering Straits!
But, that's just a fantasy. In the future everybody will get their news from the internet and won't bother watching the Fox News Channel and MSNBC at all.
Unfortunately, we're not there yet.
Heaven is a Blue State
Hell is a Red State
I see Barack Obama more as a Purple Stater, essentially adopting a Clintonian triangulation strategy, "moving to the center," trying to appeal to Blue Staters and Red Staters, even as recent Obama policy positions indicate he is leaning more toward appeasing the Red Staters instead of siding with Blue Staters, and the liberal, progressive base of the Democratic Party.
I'm certain that this has led to some confusion among Independents, especially those who have finally realized how disastrous hardcore conservative Republican policies and values have been for them, their families and their friends. Independents, who have awakened to the fact that liberal, progressive Democrats are the only defense America has against the war-mongering and civil-liberties-trashing insanity of the right-wing.
Now don't get me wrong. I will vote for Barack Obama in November, in hopes that he will obligate himself as president to reversing some (if not all) of the obscenities of the Bush/Cheney abomina...er, administration. However, if he chooses as a running mate someone like Joe Lieberman, I might just reconsider, although I would be left with no one else for whom to vote. Hopefully, it won't come to this, but with Barack Obama, the Purple Stater, moving more and more to the center, and away from core liberal, progressive ideals, it just might.
(This is why I feel that the culture of corruption Republicans have been trying to paint Obama as some type of uber-liberal, in hopes that he'll try to "triangulate" and select some Blue Dog Democrat as his running mate...which would be wht the Republicans want, but represent a major mistake for the Obama campaign).
The center: there is no there there.
Great post here, and further proof that the blogs are where sensible, reasoned, in-depth opinion (and reportage) can be found. The old media's dying from its own internal rot, and good riddance I sez!
Let me make sure that I have the rules of this game straight . . .
Democrats can never move to "the Right", only to "the Center", or "the Far Left".
Republicans never ever move to "the Left", but can move further to "the Right" to maintain their distance from the Democrats who are also moving to "the Right", right?
Maybe when they all move far enough to "the Right" the whole fucking ship will capsize and drown the lot of them.
How sad.
I truly hope that Obama has the sense to NOT pick someone as his runningmate that is more centrist than he is. This may sound sick but for Obama to stay alive as the president he has to make his VP someone who the right despises more than him.
WOW! Just incredible insight. Thanks much.
Please get out of my head because I think you are entirely correct.
The sad thing is there is nothing we can do about it lacking the ability to bang it into the decision-makers heads that they don't have to run to the center.
One of the reasons I didn't support Obama or Clinton in the primaries is because of this. I knew both candidates would not escape this path.
We need an ideological shift in America and that's what this election needs to be about.
Maybe, just maybe, Obama is taking a high profile shift towards the right, because he is going to pick a running mate that is more in tune w/ his base shortly. I'd, for one, accept the trade.
America has be manipulated so far to the right that republicans are labeled socialists, and democratic reps are communists or terrorist appeasers.
This manipulation is not a force of nature or divine intervention. A cabal of radical bastards have been trying to pull this off since they decided that liberty and nonconformity reduced profit.
I cannot stand the assumption in the phrase, "What is good for business is good for America."
The phrase needs to read, "What is good for the people, will challenge business, but respect for human dignity is worth it."
Yes, we need an ideological shift. The first step is to elect Obama over allowing McShame to be a tool for the radical right wing or neo-fascists.
I do not get where the idea comes from that the corporate media supports Obama. It seems more of a republican or corporate media talking point than reality. The attacks against Obama and his wife have been non-stop since he began his campaign.
I will not dignify the attacks by repeating them, but the strategy of the neo-fascists has been the same each general election - to discourage democratic voters from going to the polls, because their candidate is imperfect. I don't care if Obama is an axe murderer he will be superior to McShame.
