Jerome Armstrong goes a little meta on the ways the blogosphere has adjusted to this rather unique presidential primary season, and because I have no sense, and because Jane asked me to, I’m going to use his post to share a few of my own impressions. So here goes:
Jerome is essentially right that there are really no meaningful policy differences to be divined between our two candidates, and Samantha Powers’ comments now about Obama’s likelihood of revising his withdrawal plans if elected serve simply to remind us that the tea leaves people are currently reading during the campaign re: policy really mean nothing. If Obama were a true anti-occupation believer, he could have jumped full guns behind Lamont when he had the chance instead of ducking and running through the state and pulling the plug on his participation in a Lamont multi-platform ad buy.
So, we have no progressive candidate. We have no Wellstone, no Feingold, no ideologically based movement person. My question is this: which of these candidates is more likely to reveal an inner Lieberman of some form once in power? I don’t have an answer. People can believe what they choose to believe, but both candidates have Liebermanish historical tendencies and both propel narratives reminiscent of Lieberman, the earlier years.
So, it then has to be explained why the netroots has tended to ignore what I take to be this fundamental reality. I think many, though not all, people are doing some combination of projecting their hopes about one candidate or the other onto the candidate with whom they most personally identify, bloggers in some cases getting mau maued by very engaged partisan commenters who flock to threads, browbeat and seek to intimidate, wielding accusations of various forms of bad faith and character smear, etc. The blogosphere has tended, de facto, to divide itself among sites that lean toward one candidate or another and commenters (1% of our readers, but the most engaged and vocal ones) allocate themselves accordingly.
It so happens that, once Edwards dropped out, more of the online readership sorted itself to Obama. Now, I can’t see any meaningful policy reasons for having done so (and Edwards hasn’t endorsed), so to me it seems more like a consolidation of the anti-Clinton movement among tech literate activists than it seems like anything about any ideologically or policy based progressive agenda. Moreover, judging by the comments I read, the emails I see and the comments I hear when I talk to people, it’s pretty common to hear something like the sentiment, if not the outright expression, that "the bitch must be stopped!" This is among self-identified liberals, progressives.
I conclude from this that the hundreds of millions of dollars at least that have poured into branding Hillary Clinton – whose policies in general I hardly care for – as a lesbo cunning corrupt cold calculating bitch, have altogether not been without their effect on many online activists and readers in particular. I include in this the very many newer readers coming to our sites who have become politically engaged primarily as Obama partisans, the people who have not had as much opportunity to deconstruct the misogyny of right wing narratives pervading national political discourse since time immemorial, and certainly since the rise of feminism. These people tend to outnumber the Clinton partisans, at least online, where Obama’s stronger pull among independents, younger people and the technoliterati makes a difference.
As a result, there’s a bit more of a traffic niche to be taken for a site that leans toward Obama. One only need look at the recommended diaries at DailyKos (Obama talking point and Clinton oppo dump central) to see this in action. Still, there’s a counterniche to be filled among the Clinton loyalists. And then there’s Firedoglake, which sustains its unaligned position, pissing everyone off, although the core analysis of the site’s approach is based on a sense that, as I mentioned earlier, there is no clear "Never Become Lieberman-ish Candidate" in the race.
So, in my very personal and not claimed to be The Truth view, I think there have been subtle pressures or incentives for bloggers to line up more toward one side or another, on either end of the spectrum, though I don’t believe the people I know who have lined up one way or another have done so intentionally for these reasons. But at least, if you tend to side with one or another, by God, at least somebody likes you, and it’s not a lot of fun blogging when no matter what you write, you’re in the crosshairs of some very vocal readers, day after day, post after post. Bloggers are, in fact, human, and I think we can all admit that part of why we do this is for sheer pleasure: we find it pleasing, and we like to feel connected to our audiences.
I think all these things have tended to combine to move the blogosphere away from its previous role more akin to behavior as a referee on the process and on the narratives propelled by anyone claiming a Dem label, and toward more of a partisan candidate sorting. I see a lot of right wingy talking points coming from either side over the course of this campaign, to the detriment of any sustainable progressive movement, but I don’t see a lot of people calling out both sides. More bloggers than readers do, but readers, or should I specify, commenters? Very many, and the most passionate ones, are not holding their own side accountable. At all. And they’re working us like they’re working the refs in a sporting event.
