Tail Chasing
Better that this time around the Democratic presidential candidates packed off to Chicago and pandered to the more liberal bloggers of the YearlyKos than the usual routine of kissing the heinies of the more conservative DLC.
But just who's got who by the tail? I don't think there is currently any definitive answer, but showing up to pander to the online activists (whatever that means) does not in itself make a revolution, nor necessarily even denote much of a shift of political gravity within the Democratic Party.
That sort of paradigm shift requires more than a stiffening of the will of the Democrats. It also means that liberal blogs (especially after the Dems win the coming election) are going to have to show some real independence and not settle for being mere transmission belts of the party "communications" apparatus i.e. something more than a liberal mirror of what they like to call the Republican Noise Machine.
The party, for its part, is going to do everything possible to make sure that doesn't happen. It's already started. Check out this story in which a couple of DNC officials engaged in some mumbo-jumbo with the Kossacks, apparently "sharing" with the bloggers bits and pieces of Democratic opposition strategy.
Oh puh-leaze. What the DNC really provided was classic partisan spin, tossing out gobs of obvious talking points that it hopes will be faithfully reproduced and propagated by grateful bloggers who now feel included and loved inside the establishment Democratic tent. LOL as they say.
I think it's just peachy if liberal bloggers feel they'e somehow at war with the Right. Okay, if it makes you feel useful and responsible. But careful not to blindly enlist as simple mouthpieces for the other half of the duopoly.
Remember this is the party that on the same weekend that its deigns to play pattycake with Kos also lends its hand in approving an extension and expansion of Bush administration warrantless wire-tapping.
No question that the DP has learned something from the debacles of 2000/2004. No question that the netroots and much more importantly the technology itself play an increasing role in party politics. No question that the vast unpopularity of the polarizing Bush administration has permitted the current field of Democratic candidates to posture farther to the left than in recent history. But we are still very, very far from some significant (and I would think rather impossible) makeover of the Democratic Party.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:05 am
Amidst the insider info the DNC shared with the netroots is the following about Giuliani:
“What the Democrats will say about him: His accomplishments in New York are exaggerated. He can get nominated only by abandoning his centrist image. He has flip-flopped on choice, immigration and bipartisanship. Firefighters and survivor families have a different story to tell about Giuliani and Sept. 11.”
Do we really think it is true that he can get nominated only by abandoning his centrist image? Isn’t that really his greatest strength given the loosening grip of the Christian right and the neocons on the Republican Party and especially Republican voters? Isn’t being pro-choice a good way to siphon off votes from Hillary Clinton, given that the majority of Republican women poll pro-choice? I am just wondering how much wisdom is really being imparted here.
August 6th, 2007 at 4:24 am
Michael, the Christian Right (e.g. James Dobson) will not vote for him. His record on dealing with African-Americans will lose him the center. His flip-flop on immigration will cost him the Hispanic vote.
I don’t think that his pro-choice record will siphon votes from Hillary or any other Democrats for that matter. He consistently polls behind Democrats in New York. Compare that to Reagan, another polarizing figure who consistently polled high in California.
August 6th, 2007 at 4:34 am
Democrats need to know there is a movement behind them.
And the movement needs to be mature enough to accept partial victories and to think long term. Suppose Hillary wins, god forbid. What will be worse for the cause, the Kossacks’ sycophancy, or endless mudslinging by the likes of Marc and others on the Virgin Birth Messaiah Left?
August 6th, 2007 at 4:56 am
If I were running against Giuliani, I would create a spot showing him during the 2004 Convention saying that he said on 9/1 “Thank God George Bush is President” and every other time Rudy praised Bush publicly. The 27% who still support Bush might go for that, but the center won’t.
August 6th, 2007 at 5:07 am
Randy, please explain to me why Giuliani is leading the Republican pack in the polls then, and has gained in the past several weeks? Am I missing something? If so, I would be happy to be shown the right road.
August 6th, 2007 at 5:08 am
Oh, and the polls showing Giuliani beating Clinton if the election were today. Again, explain?
August 6th, 2007 at 5:09 am
No, I am wrong about that last statement, it was true in the spring but not true today. But are you sure Clinton is a shoe-in against Giuliani? Sounds like that is what you are saying. Anyone else got an opinion here?
August 6th, 2007 at 6:46 am
Whoa, Nelly. I didn’t say that Clinton is a shoo-in against Giuliani. What I did say is that she polls ahead of him in NY State. I’m not even sure that she is a shoo-in for the nomination. bear in mind that there’s a lot of time between now and the primaries and the election. If Giuliani gets the nomination, then I believe that the religious right sits this one out.