Priorities people, and do not let radical right proponents get away with the idea that they can stir things up by writing statements such as we need an "ideological shift" because we do, but it is not going to happen this time around. As patiently as the republicans moved the political narrative to the right progressives need to maintain the infrastructure that makes their proposals widely known and accepted at most levels. They cannot expect to lead all Americans away from the thirty plus years of fascist seduction. They only need some of them.
We do not need doomsday scenarios if Obama is elected, because doomsday IS if McShame is allowed to cheat to the finish.
If Obama chooses a Blue Dog for vp his election is lost.
Kucinich could have ideological perfection on his side, but it would not do us any good if he did not become president.
A politically brilliant, clever, hard-working, resourceful, tenacious, aggressive Democrat, with a bit of a mean streak at times--just enough to scare the crap out of the other side and its media enablers--and a gift for charm and seduction at other times--just enough to disarm the same--could, with enough allies, a smart, long-term strategy, and some luck, pull it off--if they really wanted to do this, and were willing to pay whatever price was required (recall what happened to Lincoln, FDR and LBJ).
Obama has already displayed many of these qualities, save the last two. Does he really want to do this? And is he willing to pay the price (and no, it doesn't have to be the ultimate price, but this is a job that, done right, takes dog years out of your life). Or does he want to be, at most, another Bill Clinton (and hopefully without the, er, well you know)? Based on things he's said and done since clinching, I am not encouraged. But I remain open to being pleasantly surprised.
Ah, Barack, you're breaking our hearts and you haven't even won yet.
There are a couple of reasons that democratic reps capitulate to business written republican sponsored legislation; either a good number of them are complicit in the republican crimes or the five years of warrantless spying provided a motherload of skeletons in democratic closets. In either case blackmail is right up the republican strategists' alley. Since some people believe that everything is acceptable in politics we are naturally exposed to heavy doses of it. Everything is not acceptable in politics. I do not recall Americans agreeing that politicians have the right to behave dishonorably, deceitfully, and selfishly. We knew there were always going to be those who acted in such a manner, but that does not translate to acceptance of it, as we are being taught. It is a common strategy to create cynicism among the electorate so that their expectations are converted to permission or indifference. It is the type of freedom that the corrupt require.
One must first understand what the radical right is after. It wants the absolute right, without consequence, to take advantage of Americans. A predatory relationship with one's constituency is the norm. More time is spent devising unique and probable methods of stealing power and wealth from Americans than is worked on for public service initiatives.
Modern leaders claim that if they were not intended to take advantage of suckers there would not be so many of them, with new ones replenishing the stock on hand everyday. The axiom relied upon is that the suckers and the suckees are coexisting natural resources that supply the harvesters with the harvested.
The radical right acts as if or perceives corruption as if it is a life force or survival necessity that if prevented interferes with profit, (perceived as the highest possible good for which humans are responsible.)
Interesting idea. Are you sure though, that the ultimate reason these TV stars pander to the right wing isn't exactly the same reason that Wide Stance & other challenged individuals are proposing a constitutional amendment defining marriage?
Is this not self-flagellation?
It was the same "village" that gave Obama an advantage in the Primaries. He's not about to challenge them as they've done his work for him up until now. All the "progressive blogs", especially those that banned Clinton supporters were just loving Russert and Mathews and olberman. How are they gonna turn on them when they do what they do. Now that they got Clinton out of the way, just as we warned, they will start attacking the Democrat nominee. My problem is that if we want to see progressive policy in action, we must also hold our own candidate's feet to the fire. When Obama endorsed John Barrow of Savannah, Ga. over a truly progressive AA woman in their primary, where was the challenge to him. Barrow has voted with Bush throughout his term, he is a Bush enabler. Why would the Democrat progressive candidate get involved in a primary when one candidate is everything we are trying to do away with.
Did I miss something? Wasn't the point of digby's article was to accept the reality that Obama has to ip toe his way to the presidency, because of the corporate media's power to make or break a candidate if he does not lead it to believe that he is with it all they way. Obama cannot do good at all if McShame wins, no matter how deep or shallow his convictions.
