O-Bummed
There’s cold fear in the blogosphere. Liberals from Malibu to Madison have broken out into hives. Hands are wringing and knickers are twisted. Turns out that Barack Obama might be a centrist! Or even worse, it seems.
“Obama Veers Right!†screams a headline on the leftist Counterpunch web site, as socialist blogger Alan Maas frets that the Democratic candidate has shown himself to be “pro-corporate, pro-military.†Ralph Nader dumps on Obama for attempting to “talk white.â€Â Even less radical analysts shake and shudder because Obama has recently spoken out forcefully for Israel. Because he mildly criticized the Supreme Court for its recent decision barring the death penalty for child molesters. Because he’s doing a lot of so-called God Talk. Because he’s wearing an American flag pin in a Rolling Stone cover photo. Because he gave a speech declaring his patriotic values. Because he voted for a dastardly compromise on the warrantless wiretapping bill that immunizes the phone companies against legal liability.
His critics on the Left demand to know what the heck is going on?
The answer is, quite simply, that Barack Obama wants to get elected. Of course he’s running to the right. The primary is over and the general election is upon us and Obama’s campaign is figuring that – no, Virginia – there apparently aren’t enough “progressive†Democrats to form a national electoral majority. Hell, there aren’t even enough to win a decisive majority inside the Democratic Party (Please note the die-hard Hillaryoids – supposed Democratic “feministsâ€-- who are now vowing to vote for a rigidly anti-choice John McCain).
Believe me, I know the counter-arguments. I’ve been making them for years (and on top of that I’m actually one of the plaintiffs in the ACLU lawsuit against the telecom giants for their role in the domestic eavesdropping adventure). It goes something like this: provide the proper leadership and The People Will Follow. Democrats lose because they are Republican Lite. The Democrats will triumph only and if the Democratic wing of the party dominates and eschews all compromise and wavering. That’s it, right?
But what makes you so sure? If this formula were so exact, we’d have already completed the second term of the Kucinich administration, wouldn’t we? John Edwards would be this year’s nominee and he’d be vowing not to implement national health care, but rather he’d be promising to further improve it. Along with our humming national high-speed rail system, our bio-fuel fleet of cars, and our beloved national service program that provides free college tuition to all students who promise civic duty.
Dream on.
That we are, instead, still living in the Bush nightmare, paying $5 a gallon for fossil fuel, still mired in Iraq and worried about meeting the monthly mortgage payment does not, on the other hand, mean that we should apologize for or condone blatant political pandering and cowardly capitulation. It’s not free license for Obama, or anyone else, to wuss out. Bold political leadership is more important than ever and, to some degree, people will follow if presented with a compelling example.
The crucial question is, just how far? So let’s lay down some metrics. Barack Obama won the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party as a freshman Senator who defeated the most powerful of establishment political machines. As a candidate with no military background at a time when we’re supposedly leading the Global War on Terror. As a candidate who promises to substitute diplomacy for interventionism. As a candidate who has mobilized and inspired an entire new generation of Americans who actually feel engaged in the political process. As a candidate named the “most liberal†member of the senate by The National Journal. Oh, and did I mention, as a black man, whose middle name is Hussein?
Modestly, I’d have to say that’s pretty damn far to come in America in the Age of Bush. And apparently, just about far enough for Obama and his strategists. Judging by his political positioning of the last few weeks, they clearly think it’s time to do some backfilling. They judge they’ve gotten out in front just about as far as they can without going over the ledge. They’re worried that one out of ten Americans still think Obama is a Muslim. An equal number swear he was born in Africa. They can see that candidate McCain has twice the popularity of his own Republican Party. They note a recent Washington Post poll which revealed that 30% of Americans admit to race bias (Not really a shocking figure when, according to the just-published book “Just How Stupid Are We?†by historian Rick Shenkman, 3 out of 10 Americans don’t know what the Holocaust is and a far greater percentage of Americans can name more members of The Simpsons family than they can enumerate the freedoms guaranteed in the first amendment).