I don’t think that the same will happen with the left even if Hillary gets the nom.
August 6th, 2007 at 6:53 am
You’ve pegged it, Marc. Liberal “activists,” are usually young people with problems recruited by Democrats to join the “fight,” even though they are paid next to nothing, because they are given a phony sense of importance. It’s like wanting to be popular in high school. Talk about child abuse.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:22 am
“It also means that liberal blogs…are going to have to show some real independence”
They already have. That’s the whole point. Unless by “independence” you mean turn on the party as a whole, rather than try bolster it’s left-liberal wing.
Bu Marc’s tone of disdain is well earned. After all, he cut his teeth in political movements in this country that have little or nothing to show for themselves and have fallen apart or isolated themselves with rather remarkable consistency. (His guys in Chile didn’t do so great either, but that’s an entirely different story.) But this is why a Woody would chime in with his approval. He wants to see any and all such efforts fail. And, frankly, a surefire path to even greater failures would be shift in gears toward Marc’s attitude of cynicism and negativity (”I would think rather impossible”) among the liberal left trying to push the Democrats in a more positive direction.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Incidentally, you don’t move a party and its most active grassroots to a more aggressive and/or liberal position by treating its centrists and the leadership like they’re dogs. As a strategy, you make efforts to ally with the center, influence the leadership and isolate the right and the most egregious wimps and sellouts. Which is precisely the tone and intent of most of the liberal bloggers of note.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:31 am
“they are given a phony sense of importance”
At least we didn’t send a bunch of intern applicants from the Heritage Foundation to the Green Zone in Baghdad to try to re-make the Middle East and bring “free markets” to Iraq. Talk about giving a bunch of Junior Ideological Dweebs, NRO Wannabes and Young Republican Careerists a “phony sense of importance” of absolutely insane and disastrous proportions.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:37 am
“Talk about giving a bunch of Junior Ideological Dweebs, NRO Wannabes and Young Republican Careerists a “phony sense of importance†of absolutely insane and disastrous proportions.”
Are those the guys who lost the 190,000 AK-47s? No, sorry, it was the highly professional military led by Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:40 am
Oh, and on the question, do the folks who enter an institution attempting to change it, inevitably also change themselves along the way ? The answer to that is “Yeah. Duh!”
“the netroots and much more importantly the technology itself”. Wow, Marc. Kinda like how the paper your books are printed on is more signficant than you are because of, you know, stuff McCluhan said about printing presses.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Good point MB. The guys I’m talking about are the one’s who lost the $9 billion in cash.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:54 am
Frankly, I’d have some modicum of respect for those “dweebs” if they’d joined the military and gone to Iraq to fight for something they claim to have believed in. But, you know, that would have meant actually leaving their Green Zone offices, cafeterias and gyms and shouldering a weapon. Which would make it very hard to keep one’s khakis pressed.
August 6th, 2007 at 9:14 am
As an amusing aside on politics, Giuliani vs. whomever and the internet - Rudy’s 17-year old daughter, who’ll be voting age in ‘08, has apparently gone on her Facebook webpage and declared herself a supporter of none other than Barack Obama.
August 6th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Update - apparently Carolyn Giuliani took her pro-Obama comments down after reporters started contacting her about it. I’m wondering if deep-background discussions over allowance money were involved. Probably not, since most questions of Giuliani’s responsibilties to his children have already been determined in divorce and custody proceedings.
August 6th, 2007 at 9:47 am
Not even a bleat about Marc’s most important point about the Democrati complicity in Bush’s new police state. Not even a bleat. Even from ultraleft Ahmedinijad supporter who also likes Hillary BB
August 6th, 2007 at 9:53 am
There’ve been lots of “bleats” - and stronger, such as “withdraw any support” - among the liberal blogs against the MINORITY of Dems who bought into that bullshit. What planet are you on ? As for this thread, frankly, Marc’s one-liner on the issue hardly qualifies as a defining topic in the context of what amounts to a giant sneer.
August 6th, 2007 at 10:03 am
In fact, if one were even remotely concerned about the truly godawful changes to FISA and how a bunch of Dems caved to Bush, this particular blog quite obviously wouldn’t be the go-to place for either information or commentary.
August 6th, 2007 at 10:16 am
The vote for the FISA revisions in the Senate was 60-28. That means a considerable number of Democrats voted for it, maybe a “minority” but a pretty large minority in that chamber of Congress.