The ultimate question I will have for supporters of either candidate during these days of pie fights will be, whoever gets power, what will you hold your winning candidate accountable for once in office, assuming s/he wins? If your winner gets some accountability fire from people who once supported your opponent, will you simply defend your winner, or will you join in for merited criticism?
Related posts:
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Eric Boehlert, Bloggers on the Bus: How the Internet Changed Politics and the Press
- 63% of Pennsylvanians Want Specter to Face Democratic Primary Challenger
- Netroots Nation ‘09 – Photographs from Eli
- Why I Interrupted Bill Clinton’s Speech at Netroots Nation
- A Public Option in the Democratic Platform?





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Hi Pach
Heya! Happy Saturday.
I’ll take Obama. At least he doesn’t seem to kiss McCain’s butt. And he’s not a team leader of the DLC.
Then I think the question Pach is asking is, what will you do to hold your candidate accountable?
Random off-topic ad hominim attacks on his opponent aren’t going to get you there.
I can say one thing. If McCain wins in November, the Democratic Party will lose at least two members. Me and my lady.
Thanks. I was looking for a good shorthanded way to explain to my brother why I am not happy/trusting of Hillary & Obama. “Remember Lieberman” does sum it up.
Gee. Thanks sooo much for setting me straight.
Pachacutec!
With little “policy” differences the only advantage Obi is that he seems to exciting more new voters and this can mean some longer coat tails if the pull dem levers down the line.
One could argue that Hill is more the old “experienced” or the same old crap and nothing to get excited about except that she is a woman and that is no more and advantage than being a “black”… neither have been at the top of the heap yet.
Hill seems more prone to corruption of money and seems intent on proving she has balls and we don’t need a pres who needs to prove they have balls.
For me it’s all a negative decision tree and it leads to Obi.
We need a more progressive congress which is not in the grip of lobbyists and corporations.
Exactly. Seems we cannot even get the Dems in Congress to uphold the constitution. So how are we going to get the next president who has all sorts of unitary executive powers to account? Should we just pick the one we think we can trust more? I am afraid benevolent despots are few and far between.
I have to say, it does worry me that Obama might bring Lieberman into his Cabinet. With Hillary, though, I know it’s a given.
Having been a John Edwards fan, I would suggest that Obama should select Governor Dean as his running mate.
Okay, I going to take a lot of grief for this, but my rationale is the following:
1. Dean can bring forth the resources, financial and manpower to focus on the 10 Senate seats currently available and put them irreversibly into the Democratic column. This effort that I deem a “supplemental” will go a long ways to assuring that any Obama Agenda will make it through the Senate.
2. When it comes to “policy” this policy is always a moving target given the wealth of advocates for ‘change’. Now, Obama is not a Progressive,far from it, but ‘pushing’ him in that direction can be accomplished and I believe quite easily. That makes folks like Senator Feingold even more invaluable. Consequently, my concern regarding the ‘down-ticket’.
3. Senator Clinton will not focus much if any time and resources on these 10 Senate seats. Perhaps, I could be mis-reading her history, but I seriously doubt it.
Just a thought from the Sonoran Desert.
Jaango
We can’t hold them accountable.
But perhaps a lot of progressive dems can be elected and have more than a whisper at the table.
It’s got to be a bottom up thing. We have seen that top down doesn’t serve the people.
((((((((Pachacutec!)))))))
Digg this post!
I firmly fit into HRC demographic voter and it was a real toss up after Edwards dropped out…. I was working in his campaign here in AZ but it has been what has been coming out of the HRC campaign that has moved me more and more to the Obama camp.
Also I am a strong supporter of Howard Dean and his 50 state strategy. That very strategy is what is helping Obama now. HRC represents the old 18 state methodology that made sure we lost elections. If she is elected Prez, Howard Dean will be gone from the DNC and so will that strategy. Since AZ has benefited so much by it, finally now becoming a swing state and just might turn more blue this year.