Nor do I think that we we’re seeing is merely calculated caution. Much of Obama’s appeal from the outset has been his determination to rise above the narrow and often phony and pointless partisanship that has come to define the two-party system. If someone thinks that a progressive majority can actually govern by scorning and ignoring rather than including the tens of millions who consider themselves patriotic, flag-waving, born-again Christians, please let me know. Or better, send your memo directly to Dennis Kucinich
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:02 am
Marc, superb post. I’ve got nothing to add because, well, you’ve said it all. Thanks for the morning inspiration–once again your column nails it.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:07 am
So, Obama will say whatever it takes to get elected? So much for change.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:43 am
Good post Marc, but of course we need to hold Obama’s feet to the fire as much as possible. Contrary to some characterizations that float around here, part of my support for Obama sprang from the fact that he didn’t offer the “same-old” populist rhetoric in the primaries, but was more openly centrist. So was Howard Dean, but the “charm” of both men - aside from being clear from Day One the Iraq war was a terrible strategic proposition - was rooted mostly in their shifting the center-of-gravity of the Democratic Party from the old Beltway hands to grassroots activists, not all necessarily hard-core “progressives” incidentally. (Hillary would have been even more centrist in governance, offering “Clinton ReDux” but she used the anti-Clinton hysterics on the right - as well as a lot of media misogyny - as a badge of her “partisan, progressive” bona fides, not to mention knee-jerk feminist identity politics. Of course, in reality, she was more like some combo of Clinton dynasty narcissism and not-so-subtly recycling anger over one of the country’s least compelling Beltway controversies IMHO.)
In any event, here’s a snip from The Nation - which is refreshing in that Obama supporters aren’t simply acting as apologists for their candidate, nor are they taking their marbles and going home as the “Silly Season” realpolitik of a national campaign unfolds.
The Nation: “Protesters are storming Barack Obama’s website. But they all support Obama.
A grassroots group of activists has been organizing on MyBo, Obama’s official social networking portal, to protest the Senator’s recent decision to back controversial legislation granting the President more spying powers. The effort hit a big milestone on Tuesday afternoon: It is now the largest self-organized group on Obama’s website, topping networks that were launched over a year ago. The spying protest, “Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right,” launched last week. (See Obama Network Organizes and Revolts Over Spying, The Nation.)
Membership spiked to about 8,900 people on Tuesday, edging out a student group with roughly 8,600 members, and one organizer estimated that the growth rate reached a rapid four percent during the daytime. The group initially spread through the Obama network, since the site’s platform instantly connects members through a dedicated email listserve. On Monday, for example, over 200 emails shot across the wire, reaching the roughly 2,300 members who opted to receive individual messages. The exchanges ranged from policy debates, like whether immunity was acceptable if the telephone companies acted in good faith, to organizing strategies, such as promoting the group on sharing sites like Digg. Then some activists open-sourced the project, creating a wiki-hub for additional actions — from calling Obama’s office to urging Keith Olbermann to promote the group — and launched partner groups on other sites like Facebook.”
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:56 am
“As a candidate who promises to substitute diplomacy for interventionism.”
Absolutely the most critical and compelliing reason to support - celebrate even - Obama’s candidacy. I actually agree with a number of Obama’s supposed “shifts to the right” - FISA with telecom immunity excepted - but if by the end of October he promises to put a NASCAR track around the White House and supports a same-family marriage initiative in West Virginia in order to get elected, the differences between Obama and McCain on matters of war, peace and diplomacy are critical.
Woody, I’m so fired up I’ve been registering Democratic voters in Colma. (google it)
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:04 am
>NASCAR track arount the white house
>…same family marriage initiative
I’m betting on a bold statement that Washington, DC is the eternal, undivided capital of Israel.
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:07 am
“I’m betting on a bold statement that Washington, DC is the eternal, undivided capital of Israel.”
Some would argue…but in any event it’s probably a better idea than Jerusalem. The best post-war choice, of course, would have been Berlin.
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:23 am
Incidentally, a lot of this simplistic “Obama shifts right” narrative isn’t just coming from “lefties” like the loons at Counterpunch, but fits an MSM “story” that they desperately need right now in order to legitimatize their horse-race commentary and pre-fab “conventional wisdom.” If you read the AP report - reprinted uncritically at HuffPo - on Obama’s increasing support for “faith-based” community social service groups vs. the candidate’s actual statements, it’s clear that there’s a lot of mindless spin involved in the reporting and psuedo-analysis. In fact, Obama’s guidelines on this have been followed for years with government grants to groups like Catholic Charities supporting their community services and are non-controversial. But the “news” is designed to generate controversy rather than illuminate policy or actual positions.
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:32 am
>best post war choice would have been Berlin
agreed, but the problem with that was that everyone agreed that *Germans* have the right to live in their own country.
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:34 am
Marc:
It’s not that I think that we can win by ignoring all those people who are not progressives (whatever that ends up meaning), but instead, I think those people have been sold a bill of goods.
They have been sold out economically by the Republican party (with, yes, the collusion of the Democrats), while liberals have allowed the right to win the war of perception by not being muscular enough in the face of cartoons like welfare queens.
The job of the Democrats is to grow a freaking spine and push back. That doesn’t mean to me that they should never compromise, but it doesn’t mean they should play Elmer Fudd hunting rabbits (shhhh!). I have a hard time thinking of Tip O’Neill or Dan Rostenkowski, whatever their flaws, being as supine as the Dems over the last 15 years or so.