August 6th, 2007 at 10:27 am
btw the Senate Demos voting yes included Diane Feinstein, no surprise, and Jim Webb–surprise?
August 6th, 2007 at 10:27 am
reg: Bu Marc’s tone of disdain is well earned. …But this is why a Woody would chime in with his approval.
Yeah, Marc and I are two peas in a pod. I wish the Democratic Party all the success in the world in fusing a tight bond with Kos and its like.
August 6th, 2007 at 10:54 am
I meant a bleat among discussion here.
August 6th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Maybe if Marc actually read what KOS, Atrios, Glenn Greenwald, et Al were saying rather than his parody of their views he’d realize that the most cogent criticism of the Dems have come from those “Dirty Hippies” - to use Duncan Black’s phrase. In fact I heard Greenwald tell Amy Goodman this morning that the mood at the conference was furious after the FISA cave-in.
The blogs in question are hardly in the tank for Harry and Nancy and they are very skeptical of Hillary. John Edwars is their candidate if the straw polls mean anything.
(you’re daughter seems to like him too, Marc. Maybe you should sit her down and explain how she’s drinking the Kool-Aide.)
I agree with Reg. Consider the absolute failure of the so-called “Left” in this country over the past thirty years its refreshing to see a force that is rising in influence. And I think that rise is due to the fact that they understand a simple fact that eludes the rest of “Progressive” movement. That power to change comes with electoral victories. That there are two routes to those victories. That the Right successfully made one of those routes - the GOP - their own. And that the netroots can make the Democrats a Left party. The work is still incomplete. Thats why 16 Senators - including Feinstein - caved on FISA to a 25% president. Thats why 50 Dem reprs either voted “Aye” or did not vote. In both cases that meant a majority said “NO” but the Republicans were unanimous. Nancy and Harry need pinal transplants. And that will happen. One reason the so-called GOP “moderates” always caved to their right was the threat of primary challenges. When that happens on our side watch the change.
I know this is hard. It means electorial politics as the route and, by and large, people like Marc and Mike distrust that. Its slow, it is frustrating. Better to “Mobilize the People” - though Marc is oh so fastidious about whom is to be be allowed (no ANSWER, no UFPJ) or create “New Parties” (Peace and Freedom, Citizens, Green) or follow true leaders (Commoner, Nader). Anything but work with what is right in front of them.
I know, Marc, you’re an observer. Its not your job to actually do anything. Fine. Then let some of us who actually give a damn do something without all the snide carping from the Peanut Gallery!
August 6th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Obviously the Netroots isn’t a monolith, which makes accurate characterization difficult. I thinks Marc’s questions is as follows: are the netroots a movement or just a new constituency? When the founding issues of the netroots (mainly the Iraq War and the Bush Administration) are behind us, will it continue to push the debate and call for change? We’ll have to wait and see.
One of the netroots’ biggest criticisms of the Democratic Party (and one of Marc’s as well) is the extraordinary lack of spine shown when it comes to big issues. I think the netroots will prove a fairly consistent voice for boldness.
The other big question is going to be money and influence peddling. Many of the most prominent liberal bloggers are in favor of campaign finance reforms, including Kevin Drum, Josh Marshall, Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein, and Kos. Obviously there are legal and political obstacles to meaningful campaign finance reform, but if the netroots manages to push those issues to the fore and get real change, it would represent a real change for the Democratic Party and a counterveiling force to Wall Street. Again, we’ll have to wait and see, but I see reasons for optomism.
August 6th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Dennis Perrin on being a part of the carnival
http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/2007/08/kos-it-was-there.html
August 6th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Rudy’s daughter comes out for Dem Obama.
Marc’s daughter sends hard-earned CASH to Dem Edwards.
What’s the younger generation coming to ????
August 6th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Mavis - the “netroots” & liberal blogosphere have been an important forum for pushing universal health coverage and critiquing the ways in which ALL Dem plans tend to fall short.
Also, Josh Marshall - and his readers who contribute information on local pols getting wobbly on issues - became a real force in the Social Security debate. Also, TPM was a central player - THE most important journalistic endeavor - in helping to expose the AG scandal and politically-motivated firing of US attorneys. Again, Josh’s readers became part of the loop in reporting on regional red flags - an effort that, I believe, was unprecedented in creative investigative journalism.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Jesus, the “Democrats” suck.