Obama's campaign must maintain a delicate balance between defeating the opponent and keeping the corporate media at bay.
Just one other comment please. Why has obama decided to pander to the evangelicals. I was alarmed when he began his campaign for President with "The Gospel tour" featuring anti-gay zealots. Now, he's returning to them for support. The evangelicals aren't supporting McCain, I have a hard time watching the Dem candidate kissing their feet.
>That being the case, I'm not sure it's ever been realistic to expect Barack Obama to be the guy to challenge all this
Of course it wasn't realistic, not for the reasons Digby claims (young, black, etc.) but because HE ISN"T A PROGRESSIVE. He never was, so he had no need to "run to the center" (meaning the Right)-he was always there.
This reminds me of 1999 when people said there wasn't much difference between Bush and Gore. Well, if one looked at Bush, his actions as governor of Texas and those who surrounded him, one could see exactly what his presidency was going to be. I even told people that Bush, if elected, would have us in a war within two years (it was a year and a half). My husband finally admitted that I had Bush nailed before the election.
Now, people said there wasn't much difference between Obama and Clinton. Same thing. I only had to look at Obama's voting record and those surrounding him and I knew he wasn't a progressive, i.e. his support of partial privatization of Social Security, school vouchers, Lieberman over Lamont in CT, etc. The biggest thing was he was against the Iraq war (but wasn't in Congress at the time), but continues to vote to fund it and with the FISA "compromise," I don't think he would have voted against the Iraq resolution. Like Clinton, he wouldn't have wanted to look weak on National Security.
People hated Clinton so much they weren't willing to really look at Obama and where he really stands on the issues and how involved he is with the corporations. Well, I guess we will see what happens, but, from my point of view, it doesn't look good.
This is brilliant. Thank you.
Apart from the fact that your "Village" is really a Palace, and the "Village" culture you describe is really that of a Palace and as insulated from the People as any Palace of yore, your description of Dems' habitual running from the Base is spot on.
To see Obama doing it -- immediately and consistently upon securing the nomination -- is disheartening. But then, the Palace would have it no other way. Dems MUST distance themselves from their Base, or else: they are "unserious" and will not be allowed within the Forbidden City. They must always stare from outside the gates unless they follow the customs of the Palace.
Thus, it's clear Obama intends to win, and he will face one challenge after another from the Palace guardians. Challenging his (or anyone's) entry is their job. How he responds to those challenges will determine whether or not he will be allowed to rule from the throne or will simply be allowed to occupy it as a caretaker until an appropriate Republican can be found. Whatever the case, he cannot under any circumstances, display any hint of solidarity with "liberals" or "progressives" or he will be barred entry altogether and that horrid, crazy old man who nobody wants to see "elected" will have to be inaugurated.
It will be the Liberals' fault, too.
So Democrats voted for BO because he was black. Nice to know. Do you need Geraldine Ferraro's email address? Because I think you need to write her an apology.
You are just missing the point. It is not about ideology or corporate mouthpieces while in office. If it really would net more voters, why wouldn't he just oppose FISA, etc. He is trying to provide coat tails where none are needed, but the bottom line is getting paid AFTER getting out of office. It's like the mediocre athlete who goes on make big money as a broadcaster. They don't want Washington to change because "the way Washington works" is their retirement plan.
that is why I like Webb and McCaskill and the other new people. Let's hope they keep that new congress smell about them long enough to survive this election and bring sunshine back to the roaches.
"As a Democrat whom they've already successfully, and erroneously, labeled as super liberal (and closet terrorist, which amounts to the same thing) Obama must work twice as hard as an older white male would have to do to prove to the gasbag elites that he can "connect" with Real Americans."
This is commonly referred to as the "Black Tax," something that Obama will be paying in full for the upcoming season--and just the kind of tax that no Republican will ever ask to see cut.