The broader middle class should be outraged that the basis of middle class prosperity–manufacturing jobs–has been allowed to bleed out around the globe, no accident by the way, but a consequence of Washington policy. The fact that Wal-Mart is the best job a lot of people can get, or that two incomes are required to stay afloat should be the crack that Democrats exploit. People are insecure and should be howlingly mad at what’s happened to their incomes in the last 20+ years.
I know you said you know all the arguments, but I just don’t think the Democrats fight hard enough. They let the Republicans set the agenda and then quibble around the edges. Even Clinton was letting the Republicans lead and then co-opted their positions when he could.
Anyway, your central question is, how do we know. Well, we don’t. But we do know what’s not working, and that is the Kerry/Gore approach. It failed (or almost failed) twice. We’re always playing it safe, safe, safe. Let’s take a swing for the fences for a change.
This country elected FDR, had a war on poverty with Johnson, a strong streak of agrarian and labor populism at the turn of the century which actually lives on in parts of the country.
So we don’t know, and winning politics is almost certainly centrist politics in any democracy, but what we have now is right-wing politics and an opposition that is as lame and fearful as they get. Could the Dems be any more frightened of looking soft on defense? It’s why we are where we are now.
It’s time for us to get god damn pugnacious about the economy and give the Republicans and their plutocrat friends a bloody god damn nose.
Of course, I could be wrong. You neve know.
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:42 am
>grants to groups like Catholic >Charities…guidelines…noncontroversial
A) Not noncontroversial here. The government should not fund religious organizations in any way at all. Even if the idea of religious groups delivering aid without proslytizing could pass the laugh test, it would still be unconstitutional to subsidize them.
B) Doesn’t it give you pause that this program was created by the Bush admin with the express purpose of pushing the envelope of separation of church and state?
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:49 am
“This country elected FDR” - initially on a platform that vowed to cut government spending (!!!) - “had a war on poverty with Johnson” - also a war, and Johnson got into the Oval Office as VP of a guy who ran to Nixon’s right on national security - “a strong streak of agrarian and labor populism at the turn of the century” - that failed to elect W.J.Bryan, ironically the most leftwing guy in context of his time who ever ran as a major party candidate, and was ultimately coopted by the Republican Roosevelt. I don’t have the answer to this issue, but just want to point out that there’s not much solace in history when you contemplate it.
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:50 am
Dan O:
Dan, if you are talking about republicans in the house and senate, I’ll help. I’m still not sure about the President, but I’m beginning to lean towards either barr or Nader, or write in reg…. you may think I’m kidding about writing in reg… but I’m not… it is a possibility!
The repubs started in 94 with a goal of shrinking government and cutting unnecessary spending. They have been utter failures at that and don’t deserve election. Now, having said that, if the Dems win big, and I think they might just do it, then they get all the responsibility and they flat aren’t up to it… They are as vain and corrupt as the so called culture of corruption lable you guys stuck on the repubs.
So, Democrats can honestly say “Vote Democrat, The Other Republican Party.” And Republicans can honestly say “Vote Republican, The Other Democrat Party.” :LOL:
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:50 am
That should have come out as
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:55 am
The programs I refer to were not created by the Bush admnistration. Funding groups like Catholic Charities via contracts to deliver social services to any and all without any religious dogmas attached predates Bush. Bush opportunistically tried to shift the guidelines to make them less respectful of seperation of church and state in the way the programs were administered and actually did nothing to increase the funds available. It was, as Obama stated, a political photo-op. Obama’s proposal keeps the line drawn clearly, as regards hiring practices for these social service programs as well as any evangelizing. This is totally clear in his statements, although not in press reports. Obama also increases funds to community and church groups that effectively deliver services. I think you’re operating out of a knee-jerk lefty prejudice here.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:05 am
I have to add that I haven’t researched this thing extensively and it’s possible that the funding and contracts some of these groups recieved was from states and municipalities. But I know that CC has long been a channel for delivering services that rely at least partly on government funding, along with the money they raise from parishoners, etc.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:07 am
Stu - if I offer a link from the libertarian Manahattan Institute attacking Catholic Charities as a left-wing outfit that lost it’s soul by taking government funding to expand social services would it make you feel any better ?
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:25 am
>without any religious dogmas attached
Well, the instance we have been arguing about, Catholic Charities certainly does not claim to “have no dogmas attached.” I’ll refer you back to the “ten reasons Catholic Charities are Catholic.”