It is what I see, read and hear that just turns me totally off. I can see myself working myself to near death to get Obama elected but not so much for HRC.
The Murdoch fund raiser for HRC was the end for me. Mark Penn didnt help. Obama was not my first choice, but I resent there is misogyny in my distaste for Hillary. I have equal disdain for Bill. The are both old fashion main street republicans.
Right on, Katymine.
Holding them accountable? Just what do you suppose would accomplish that in this fascist state
I weighed the pros and cons of both candidates– and there were lots of each for both of them– and cast my vote for Obama. When it coems to the general election, though, I am casting a vote against John McBush. My expectations for either Hillary or Obama are low in terms of a cohesive progressive agenda. I don’t see either as a groundbreaking leader– although, ironically, each embodies incredible symbolic progressive triumph. In my mind, everything is dwarfed by the prospect of a third Bush term.
Dude, Pach, you are SO beyond me. You know what I want? I want someone who will actually support and defend the Constitution. I want someone who will appoint SANE people to the Supreme Court. I want someone who will de-politicize the judiciary.
Pie-in-the-sky dreams about Campaign Finance Reform or even withdrawal from Iraq? Forget it. Right now all I care about is keeping the framework of our nation intact.
If we can get the nation back to a place where a law, once passed by Congress and signed by the Executive, is actually a law, I’ll be satisfied. If the new Executive does not petulantly issue a “signing statement” with every bill, I’ll consider that a victory. If I can see Gitmo emptied, and if I can see our presence in Iraq reduced from street patrols to individual military bases, I’ll consider that progress.
I WANT all those progressive things, but they were always a dream, and always will be a dream while the corporations control Congress, and while the Democratic leadership remains beholden to military contractors.
I prefer Obama over Clinton, but I don’t have any dreams that Obama is some kind of Populist Progressive. Frankly, I pretty much prefer Obama to Clinton because I don’t want to listen to eight more years of the same Right Wing Propaganda that I had to listen to in the Nineties. I’d rather replace Vince Foster with Rezko, just for the novelty.
But I’ll vote for whichever candidate is selected, not because they engage my ideals, but because I’m seriously concerned that a McCain Presidency might be the last one of the United States. Assuming we make it to the elections at all, and martial law is not invoked to keep
BushCheney in power. I think America is THAT close to the end.First we have to restore the Rule of Law. Then we have to work on Campaign Finance Reform and other steps to get the Corporations out of Congress. THEN we can worry about progressive issues.
I’ve bolded my last paragraph in the post, in the perhaps vain hope someone will actually engage the questions.
To continue the madness, I see Hillary continuing the sealing of:
Reagan/George H.W. Bush’s records
Bill Clinton’s records
Her records
George Bush/Dick Cheney’s records
See? She is more of the same. The same kinds of coverups, the same kind of madness, and the same kind of division and irresponsibility we’ve come to despise.
Jeeze Pach, Lieberman so early in the morning?
BLECH.
We know that Short ride mentored Obama, that’s a given.
We also are well aware of Hillary’ past, another given.
I have already made my mind up who I’m voting for, for my own reasons but lets set that aside for a minute.
Hillary is right about one thing, she does have a lot of experience, especially with the vitriol and back stabbing from the Repukes.
That is one thing that really concerns me about Obama.
Certainly, so far, he ha been cool under fire from the rather weak attempts to drag him into the mud but can he deal with the full force of the Mighty Wurlitzer and the media in a concerted effort?
So far, they have been casting about willy nilly, looking for something to stick. When they do, they are going to go for the jugular.
Can he stand up to that without folding like a cheap suit is what I want to know.
Pach, The last few days watching Hillary campaign for McCain or stating on 60 minutes that “as far as she knows” Obama is not a Muslim have been gut wrenching. Living in conservative country, when approached with comments about how dirty the Clintons fight, I stood up for them. Obama and Clinton have differences with how to approach foreign policy that should be discussed. IMO we have failed in our policy towards Cuba. Sometimes you vote not only on issues but on who you trust to follow through with those issues.