The Democratic party has no stated mission, vision and values. (Go to its website and check)
It cheats by trying to be whatever morph it thinks it and its candidates need to pander to get votes. In doing so, it stands for nothing and no one, and thus, the crass pandering of the "Village" to the real power mongers: corporations and special interests.
The Dems are just as broken as the Repubs - it's just that the fractures are along different lines.
But in the end - both parties have fractured completely from the citizenry.
I only became interested in the politics and history a few years ago, so am a real newbie, but in self educating, I've learned that the republic is a figment, and they we live in a functional constitutional dictatorship by definition.
Taking the long view (like Howard Dean and the republicans) building the party in 50 states goes so much farther than the dlc sitting in washington dc. Further? the older I get the more obscure the grammarian impulses get. Yes, Obama may disappoint, but the NEXT president may not. And I think the young folks will not put up with the s--t the current village hands out (especially if Obama is able to focus on education). Attrition, as we have seen, happens. It occurs to me that Obama may have missed on his slogan: perhaps it should be 'catalyst'.
Chris Matthews makes five million dollars a year. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Nothing wrong with that? The median household income in 2006 was just over $48,000. You're telling me that there's nothing wrong with ONE MAN who makes the equivalent income of over ONE HUNDRED HOUSEHOLDS? That isn't just a little bit excessive?
The more money the fat cats make, the less money there is for people like us to live on. There's only so much room on the street before everyone gets shoved in the ditch, and the fatter the cats, the less room there is to stand.
"You can have a right wing zealot on the team who is so out to lunch that he writes books recommending you beat your children like he beats his dog."
I am reminded of my favorite right-wing gasbag, Betsy Hart, who actually wrote a column in praise of yelling at your tots at their soccer games. This was supposed to be good for "toughening" them up for their eventual role in the military. Betsy was always good for a great laugh.
She still writes columns like this although not as frequently.
I linked over from Glenn Greenwald's all fired up about Obama's collapse on FISA, only to calm considerably after reading you point about the pressure on Obama, Digby, but I can only agree to a point.
While a good thing to keep as a touchstone when considering various issues, I think that offering a false choice of which change do you want is a bit of a cop-out. I don't think it's that stark. Both can be had. At least on some issues, and FISA/immunity should be one of them. And I have to believe given his druthers, Obama agrees. He has been adept at negotiating just about every minefield thus far, and I think his rhetorical gifts would allow him to adjust the conventional wisdom on this issue in particular. But for some reason there is this abrupt reversal.
What Greenwald and Digby both fail to mention is what I believe is happening around Obama on the FISA issue. I don't think he wanted to deal with this now, nor do I think this is the position he wants to take, but he has no choice. Reid and Pelosi both had control of when this issue came up and they made it happen NOW, and both allowed the ground to shift beneath Obama's feet. Particularly in the House, which until last week, has always been the stopper on Telecom Immunity. There has to be a reason this is happening, and I suspect it is because certain Democratic leaders need the immunity as badly as the administration and the telecoms.
Obama is already tasked with piecing together the party after the bitter primary season, and he cannot run against John McCain AND the Democrats in Congress. He's screwed. There are others (Dodd, Feingold, etc) who are valiantly, but futilely fighting this, but I think Obama entered into a truce when the superdelegates stepped in to decide the nomination—and the cover his support would provide Congress was the price.
Am I absolving Obama? NO. In fact, I'm still working to change his mind, but I don't really believe it's going to work. It's the larger mindset around him that got us into this mess that needs changing.
Yadi, yadi, yah! It seems everyone is repeating the same thing that the liberal position is a losing position. How do we know since everyone has run from it the moment he was nominated like we see Obama now doing except Gore and he won.
America is ready for a liberal who will be firm on his positions. Look at the history:
1992 - Clinton only won 43% of vote as the centrist American candidate.
1996 - Running as an incumbent against an inept Dole, Clinton won only 49%. Add in Nader's votes and he is still under 50%.