I’ll grant that this is a slightly different question than whether religious charities can keep tax-funded aid activities separate from evangelizing. However, we are talking about people who think that getting me to join their religion is the difference between damnation and salvation for both me and themselves. How can we expect them to keep this out of their aid activities?
re “knee jerk lefty prejudice,” it’s actually a firm and explicit principle. Religion should be kept where it can’t rape our government any more.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:36 am
It’s simply a matter of fact that the “instance we’ve been arguing about” delivers social services “without any religious dogmas attached.” Whether “religious dogma” drives the larger, sponsoring organization or inspires them in their work is another matter entirely, but frankly whatever floats their boat in the right direction - helping “the least among us” - is fine with me. I’d be more than happy to see the George Carlin Memorial Militant Atheists Fuck Capitalism and Screw Uptight Assholes Charities participate in like efforts and get similiar funding. As long as they don’t make saying “fuck you” a mandatory premise of receiving assistance and are willing to hire Southern Baptists to help staff the place.
I’m sure we’re boring folks with this…
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:03 am
Roper: Great line at the end about the two parties!
Reg: Fair enough, and point taken. I get a little wild on this topic.
I happen to be in a (business oriented) masters program right now, and I hear and read a lot of, what I take to be bullshit, about the virtual firm. For exmple, how Boeing is outsourcing wing construction here, and engine construction there, and design in another place. Boeing’s role is to coordinate everything according to this view. I say bullshit because where does that leave the blue collar worker? Where does it leave people who do not have and cannot get the advanced skills required to “coordinate” these things as opposed to put the engines on the plane at $25.00 an hour?
It leaves them with social issues like gay marriage, and on these issues they tend to be more conservative. So the Democrats cede their strength on the economy, and then have to fight this losing battle for the swing vote.
And from a national perspective, political power follows economic power which is located where manufacturing is done. The service economy is a myth. We’re about to get a very rude lesson in this fact
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:06 am
>frankly whatever floats their boat in
>the right direction - helping “the
>least among us†- is fine with me.
Irrelevant. We’re not talking about whether they should give out charity, we’re talking about whether they are an appropriate medium for government funded programs.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:11 am
Since Lyndon Johnson’s name came up, it might be useful to recall something he said. He was asked to name his greatest accomplishments as Senate majority leader. He included among them “convincing Hubert Humphrey that half a loaf is better than none.”
Well, like the early Hubert, I’d like the whole loaf. But when these unthinkingly left-leaning dreamers decide it has to be their way or the highway, they screw it up for everybody. Of all people, if in fact he is a member of the human race, it was Bob Novak early on who said that one of Hillary’s big problems was that she was running for the nomination as though it was the general election, and that’s not how you win a primary/caucus system. You run to the base to win the nomination, then run from it to win the election. I overstate that point a little, and certainly Clinton had other problems, but now Obama needs to make sure to get as many into the tent as possible.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Excellent post, Marc, and excellent discussion of the “faith-based initiative.” Acknowledging the real constitutional concerns this initiative presents, using religious-based NGOs as vehicles to tackle selected national and transnational problems has 2 benefits to recommend it: (1) these groups tend to locate participants–paid or volunteer–who are motivated by exceptional enthusiasm; and (2) many of these organizations have demonstrated competence in the delivery of services.
Religious folks do not have a monopoly on enthusiasm and certainly not on competence, but they do tend to operate outside of the most paralyzing of the bureaucratic structures. If we are serious about addressing poverty, hunger, delivery of health care to the most threatened people, overpopulation, and…well, name the horror…we should not discard the possibility of funding faith-based organizations. Neither should Obama and the Democrats.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:20 pm
The best choice would have been the choice of Martin Buber, Hannah Arrendt, Isaac Deutscher and the pre-state Israeli/Jewish left, and most Arab communist parties - Tel Aviv as capital of a binational worker’s federation, working with social movements to revolutionize the entire middle east. Chomsky writes of how many Zionists at the time were dead against the declaration of a Jewish state. Even early Israel wanted to be non-aligned and there was to be a meeting between Sharret and Nasser in Bandung but America pushed Israel not to attend.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Marc -
I like Obama too, but feel I must ask — is his brand of political pragmatism so different from that of Kerry or Gore/ When they bent to political necessity they got the back of your hand, while this guy elicits your sly admiration.
I understand he has pure political talents they lacked, but when it comes to his policy goals and his position on the political spectrum, I’m not sure why he makes your formerly progressive heart beat so much faster. If it ’s just cuz he’s cool where Gore was kind of clunky, it’s still hard to see why you couldn’t have worked up a rationale, like the persuasive one above, to pull the lever for Gore instead of St. Ralph.