August 6th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
What we are watching here, on the part of the Left, is a brilliant and bold new electoral strategy. “Hey, let’s go clean for Gene and knock on doors, and, really, like, get involved in the nitty-gritty of electoral politics and stuff like that!”
Keep a careful watch. It is even possible that other high philosophers will deduce that you can build coalitions! I mean, think about it, campesinos, mini-mart workers, lesbians, dirt farmers, performance artists, Burmese and Guatemalans and Latvians, superannuated factory workers, unwed teenage moms and young graphic designers from Shaker Heights who lack health insurance!
Truly, to watch the Left at work is like being a bug on the wall at the patent office in Bern, in 1903.
August 6th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
I am really not sure how to reconcile statements about the growing influence of the netroots and the continuing rise of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. Is the idea that the netroots will influence Clinton in some good way? Eg, that she will be more antiwar or more progressive on certain issues? Maybe so, but it does not change the likelihood that she will be the candidate, in which case any rhetoric about “taking back” or remaking the Democratic Party is just nonsense.
“WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has significantly widened her lead over Illinois Sen. Barack Obama in the Democratic presidential contest after a dispute over foreign policy, a new poll showed on Tuesday.
The USA Today/Gallup poll of 1,012 adults showed Clinton’s support at 48 percent among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, versus 26 percent for Obama. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards’ support was at 12 percent.
USA Today reported on Tuesday the data showed Clinton advancing 8 percentage points and Obama falling 2 points from polling results from last month.
In a head-to-head matchup, the poll showed Clinton besting Obama 59 percent to 36 percent.
Among Republicans, polling data showed former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani at 33 percent, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson at 21 percent, Arizona Sen. John McCain at 16 percent and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney at 8 percent.
Conducted Friday through Sunday, the poll had an overall error margin of 3 percentage points.”
(except of this Reuters dispatch)
August 6th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
The Department of Defense has identified 3,657 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the deaths of these Americans over the past week:
GONZALEZ, Zachariah J., 23, Specialist, Army; Indianapolis; Second Infantry Division.
HEINLEIN, Charles T. Jr., 23, Pfc., Army; Hemlock, Mich.; Second Infantry Division.
JAIRALA, Alfred H., 29, Pfc., Army; Hialeah, Fla.; Second Infantry Division.
LINK, Joey D., 29, Tech. Sgt., Air Force; Portland, Tenn.; 39th Airlift Squadron.
LONG, Braden J., 19, Specialist, Army; Sherman, Tex.; First Infantry Division.
RIOS, Julian Ingles, 52, Master Sgt., Army National Guard; Anasco, P.R.; 130th Engineer Battalion.
ROJAS-GALLEGO, Cristian, 24, Specialist, Army; Loganville, Ga.; Second Infantry Division.
SALINAS, Eric D., 25, Specialist, Army; Houston; Second Infantry Division.
SANTOS, Fernando, 29, Staff Sgt., Army; San Antonio; Second Infantry Division.
VASQUEZ, Cristian, 20, Lance Cpl., Marines; Coalinga, Calif.; First Marine Division.
August 7th, 2007 at 4:39 am
Michael - not too put too fine a point on it, but your comments, so far as I can understand them, amount to carping from the sidelines because other people who’ve chosen to engage in Democratic party politics haven’t been able to make the changes that you want to see fast enough in an institution that you are too cynical or self-righteous to have any truck with. Also, the fact that you put all of the marbles on who the ‘08 candidate will be, as though the task of building support for, no not leftists, but much-improved and “in-touch” candidates in numerous congressional races doesn’t even exist. (And the netroots have generated an impressive ability to help these folks. Of course, unlike whatever the hell it is that you’ve apparently put your political efforts into over the years, they don’t win every time. C’es la vie!)
All I can say is that the more I read the “left” critiques here, the more it sounds like the guy who’s always there to contribute “Yeah, but…”, followed by a stream of reasons that one is already are all too familiar with as to why whatever pragmatic intervention being attempted in a given situation isn’t good enough. Of course, that same guy’s never got anything to offer as an alternative - other than a strategy to keep his motives pure and his hands clean so he can continue to pat himself on the back as the good guy and point fingers - a luxury of the inevitable impotence of keeping “above-the-fray”.