Obama or Nader?
Nader agrees that it’s most important to have the perfect progressive at the head of the ticket, and that there’s too little difference between the more mainstream Democratic candidates.
That was stupid in 2000 and it’s more stupid now.
I think Obama and Hillary are both decent human beings with good wishes for the country and the future. Both have more conservative advisers than I’d wish. But Obama has a wider circle that includes more of the people I would support — his foreign policy advisory circle includes over 40 people, in small groups for each area of the world.
I support Obama now (sure, I would have preferred Feingold or Edwards, but that ain’t on the agenda). And I will vote for any Democrat who heads the ticket.
PS Don’t get scammed by the MSM story that Obama is all talk and no action. There’s a Kos Diary talking about a Clinton supporter who googled all of Obama’s and Clinton’s bills and actions, and Obama came out ahead in terms of brave actions and passed bills!
I think I understand the writer of this post’s point. Ad hominem? What can I say? It’s my style.
As long as CT has a republican governor, it will not be in a Democratic President’s best interest to have him leave his Senate seat.
Howie,
You are a great guy and have done so much for progressives. Thanks so much. You and the lake gals are real great citizens of this country. Pach and the boy lakers as well!
Answer to your question: If my candidate (Obama) wins, hell yes. I will hold his feet to the fire. Every single time.
But I disagree with you that the two Dem contenders are pretty much alike. There are 2 big differences:
1. Hillary voted for the war — with both Iraq and, more recently, Iran. Many whine that Obama was not in the US Senate at that time, so what he was against doesn’t count. Uh, yes it does. Hillary messed up big time — and what’s more she has never really admitted it.
2. Hillary’s actions the past 3 weeks have been horrid. I am sick to damn death of hearing, “If Obama can’t take THIS, how will he stand the GOP campaign?” Apples and oranges. We all expect the GOP to lie, insult, lie, insult, lie. I do not expect the Democrats to.
And when Hillary began REALLY acting like a Republican, in spades, the past 3 weeks, that was the deal breaker.
Again, I don’t see Obama as a liberal. But, so far, he has been decent. I can’t say the same for Hillary.
as someone who spent almost 8 months with no toobz – this was my initial impression upon my return – a little taken aback to say the least – but very relieved not to see it in our front pagers
as to your question on accountability – yes, I have decided on a candidate but it is my intent to keep my foot on all of their necks – no stars in this dfh’s eyes – one only has to go as far back as 1/07 to realize it’s all about the accountability !
Oh, Thats what we are talking about, sorry.
I will be happy to debate anyone, and I mean anyone on the merits of Obama or Clinton.
I have no patience for Naderism.
Indeed hill has made some despicable comments in this campaign, aside from any baggage she carries about the AMUF and flag burning votes. Those comments are real reasons not to vote for her.
Why does it always come down to picking the least of a bunch of bad choices?
Maybe we can get him to leave the country instead? I’d love that. ;-)
If enough progressives are elected in November to the Senate, then ole Joe will pretty much become insignificant, well that is, unless Hillary is president and makes him AG or something. *plugging nose*
I conclude from this that the hundreds of millions of dollars at least that have poured into branding Hillary Clinton – whose policies in general I hardly care for – as a lesbo cunning corrupt cold calculating bitch, have altogether not been without their effect on many online activists and readers in particular.
Seems to me that this conclusion has been leapt to.
It could easily be that the DK crowd, for example, has internalized the distaste for the DLC that is the core of Crashing the Gate.
It could easily be that, like people offline I know, that they don’t want to go through four or eight more years of the Clintons and the press.
It could easily be that they hate Mark Penn, and do not trust politicians who hire him.
It could easily be that given Obama’s saying he was opposed to the invasion, versus Clinton who voted for it, that they lean that way.
It could easily be, as with Bowers, that a candidate who is looking forward to young people committed to diversity rather than backward to taking one more crack at the Reagan democrats.
It could easily be that they see Obama committed to a 50 state strategy, while they see Clinton looking, one more time, at targeting three states.