I think Obama can be a better president than Gore could have been, precisely because of his superior political skills. Charisma does count. It’s just hard to believe that Gore’s lack of such skills was all that persuaded you to trash him in favor of Nader. It seemed that you objected mainly to the kind of political tacking you defend above.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
JC, a lot of things have changed in 1948. Its one thing to say, as you and I both do, that the only viable settlement *now* is a democratic, secular state. It’s a tough argument to make that this could have happened in 1948. Was it a realistic possibility that a heavily armed, technologically advanced, highly educated European settler-colonial population with the backing of the western powers could have lived in equality with an impoverished, disarmed third world indigenous population in those days? Now, I often say that anyone who was not prepared to live with Palestinians should not have immigrated to Palestine, but that is normative, not descriptive.
Also, it’s pretty presumptuous to think that what the Palestinians wanted was to start a world revolution, or that all they needed to do it was Noam Chomsky’s leadership. The idea that they should set up Jewish Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem, as their capital is also pretty dicey.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Stu - you read far too much into what I’m saying.
I’m NOT saying that the balance of forces or the “conjuncture” was mature enough for what I suggested. What I am saying is that there was significant sympathy for this idea among both Jews and Arabs. Tel Aviv, according to pamphlets circulationg at the time would be the capital of a province of a larger mideast federation populated by Jews.
I think there is an opportunity right now, if Israel plays its cards right and continues to - against American will - talk to Hizballah, Hamas and Syria, for Israel to finally be non-aligned, and living in peace with its neighbours, happy to trade with China.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I like Deutscher’s model (see his classic book Non Jewish Jew) - of Israel - a guy falls from a building and on his way down, lands on someone. Its only natural for the person that he lands on to blame him.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:54 pm
[...] get it. Every defense I’ve read so far about Obama’s tack towards the center - and Marc Cooper’s is an especially good one - amounts to: “He’s a politician! He’s trying to get elected! Don’t you [...]
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:24 pm
>a guy falls from a building and on his way >down, lands on someone.
well, if he lands on someone, then accuses them of tresspassing for having been on the spot on the grass that he wanted to land on, then denies that they ever existed at all, then gets the neighborhood crime boss to rough them up…
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Another 150 newsroom staff cut from the LA Times. I guess the new millenium has no room for the old media.
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:46 pm
I think someone better file a mising person’s report. The person masquerading as “Marc Cooper” above is obviously either a plant or our genial host has been taken over by bidy-snatchers.
Sorry but Evets is dead on right. Marc trashed Gore for doing the same thing (and it didn’t work very well, did it?) and listening to his advisors from the beltway and maintaining silence on, oh say, Global Warming. For this we got the tantrum that a vote for Gore was the same as a vote for Bush so jump over the cliff with Nader!
I read the “progressive” blogs and, with the exception of a few like Chris Hedges and the COUNTERPUNCH crew, everyone is supporting Obama. But they are not doing it blindly. As Reg said they want to keep his feet to the proverbial fire - FISA’s a good place to start. And they want to see Dems with backbone - like Wes Clark and, yes, James Carville, who will tell it like it is about John McCain (the media’s darling!)
No one is throwing out the baby here Marc. But no one wants to see another useless “Tack” to the center, like Kerry or Gore, that gets us no place since voters then wonder what the Dems stand for.
July 2nd, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Firedoglake has an interesting counter-point to Marc’s thesis under the title Turning Obama Into A Punchline: How Democrats Can Lose.
I’m not saying I know what’s right, but it is a perspective worth considering.
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:53 pm
What Obama needs to do is relatively straightforward.
Stay tough but sensible on the central issues — economy, energy, environment, security, Iraq — and avoid irritating the people who will decide this election, who decidedly are not knee-jerk lefties, on things like guns, death penalty, and so on.
In other words, run as a center-left candidate, not a left-liberal candidate.
This is not rocket science. And it striking to see how many obviously well-educated people of the hyperpartisan persuasion simply don’t get it.
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:57 pm
… Incidentally, the center-left John Edwards — not the MoveOn John Edwards, who came to be because he realized he was running against two superstars and needed to find some way to retain relevance in the primaries, not that it actually worked for him — would be 20 points ahead of John McCain right now. It would be game over.