2000 - A liberal with positions, Gore, runs. He wins 48.4% over Bush who won 47.9%. Add in Nader's vote and Gore has 51% of the vote. He would have won with a liberal position.
2004 - Kerry goes wobbly - is all over the place voting against bills and then for them. He gets 48% of the vote, Bush only 50.7%.
What does it tell you? America wants a liberal president with strong positions. Every time Obama waffles, McCain picks up votes.
Mr Furious - Particularly in the House, which until last week, has always been the stopper on Telecom Immunity. There has to be a reason this is happening
You're asking the wrong question. Several weeks ago, President Bush had vowed to veto the "emergency" war spending bill for three separate reasons. And then two weeks ago he suddenly changed his mind and was okay with $95 billion in domestic spending attached to $162 billion in war spending.
Why did President Bush suddenly change his mind about vetoing the war spending bill? Well, coincidentally, at the same exact time Hoyer and Pelosi were rolling out this FISA "compromise" with telecom immunity.
It is my belief that they sold the 4th amendment for $95 billion in pork. Now the Senate is going to use FISA and telecom immunity to (finally) push through a housing relief bill.
Digby, the village does not speak for the American people because they are beholden to the corporations that pay them their inflated salaries. their egos do not allow them to question what they espouse as relevant to "the rest of us". gasbags is a relevant term to use to describe them.
now we net/blog users realize that we have other intelligent and more reasoned voices to listen to such as yourself. this new medium has galvanized the populace like never before and it crosses all traditional lines and unifies us as American citizens who truly want a "better America". we want gov't reps who listen, feel and ACT the way the citizens feel and think would benefit all. this is a democracy and there are many opinions of what is right but this year and in 2006, more of us crossed the line and voted for change.
the change we are looking for is someone to stand up to the old way and lead us into the new era where compromise and surrender don't happen. we are looking for a "force to be reckoned with" and we thought that it might be Obama. i think that we are glimpsing the truth of the man in that as a constitutional lawyer and a Senator who has sworn to uphold the constitution he "compromised" on his previous statement and sworn duty.
all soldiers in our military make this same sworn oath, to defend country and constitution. they have and are dying right now to uphold that sworn oath. THERE IS NO COMPROMISE for them. how could any of us expect anything less of a "leader" who has promised us change?
i can understand how easy it is for the village and their ilk to not take and hold to a principled opinion that incorporates the citizenry as a whole. just look at the recent blogger statements (FISA-as only one example) and you will see the beginning of that same decline into accepting the "same old way".
"well, he had to..."
"you must understand that...."
we must take a firm stand as Americans to guarantee that we remain free. we must demand that those we elect do the same. there is no more room for compromise. our whole system is on the verge of ruin and the talk is still the same old shit from the same politicos,villagers,and the like.
please make your own voice be heard without compromise and stand firm for what you believe without accepting anything less from those you support. this is why i am on your site and Greenwald, C&L,Firedoglake and others like you. i for one am tired of these political and corporate leeches feeding on the blood of our citizenry and soldiers and i will not accept any more bullshit. How about you?
"It is my belief that they sold the 4th amendment for $95 billion in pork."
In no way, shape or form does the current FISA bill "sell the 4th amendment". Please go read this excellent diary over at Kos before you make such rash statements. Much of the current anger at Obama is based on his vote on the FISA bill, which is nothing but a bit of political theatre. This was not the place to make his stand.
I'd like to think that Greenwald is correct, and that the country is ready for true liberal progressive leadership. Yes, a couple of congressional races went in an unexpected direction, but the presidential race is a much different beast. The rightwing echo chamber does not show up for every congressional race, but they're out in force for the national race.
Should Obama fly in the face of Reid, Hoyer et al and make a bold stand on a largely meaningless piece of legislation? Not in my book. For now, let's disband the circular firing squad and get the man elected. Then, I'll join the rest of you in holding his feet to the fire.
montysano - Are you telling me that the current FISA bill does not permit the warrantless surveillance of Americans?