It could easily be, which is how I am looking at it, that Obama does look at some issues, like proliferation, with what seems to be a fresh eye.
I don’t feel really strongly about this, because it seems pretty clear that Obama has internalize the Beltway establishment. But to assign that motive to people seems unnecessarily insulting and, frankly, feeding the divisiveness.
Oh Pach, I don’t believe I can do ANYTHING to hold my candidate accountable once they’re in office. If I can’t get Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to even consider impeaching Monkey Boy, what the heck can I do if Clinton or Obama disappoint me… vote Republican?
Maybe nobody is answering your last paragraph, because the question just fills everyone with despair. Accountability? What’s my enforcement mechanism, letters to the editor? Blog entries?
Pach I must be reading the wrong post. Did you change the title to “why your candidate sucks?”
I like much of what Nadar says, but this electoral system cannot support his tactics.
But how does HE can his anti corporate message out?
“Accountability means what I say it means, neither more nor less. That’s why I use it all the time in my speeches, and why I can truthfully say that my government has been more accountable to its supporters and my people than any before it. Amen.”
– The Red Queen
That’s what really frustrates me– if we can’t elect a progressive now, when?
I think a big problem is that the so-called “cross-overs” are picking our candidate, and frankly they both suck.
How can we change this? Can we change the mechanics of the Rat party? Create a new party? We have to do something, because neither Hillary or Obama is worth the fake plastic they’re molded from.
Neither do I. And the point is?
I just read a note on HuffPo that Rove has joined mcCain’s camapaign
I don’t think I owe blind allegiance to my candidate. But whether I defend my candidate or not against attacks depends on what those attacks are and whether they are honest or smear or even important. I think I will do the same if my NOT candidate gets elected. But holding their feet to the fire is the really really frustrating part. We have very little power to do much I am afraid.
I don’t support Nadar. I support Obama.
Here’s the linky:
http://www.politico.com/news/s…../8911.html
That is the 64 Million dollar question…. how do we hold any politician accountable?
By not leaving it alone….. paying attention, sending the emails, letters, letters to the editor, phone calls and never letting up AND when it is time to vote……. if they haven’t listened to the people, primary them, do a Lamont and try to get them out.
I know that everyone gets discouraged, it seems that in the last 7 years I must of sent a million emails, faxes, phone calls and the crap still happens but Democracy is a participatory NOT a spectator sport.
Tag your it….. and my DFA group line is “Voting is not enough”
Dear Kiddo Abby,
I am one who is not liking the idea of Hillary on the ticket in November and can’t even think of voting for her at this point (I may write in Kucinich’s name instead). I’m told if I don’t vote for her, then McCain wins and I’m told that if Obama is on the ticket, then the Hillarybots won’t vote for him and McCain wins.
What do we do? I don’t want my vote to be used against me in the future when Hillary takes our nation to war in Iraq after “hearing all the evidence” against the country!
Signed,
Confused in Maine
LOL
This is a very troubling question.
When can a progressive actually get to the top of the ticket? What conditions will cause this to happen?
I agree with you about the policy difference (I’ve often said that their differences on healthcare don’t rise above the level of “noise” compared to changes that will happen once it enters the legislative process), and my strongest reasons for getting behind Obama these days actually relate to the strength of the progressive movement and how much influence it’s likely to have. Basically, from what I saw on the ground here in Virginia and have read about and heard about anecdotally elsewhere, the Obama campaign’s strength is built on grassroots organizing, and being very good at integrating with volunteer efforts that arose without much direction from campaign staff. The Clinton campaign has more followed their classic model from the 90’s of courting big donors and relying on the “big state” network where they have the support of high-level Democratic officials. (I felt for the Clinton supporters I know here during the primary, who seemed to be going through the same treatment we got from Kerry in ‘04 — begging them to do something with us, or support our volunteer effort, and not getting much of anything.)
I don’t think Obama will be the great savior, and he’s not as progressive as I’d like, but I do think he’ll be much more beholden to grassroots activists, and I think his strategy is building a network that will allow us to have more influence on Congressional candidates. I, for one, certainly intend to use that influence at both levels to push for more progressive policies and to complain if I don’t get them.