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Not that anyone noticed - Wes Clark being mean to St John was SOOO MUCH more important - but Obama did what Bill suggested the other day. When asked how he would like to be judged, if elected, after his first term he laid down three markers for considering the term a success:
1. An honorable exit from Iraq
2. Passage of a Health Care Plan
3. Passage of a real Energy Bill that included both alternatives and progress on Global Warming.
Not bad - clear, concise, and simple. No laundry list.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Honestly I think the condemnation of the left blogosphere is more valuable to the Obama campaign than its support, which can be positively detrimental.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Michael says:
http://michael-balter.blogspot.com/2008/07/muddle-over-obamas-move-to-middle.html
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:43 am
With all due respect, it’s not “lead and the people will follow” but rather “make a rational case for something and the people will listen“. Surely that is the basic intuition behind democratic politics. In which case, one can’t justify everything a politician says in terms of political expediency. At the very least some consideration must be given to whether a politician’s position on an issue makes any sense. Glenn Greenwald among other have shown that Obama’s position on the wiretap issue makes no sense, is inconsistent with his previous pronouncements and most importantly lends support to something which profoundly undermines the constitution. So even if some strategic advantage could be derived from such a position (which is far from obvious) it’s simply not enough to allow Obama a free pass on this issue. In the absence of any justification beyond the purely strategic, he ought to be criticised for taking such a backward step.
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:13 am
FISA is a very troubling issue. The core of it is that there is a FISA court, which routinely allows any reasonable request. Which this White House has decided, quite oddly, to circumvent.
Then we get to the question of immunity for telecoms who allowed all manner of things in the aftermath of 9/11.
My fear is we are headed into the era of the Surveillance State, in which big government and big corporations join hands to know everything about us. Well, not everything, but most everything. No zone of privacy. All available at the “leak” of information to the ravenous maw of new media.
OTOH, let’s not forget 9/11. We weren’t sure when or where we would be hit next. After a couple of years, it was evident that America was not London in the Blitz. But should telecoms who did whatever for the White House be seen as villains in a new context?
The whole thing should certainly be investigated, there is no question about that. And the next president will have the ability to do that, under the new bill as written.
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:59 am
Actually, the more I think about a run to the center, the more I think it’s a mistake. Not becaue I think he can, or should, pull off some left-wing dance, but becuase he’s already a centrist, and his appeal is his non-beltway talk.
It’s not just progressives who are showing up 30k and 70k strong at his rallies. That kind of support, especially when it was materializing, is rare if not unique. It’s hard to put your finger on exactly what combination of qualities has led to this enthusiasm, but it is there nonetheless. The problem is that these sorts of magical moments are fragile.
The FISA decision, for example, is a horrific mistake–he alienates his base, opens himself to the charge of flip flopping, looks weak, and now can’t reverse during the course of the campaign without paying a heavy price.
In the end, 90% of the people out there don’t know what one candidate’s proposals are over the other’s, even the well informed. People do not get bogged down in the minutiae of a 4% difference in the capital gains tax plans. They vote with their guts and their hearts, and Obama knows how to play that instrument.
Playing things safe is what politicians always end up doing and they end up boring the life out of us.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:07 am
“The whole thing should certainly be investigated, there is no question about that. And the next president will have the ability to do that, under the new bill as written.”
Yes, let’s do this. Priorities are priorities. Let’s burn away the few days Royalty works to address this burning issue, while the US burns its remaining wealth burning up others energy supplies.
I’d rather be governed by the first 500 registered voters out of a phonebook than what we have now. We could be assured of some common sense.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:08 am
And to finish my unfinshed thought, a run to the middle is a boring play-it-safe startegy. It loses the magic, and makes him much more vulnebale than he is now.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:11 am
So, Obama and the Democrats accuse the Republicans every election of planning to put in a draft, just to scare young people into voting for the Dems. So, now who is proposing what would become mandatory service? Why Obama himself?
Screw that. I take care of myself and my family, I pay taxes, I don’t sponge off the government, I volunteer for charities that I choose and not those that the government chooses–like the global warming scam, and I don’t believe that “feel good” programs that force service by people who don’t feel so good about those programs or who need to work real jobs is very bright. And, mandatory unpaid service, aka slavery, is popular in universities today just to pass basic required courses. This will be an expansion of that.
I’m not going to put up with the Democrats accusing the Republicans of a military draft for some when the Democrats are moving towards mandatory service for everyone.
Obama issues new call for national service
After Woodrow Wilson, we should know better than to elect people who worked in universities and never had to run a private company.
Obama is dangerous to our freedoms. I’ll even vote for McCain to stop him.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:28 am
>we should know better than to elect people who worked in universities and never had to run a private company.
Woody, GB I and II are the only recent presidents who have ever even pretended to run private companies. If the criterion is basic competence, former executives are at 1 for 2, a somewhat worse record on balance than for Presidents in general.
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Er, no.
National service is not the same as a military draft. I hope I don’t have to waste more time explaining this.
>Woody Says:
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:11 am
So, Obama and the Democrats accuse the Republicans every election of planning to put in a draft, just to scare young people into voting for the Dems. So, now who is proposing what would become mandatory service? Why Obama himself?
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:58 pm
“Royalty?”