What’s your proposal, Michael ? Other than “I won’t vote for Hillary Clinton”, you seem to be offeriing up zilch. If I want to get in a frenzy about the Unbearanle Gravity of Polling Data in August of ‘07 in order to feed bullshit cynicism, I can listen to Cokie Roberts and Howard Fineman parsing the electoral landscape on some crap TV talk show. You seem obsessed with Hillary’s polling numbers. If they move in either direction, it won’t be because of your handwringing.
This is a long-term effort. And, frankly, it’s about resurgent liberalism and a large dose of nothing more than making Democratic politicians more responsive to Democratic constitutencies. If you think it’s all been a failure because Hillary is the leading candidate and that a Hillary candidacy means everything that’s been done to move the party in a direction that’s more populist and responsive to activists (NOT “leftists”, in most cases) at the grassroots, it’s probably because you have a different conception of politics.
Why don’t you quit carping about the Democrats and do something your own damn self. Send appeals to run and some money to a RunRalphRun group. Publish a website offering your views on how the Democrats are sellouts and Nader is our only hope. Attack Obama for his plan to invade Pakistan. Whatever. Because I can guarantee you that sitting on the sidelines throwing spitballs at Democrats who simply want to put some more spine in their party, support a cluster of candidates who are more aggressive and more responsive, and who want their candidates in ‘08 to know that they’re not calling all of the shots from Beltway backrooms or Al From’s offices, won’t help you achieve whatever the hell it is you want to achieve. Either build that third party or build the mass antiwar movement that looks kinda like the one you remember from your youth - do whatever the hell it is folks who can’t stand the Democratic party do. I don’t really give a shit anymore, because none of what you say makes much sense to me except as negativity, cynicism and resignation. Attribute my cautious optimism to the Kool-Aid. But I do hope that you’ve got something positive to contribute in some turf you can define for yourself. Maybe once it’s rolling for you, you can even define it for the rest of us in a way that seems like it’s an alternative and not just a jeer. (Not that there’s anyting wrong with jeers, as long as one acknowledges their strategic limitations and the fact that they’re more often offered to make one feel intellectually and morally superior to whomever’s being jeered than to change amy course of action.) Because complaining that Kos and the rest who’ve engaged as Democrats haven’t done enough to crush the Beltway establishment or end corporate influence - and predicting that so far as you’re concerned they CAN NEVER achieve any of their (modest liberal) goals isn’t getting you any closer to whatever it is that’s first on your political agenda. Light a candle…
August 7th, 2007 at 4:44 am
‘reasons that one is already all too familiar with’
‘that a Hillary candidacy means everything that’s been done to move the party in a direction that’s more populist and responsive to activists (NOT “leftists”, in most cases) at the grassroots HAS COME TO NAUGHT, it’s because…”
etc. etc.
August 7th, 2007 at 4:50 am
the likelihood that (Hillary) will be the candidate = any rhetoric about “taking back†or remaking the Democratic Party is just nonsense
Just for the purposes of clarifying any further discussion, which I’m going to try to stay out of, that’s MB’s case in a nutshell.
Does it make any sense as a “categorical imperative” ?
Not to me, but then my head is deep in the punchbowl.
August 7th, 2007 at 5:04 am
Actually, that’s more of a “hypothetical imperative”…
Totally misusing $20 concepts, out of any context other than that they sounded good at the time, is a powerful argument for confining onself to plain language.
August 7th, 2007 at 5:44 am
reg, I have a very short answer to all of this. I am not a Democrat, and don’t want to be, so I am not going to get into the party and work from within. You are a Democrat. Therefore you and other Democrats should be putting ENORMOUS pressure on the party and members of Congress to stop signing off on every dangerous piece of legislation that Bush wants to sign and to end the war in Iraq. Instead all I see you doing is defending the Democrats against criticism and making excuses for them. That goes for you too, rlo, with all due affection and respect.
August 7th, 2007 at 6:48 am
“I am not going to get into the party and work from within.”
Fine. I don’t expect you to. But I also don’t give a shit about your advice, because it’s just a bunch of cynical, “never gonna happen” carping about how people you don’t want to have anything to do with aren’t doing enough to satisfy you. From my perspective, you haven’t done nearly enough to get Nader elected President and/or destroy the Democratic party. People like you should be expending far more energy on whatever the hell it is you think you should be expending energy on. Because so far we’ve seen little results. Even if all you want is to guarantee that Nader will take enough votes from the Democrats to stop Hillary from getting elected in ‘08, you should get to work.
August 7th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Shorter reg:
Balter, blow me.
A sentiment I agree with.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:04 am
6a93b6b30379…
6a93b6b303790b67e6fc…