I have to agree with katymine.
Since the PA primary is now a prize, I’m going to drive a short distance over the bridge when I can and help Philly go big for Obama. I have no illusions about him. I did vote for him after Edwards dropped out. I surprised myself by doing so. I did realize that along the way I lost some of my idealism, and with the way he’s been inspiring new and young people to get involved, it influenced my decision greatly.
I don’t much feel as if I have a candidate of the heart these days – there’s one campaign that I find myself offended by more often, but that’s not the same thing.
Now, about that accountability question – I hate to say this, but I think to some extent we’d have to rely on congressional pressure and midterm threats, which is to say I don’t think we’d be able to force too much. There’s money, I suppose.
I am afraid that – fervent? – nature of some of the online support has thrown away some of our ability to translate support into influence, which is a shame, particularly since so much of that support seems to be thinly-veiled hostility against the other candidate.
And he works at Newsweek too? Conflict of interest? I think so.
We can’t hold them accountable. WE CAN’T EVEN GET A WORD IN EDGEWISE.
Elected officials don’t talk to constituents. They talk to lobbyists.
That may very well be, but the mass of the netroots folks moved en masse from Edwards to Obama, to the exclusion of Clinton, before3 all that stuff went down. Obama’s record is hardly unalloyed, applying the same standards people apply to Clinton, unless one’s methodology includes the preferential picking of evidence for one’s case, pro or con.
Offline, Clinton is winning substantial support, and not, as Jerome points out, just from Archie Bunker so-called Reagan Democrats. Her base is among women and latinos.
I loathe Mark Penn as much as anyone, and I defy anyone to google anything I’ve written and suggest I’ve been favorable to Clintonian politics, ever. But online, the dynamic is pretty anti-Clinton, and most of the arguments and standards I see routinely applied to her to justify that stance can be applied just as effectively to make a case against Obama, in my view.
what will you hold your winning candidate accountable for once in office, assuming s/he wins?
One of the difficulties involved with the presidency is that there is pretty much no way to hold the winner accountable. He or she will be nominated for the next term. This is one reason candidates can get away with making promises they are all but certain not keep, like withdrawing from Iraq.
If your winner gets some accountability fire from people who once supported your opponent, will you simply defend your winner, or will you join in for merited criticism?
How is this either meaningless or uselessly provocative? Yes, Pach, of course I will join in for merited criticism. And so say we all.
Let’s begin by debating Iraq, the DLC, the 3:00 Am ad. And go from there.
And you can bet your life I plan on holding a possible President Obama to accountability. And if he screws up, I want him to be a one-termer. Got that?
Don’t vote FOR Hilary. Vote for four Supreme Court justices. Vote for Roe v. Wade. Vote for de-politicizing the Judiciary. Vote for closing Gitmo. Vote for the Rule of Law.
You don’t have to vote for Hilary, but voting for the Republican nominee or issuing a protest vote means you’re not voting for some of the basic things you believe in. So don’t vote for Hilary (or Obama for those in a vice-versa situation). Don’t vote for the candidate.
Vote for what you stand to lose if McCain wins.
Holding a candidate accountable in the next year.
What a concept.
I for one, am still waiting for a concrete statement from either one of them as to what they have in mind for the first one hundred days in office.
Has anyone else heard something I missed?
Whoever wins ,if it is indeed a Dem, is going to be busier that a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.
There are thousands of things in this country that are fucked up, pick one.
As to holding them accountable, I am going to have the same pair of pliers and hammer that I have been using on Bush.
No one at this point is getting a free ride.
Vain Hope?
Now, that’s a great handle, blog name, book title, bumper sticker…
I’m worried sometimes that we might be so exhausted by next year that we will forget that we are the people. And, we have to keep their agenda on track.
Great post, Pach. Especially the last paragraph. Let’s copy/past to where ever we need to as an important reminder.