># Jim R Says:
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:07 am
“The whole thing should certainly be investigated, there is no question about that. And the next president will have the ability to do that, under the new bill as written.â€
Yes, let’s do this. Priorities are priorities. Let’s burn away the few days Royalty works to address this burning issue, while the US burns its remaining wealth burning up others energy supplies.
I’d rather be governed by the first 500 registered voters out of a phonebook than what we have now. We could be assured of some common sense.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:08 pm
>the first 500 registered voters
>out of a phonebook
The phonebook where you live or where Woody lives?
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Yeah, BB, they are different. With the draft you get paid. With the current mandatory service, as in universities, they consider “service learning” as part of your obligation to society and expect you to do it to pass the course. Crazy leftist professors.
You can’t escape this issue, though, by pretending that it isn’t a form of government mandated service–which may take the form of punishment for those who don’t give in. It’s bad enough that I pay taxes that get wasted on all sorts of liberal programs without them taking my time, too.
- - -
Stu, we may secede again but do it right this time.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:43 pm
>Stu, we may secede again but do it right
>this time.
do you promise to take Texas with you?
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:46 pm
PS, Woody, you hate America
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Oh, man, this post is hard to take. The press should be hypercritical of Obama’s pandering to the right and not resort to making excuses for him. .. Sounds like Bradley still wishes he were managing a campaign somewhere. At what point would you object to Obama’s retreat? When it comes to Iraq? Well, you’re too late.
FARGO, N.D. — Democrat Barack Obama emphasized today that he might revise his proposed timetable for pulling U.S. combat troops from Iraq, saying he needed to consult with U.S. commanders and do a “thorough assessment of the situation.”
The comments at a news conference here seemed to be a shift in focus by Obama, a staunch opponent of the Iraq war.
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Right on Alan and that is why the largest new group on Obama’s affinity page is a liberal/progressive crowd reminding him of how he got here. I think its having an effect. He’s already revised his remarks on Clark. Maybe FISA is next!
(BTW FISA is now and has ALWAYS been in place. What we’re talking about is an abortion called the “Protect America” Act {paging Mr. Orwell!} which allows warrantless wiretapping and Telco Immunity {which is really immunity for the Bushies} to continue. How come the Fourth and Fifth Ammdts can be violated but not the second? Yeasterday a promenant blogger in DC was shot and the street he lived on is, according to John Aravosis of AMERICABLOG, a free-fire zone. But, thanks to the Supremes, the crips and bloods there have the right to bear arms. Guess they’re a “Well-regulated Militia!” Welcome to the US of Insanity!)
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Latest from the Obama camp… if he keeps this spin to the right of center (it’s no longer spin to the center) he’ll permanently lose his Obamamessiahship.
From Politico
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Fortunately, most Obama supporters aren’t as stupid and disingenuous as Roper. What a wanker… It’s interesting that the language at the Politico link has been changed since Roper copied it - because as stated it was a remarkably dumb, fictional account of Obama’s position. He has ALWAYS stated, as his principle, that we should leave Iraq as carefully as we were careless getting in. The notion that he should exhibit zero flexibility in plotting the actual withdrawal (and he has NEVER supported “immediate withdrawal” but an immediate start to a careful withdrawal - with ending combat operations within a reasonable timeline and no permanent bases the goal) or that as CC he won’t consult with the military on the ground in defining an operative plan is ridiculous. (The latest noises from the Iraqi government makes it pretty clear that Obama would make a better partner in ending the occupation than McCain.)
Of course, dipshits like Roper hate Obama because he’s playing to win. He’s also proven about a hundred times more saavy in assessing the disastrous Iraq invasion strategy than this “conservative” peanut gallery that lived for years in their fearless leader W’s asshole. (”Conserving what ?” after Bush’s assaults on the Constitution and wide-ranging strategic and policy failures is of course, the $64,000 question with these wingnuts.)