For what it's worth, I've read that diary before I made the comment. I still stand by my comment, regardless of how rash you mistakenly believe I am. The telecoms are enabling the Bush administration to violate the 4th amendment by permitting surveillance without warrants. This bill legalizes and protects this warrantless surveillance in clear violation of the 4th amendment.
The Patriot Act killed not the 4th amendment, but the 6th. The wall between foreign intelligence and criminal prosecution was dissolved, yes, but at least you still needed a warrant. Allow me to quote the diary you linked.
Not even your trial judge can see the FISA affidavit. It is classified, "sources and methods" information. The prosecutor can show the judge that a FISA warrant was indeed issued, but that's as far as it goes.
In this situation, a warrant DOES exist, you just can't see it. This is a violation of the Sixth amendment (the right to confront evidence against you), not the Fourth.
The current FISA legislation permits this surveillance without warrants (in violation of the Fourth amendment), which can then be used in a criminal prosecution against you without letting you see it (in violation of the Sixth amendment).
Should Obama fly in the face of Reid, Hoyer et al and make a bold stand on a largely meaningless piece of legislation? Not in my book.
The entire reason I stood behind Obama in the first place was because he seemed to have a clue, and he was willing to stand up to the hype and speak like an intelligent person. It gave me hope that he would make intelligent decisions.
However, he seems to have abandoned his quest for a new kind of politics, and I have subsequently abandoned him. I will not donate any money to anyone who doesn't have the balls to stand up for the Constitution.
The Dem leadership sold out the 4th amendment because the telecoms "volunteered" to finance the Democratic convention in August.
Real simple.
Brilliant post. Really. Did what this kind of writing should -- opened my brain up a bit.
As for some of the other posts, I think it's a little bit early for us all to assume that Obama has become Bill Clinton just yet. The absolutism on the posting portion of left blogistan is very big on the either/ors these days.
Make your phone calls, write your e-mails, but try to keep a little bit cool, too.
@DCX2, who said
montysano - Are you telling me that the current FISA bill does not permit the warrantless surveillance of Americans?
Oh it absolutely does. And the point of the Kos diary is that in essence it always has, because the FISA court rubber stamps everything. It never denies a warrant. I'd love to see a bill that changes the very nature of FISA, but in lieu of that it is IMHO an inaccurate statement to suggest that the current bill "sold the Fourth amendment". The Fourth was sold years ago.
In this situation, a warrant DOES exist, you just can't see it. This is a violation of the Sixth amendment (the right to confront evidence against you), not the Fourth.
I would argue that it violates both the Fourth and the Sixth, but they've been violated by this law for years. As to my question:
Should Obama fly in the face of Reid, Hoyer et al and make a bold stand on a largely meaningless piece of legislation? Not in my book.You didn't answer it. I assume you say "yes"?
It just dismays me to hear people speak of "abandoning Obama" over this piece of political kabuki.
~
montysano - the point of the Kos diary is that in essence it always has, because the FISA court rubber stamps everything.
Just because every warrant was rubber-stamped doesn't mean that they would let obviously poor warrants through, it just says that the government only applied for warrants in cases where they were almost certain to get them. I highly doubt that they could, for instance, ask for a warrant to wiretap Pelosi.
In essence, the warrant process is a speed bump, preventing the administration from barreling through down-town. If this FISA legislation passes, we lose even that small speed bump. Imagine who will be run over now.
You didn't answer it. I assume you say "yes"?
It just dismays me to hear people speak of "abandoning Obama" over this piece of political kabuki.
You assume correctly. I originally took to Obama quite passionately because he stood up for what he believed in even though it was unpopular among a vocal minority. His speech on race won me over to his side, in that he took a potentially explosive situation and talked logically about it.