Somewhat apropos: Citizen-Driven Superdelegate Transparency Project Provides Best Superdelegate Reporting – Anywhere
Given that my personal preferences were; 1 Kucinich 2 Edwards and later on 3 Dodd, either Clinton Or Obama will be my 4th choice. Dancing with joy I ain’t but support the nominee I will. Both candidates give off a slight odor of Republican-Lite. Not the worst scent in the world (that would be bat-sh*t crazy wing-nut)but not one I care for. The only advantage I see to either, and I’m mostly wrong at predictions, is that the people that have been drawn into the process by Obama are more likely to opt out of the general if Clinton is the nominee than Clinton supporters are if Obama is it.
Pach has nailed it. Neither Obama nor Hillary are progressives. Each is different from the other, but they occupy the same spot on the political spectrum. One of them will be president. More importantly, most of the Congresscritters now in office will return, with a few Donna Edwards sprinkled in.
Progressives have a double fight ahead of them, really a war of attrition. Voting as many Goopers and Bush Dogs out and as many progressives in as possible. Then keeping the pot on the boil. Long enough to encourage Congress to stand up for itself and convince a president to give up powers that Bush will have done his darndest to set in stone.
I don’t care which candidate has “momentum”. I care more about the inertia they’ll overcome when in office.
As utterly distasteful as I find Hillary Clinton, if this individual is the nominee of my party come this November, I will vote in her direction.
Hill’s real enthusiastic support is from women and maybe latinos.
I don’t know why the latter and I suspect that is soft.
Gender is not a reason to vote for a person. Especially when they don’t act with the attributes of that gender! hahhaha
I know what you’re saying. Honestly, I do. But the way I’m seeing a vote for Hillary is the same kind of vote the neocons did for George Bush in 2004, meaning, they knew exactly what he had done and what he stood for, but yet, through everything aside and voted for him anyways.
This is the basis of my internal struggle right now.
this is such a key question – maybe THE key question (at least imo)
all we have to do is look at the last election to see this very human response in action (i struggle with this too) to want our candidates to be honorable people trying to do right.
it has been so hard for us to acknowledge how really craven and corrupt our own party leaders are – but i think the experience of the 110th congress has confirmed it. and yet, how often when they fuck up do we want to make excuses for them? to give them the benefit of the doubt even against all available evidence?
imo, the best preparation we can give ourselves for holding the winners of the 2008 election accountable is to practice that now on the winners of the 2006 election. it’s not always easy but at least we were all on the same side (mostly) for the 2006 election. if we can’t do it now, we’re in trouble. because it’s just going to get more difficult.
When Obama was at YearlyKos I tried to ask him how we could be more effective in holding our elected representatives more accountable. I referenced his diaries to us wherein he asked us to be more “respectful”.
I asked him to considering coming back with another diary telling us how to be effective. He nodded.
And to be fair we were in a fast moving handshake line. But I would still love to hear his response.
I haven’t read a single policy statement or press conference transcript, or watched a single campaign commercial. I haven’t watched or listened to a single speech. I only follow the blogs to watch the shifting sentiments, not for information on the candidates. I don’t NEED more information on the candidates, and I think all the armchair quarterbacking is frigging madness. The country needs EXTREME CHANGE. Of the people in the race with a chance of winning, Obama is the most different.
P-E-R-I-O-D.
As for “enforcement mechanisms,” bah! LIVE YOUR DAMN LIVES THE WAY YOU WANT TO AND CREATE THE CHANGE YOU WANT! Neither Obama, Clinton, or McCain have anything to do with your individual gifts or opening the window to your souls.
But I haven’t seen those grass roots activists stand for a lot more than destroying Clinton. Honestly, sometimes it seems like the “politics of hope” is morphing among a small but intense group into the politics of “I hope you fucking die” toward any who are not Obama partisans.
So, since so many of these folks are newer to politics, I still don’t see what they would hold Obama accountable for, and I don’t see them holding him accountable to anything from a policy perspective during the primary, which is in fact the time when one has the most leverage.
Was that meant as a a response to another comment? because if it was an opening statement, it definitely could have been framed in a less confrontational way, jmo.
Simple answer: Democratic senate nets six seats if Obama wins rather than Hillary. If you want a progressive leader, you’ll need more than a president.