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Obama’s FISA positon sucks, but compared to most pols this, which Obama posted on his site - with three top policy aides also participating in a 90-minute interactive dialog on the issues - is a remarkabley respectful and engaged response to critics within his camp -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/my-position-on-fisa_b_110789.html
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:04 pm
“The press should be hypercritical of Obama’s pandering to the right”
What press are we talking about ? Some imaginary press that doesn’t exist or the press that lives and breathes horserace narratives rather than serious discussions of a candidate’s polices. I don’t think crap like the thing Roper posted - which was re-written because it was so misleading - is “criticism” so much as more of the same old shit that turned Al Gore into a guy most notable for making stuff up and wearing certain colors, while John McCain is still portrayed as a “maverick” with great “commander in chief” credentials, despite his flip-flops on a host of issues and his spending years echoing the disastrous Bush-Rumsfeld line on Iraq. The truth is that the most effective criticism Obama is getting isn’t from “the press” - which is analytically incompetent on most issues - but from his own steadfast supporters, who take him at his word that he’ll engage his critics and takes the issues seriously, even if he doesn’t always make everybody happy with his political choices. Frankly, it’s an absurd notion that the “actually existing press” is some kind of brake on “pandering” - when the news media’s pre-fab narratives are in themselves “pandering” to their infantile, commercialized notion of journalism, and are the foundation of the kind of debased public discourse that makes “pandering” seem necessary to some degree by pols of all stripes. It’s like asking crack-whores to help put an end to substance abuse.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Analysis on Obama’s Iraq statements from people who aren’t as dumb as a bag of hammers:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/news_orgs_already_getting_it_w.php
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:34 pm
I was going to write something really rude about reg, but I understand that he can’t help himself, that he is much more like Chris Matthews in that thrill up his leg than even reg would admit.
Face it reg, you messiah is a friggin politician and nothing more. Like any and every democrat since LBJ he moves left during the primary, right for the general and then fucks up everything in between elections… Come to think of it, the dems are JUST like the repubs in that regard. Welcome to the VRWC reg.
I keep asking woody why he bothers with you. I haven’t gotten a sane answer from him yet so it must be an addicitive thing. So, I’m joinging ra… reg anonymous. Step 1 1. We admitted we were powerless over ribbing reg—that our lives had become unmanageable because he is so dense… enjoy that reg, that’s the last I’ll screw around with you. You just aren’t worth it. There, feel better little kiddie?
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:09 pm
I think you’re the one who needs a jolt to make them “feel better” - because your posts here are pathetic. Sandbox stuff. When all else fails - and it usually does with your “analysis” - you resort to unadulterated ad hominem.
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:12 pm
. ” I haven’t gotten a sane answer from (Woody) yet”
Welcome to the club.
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:19 pm
reg reminds me of a news report that I saw today.
“Larry Harmon, who appeared as Bozo the Clown for decades and licensed the name to other Bozos around the world, had died at age 83.”
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Here’s another “Obama-supporters-sending-a-message-to-the-candidate” effort some here might want to participate in.
http://www.democrats.com/obama-escrow-fund
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:40 pm
(I’ll let Rev. Roper ponder the theological implications of the above…but first perhaps Dr. Roper would like to announce a cure for that Bush Derangement Syndrome he used to yammer about…before he belatedly backed away from Bush. Nothing like silly mantras when you’re all out of arguments that make any sense.)
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Here’s some good commentary on Obama’s “faith-based and community” social service initiative:
http://www.ruralvotes.com/thebackforty/?p=155
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:43 pm
richard locicero: “He’s already revised his remarks on Clark. Maybe FISA is next!”
Flipping to the right then flipping back to the left, that’s positively fucking gymnastic. I can’t wait to see his floor routine in Beijing. America’s sure to win with him on the team.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:46 am
More on the press as coherent critics of Obama re Iraq:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/202750.php
July 7th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Nader doesn’t waver. It’s always about the American People, justice, the LAW and humanity. Obama is scaring the stuff out of me lately, so I might just do what I should have done in 2004…and vote NADER.
The Democrats are Republican enablers who have helped the Republicans LOOT our nation, helped Bush and Cheney commit MASS MURDER FOR PROFIT, and are now PROTECTING THEM FROM PROSECUTION AND PRISON.
THIS HAS TO STOP OR WE WILL EITHER BE GASPING FOR BREATH, HIDING IN OUR HOMES FROM BUSH’S GESTAPO, STARVING, OR SAYING OUR FINAL GOODBYES TO OUR CHILDREN AND FRIENDS.
The fact that this nation of 300 million, and over one million murdered Iraqis, are victims of the most heinous, corrupt, criminal, indifferent, sociopathic, murderous presidential administration in the history of our nation should have scared the hell out of this whole nation years ago, and it hasn’t, should send all of us to the polls voting for Nader/Gonzalez.
There’s not much else to talk about… because nothing else much matters. Obama hasn’t outright described the impeachable and prosecutable high crimes of the Bush administration, nor the criminality of the Republicans. Nor did Clinton. ONLY NADER HAS SPOKEN THIS TRUTH WITHOUT FEAR.
THAT, IN AND OF ITSELF, SHOULD TELL ALL OF US WHO TO VOTE FOR… AS IT SHOULD HAVE IN 2004 FOR KUCINICH.
WE HAVE BECOME A NATION OF FRIGHTENED “GOOD GERMANS.” NOTHING LESS… AND WITH THE SAME RESULTS.