Now he is abandoning those principles in favor of not ruffling feathers. This sign of weakness irritates me. I had originally intended on donating more to his campaign, as well as canvassing my local area (btw, 30%ish of my county voted for Obama in the Primary). I now intend to do neither for someone who can't make a stand for what he believes in. My passion for Obama died when he caved on warrantless surveillance.
In addition, I think kabuki is one of the problems with American politics. So it dismays me that he engages in kabuki, period. I don't want my favored candidate performing kabuki theater. I want my candidate to be honest, open, intelligent, and challenging.
Before, I had planned on voting for Obama. That is what I have abandoned; now I will vote against McCain. The distinction is subtle, but important.
Our political leaders are best understood as a group of mutual gonad-clutchers in an echo chamber pumped by a few large sources of money which they all desperately need to continue playing the game.
Nancy Pelosi is clearly owned by the same people that own George Bush. The oh-so-intellectual reasons you are all providing for her behavior are possibly part of the truth, but the simple version is some group has her and/or her advisors by the balls or otherwise own them, so she hears what they want her to hear, decides how they want her to decide.
Currently, that is "give George everything he wants". Nancy Pelosi does that, and will reap the standard rewards of retiring wealthy and respected by the only people she cares about.
That group is not the voters of her district, or any other district.
Too simple, you say? The echo chamber is very easy to manipulate, and the more Obama gets into the inner circles of power, the fewer the choices he will be given.
Recall the articles some time ago about how many liberal congress critters have invested in defense-related industries? They are undoubtedly just following what is happening in the rest of the gov, the CIA/DIA/DOD, etc. have an excellent idea of how to make money doing that.
What do you think that means for Obama's choices and support from his party?
California's delegation is pretty much owned by defense industries, Pelosi included.
Lew Glendenning
Digby wrote: "I wish that he would use some of his rhetorical gifts to challenge conservative assumptions more and I'm hopeful that he will, as president, work to redefine the conventional wisdom... But nothing comes free and having a politically moderate president at a time when a more explicit progressivism might have gotten a boost is the price we pay. The Village will only tolerate so much change at one time. If we want real political change, it's time to change the Village."
Digby, don't you see how weak and wet this is? "I wish..." "...nothing comes free..." The Village will only tolerate..."
You are contradicting yourself. Instead of wishing, how about telling people to stick to the truth? Truth "comes free". The Village will collapse in a puff of smoke when faced with an honest intelligent candidate. The Village and the GOP are like Wizards of Oz - pull back the curtain and find frightened little men talking loud and tough.
BTW, the Dems folded on FISA because they were guilty too.
Now children, stop fighting each other with those little sticks and stones...
use these, they're bigger and have sharp points.
"Chris Matthews makes five million dollars a year. Not that there's anything wrong with that."
With this statement, you just showed that you are no better than those you criticize. There is everything wrong with making five million dollars a year in a country where the majority of the people does not earn the same figure in a lifetime.
The refusal of acknowledging, let alone reversing, that the stratospheric income disparity between rich and everyone else, is one of the main reasons why Democracts have been losing. not many people remember that when JFK took office, the top tax rate was close to 90%.
If anyone were to propose such a thing today, they would be called communists and yet, this was one of the reasons why this country enjoyed one the strongest middle class in the history of humanity. Everything else it's just smoke and mirrors.
As Molly Ivins used to say, you gotta dance with the one who brung ya. Obama's behavior is quite clear. Since the corporate media installed him as the democratic nominee, he is going to do the corporate media's bidding.
Alan S. | 06.29.08 - 6:22 pm
Alan, you are spot on...may I recommend to all two things: one a radio show, another an article.
Check out "Taking Aim" from WBAI New York (Pacifica)...see their website, www.wbai.org, and click on archives on the right side of page...look for July 1st show mentioned above and listen...tied in with this, read Ken Silverstein's fabulous piece back in 11/06 on Obama called "Barack Obama Inc: The birth of a Washington machine" (www.harpers.org/archive/2006/110081275)
These are not slash and burn hit pieces.
41 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