Thank you, Pach. I hope commenters remember your observations.
Politics turns into a strange game in which everyone must line up to root for one side or the other. This becomes their home team and they can do no wrong even when they do nasty wrongs. The referee favors the other side and gives our guys too harsh a penalty. With this win – lose mentality it is easy to forget the purpose of choosing a candidate and that is on policies, advisers, and the people he/she will appoint in key roles.
I’ve stated this many times that it makes no difference to me which Democrat gets the nomination, I will have the same amount of work in holding their feet to the fire. There is no going away and leaving the candidate to his/her own devices because if I’m not actively influencing them someone else is – like corporations and NeoCons whispering in their ear.
I voted in my caucus weeks ago. I made my decision at that time. I could see the trend so it was a strategic decision. I voted for Edwards to give him delegates and some power to influence. He hasn’t disappointed me. He has not backed either candidate and is letting the people vote their choice without his influence. I appreciate that.
In summary, I have the same amount of work and activism regardless if Obama or Hillary wins.
It may come down to the only way to get this critters to listen is to clog their phones and faxes so that they lobbyists can’t make lunch dates.
I’m wondering if sending flowers with a note that says, “Please convict the war criminals in the White House. A fruit basket to follow if you do.”, would help in getting them to listen to us and is respectful enough?
What is your point?
I don’t know how to answer Pach’s question– how can we hold the president accountable? Yeah, I’ll attack either one who get’s elected if he/she acts too centrist, but what good will it do?
Like everyone else here I favored Edwards and I had to pick the lesser of two evils. And my choice was largely governed by emotional resons: I hate centrists. I don’t just dislike them, I hate their guts.
I realize Hillary is also a centrist, but she hasn’t praised Reagan. That was what tipped me over the edge. I went ballistic when he praised Benedict Ronald. If he doesn’t say anything like that again I think I can hold my nose and vote for him.
The problem is that they really haven’t left us any good choices. It’s any Democrat or habeus corpus is gone for good and voting/civil rights will be joining them soon, along with a few million folks in Africa and the middle east.
I don’t see what else we can do.
Pach,
We hold them accountable the same way we are trying to fight back against the Bush administration. We contact our elected officials about important issues and often. We support organizations that lobby them in the direction we desire. We vote for or against folks that don’t go in the direction we want. We make sure as many folks as we can are registered to vote and push them to vote. We keep up a constant, intelligent, and thoughtful dialog with our neighbors through letters to the editor and posts on widely viewed (supposedly non-partisan) on-line news sources. And, in my case as a moderate to conservative Democrat, I do something I don’t like to do, which is vote straight party ticket. I’m not impressed with Obama and worried about Clinton, especially Bill’s role in things, but it doesn’t matter, I will vote for them in November. The last thing I want as a president is someone that used to have principals, but now in the words of one of my sister-service classmates, is a b*tt-snorkeler.
I think I get this. Quit attacking Democrats. Go after Kiddo.
Why are we doing this?
My lady and our company has left for a horseback ride. I’m supposed to join them in about an hour down by the river. But this is fun.
That just made my day. Seriously.
I don’t understand how anyone can watch how these two campaigns have conducted themselves and conclude there’s little difference between them. Obama has consistently been attacking McCain’t since St. John took the lead, and now we have Hillary saying McStain would protect us better than Obama would. More fear-mongering…
Our choice is clear.
As far as being able to hold them accountable, perhaps Obama’s innovative Technology Plan would help, since it makes government more transparent than ever before…by far.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/art….._democracy
Of course, this could all be lies, and we should continue parsing the words of an unpaid adviser.
Nader is about as progressive as the American Enterprise Institute. He is for Ralph. To hell with Democracy and the people. He uses the same tactics of fearmongering as they do with the corporations and lobbyists as the big bad boggieman instead of the terrorists and national security. Fear. Fear. Fear.
My point is that your comment read like a response to something but it wasn’t clear to me what it was a response to.
about Obama’s likelihood of revising his withdrawal plans if elected
Samantha Powers made a perfectly appropriate and responsible comment about how the newly elected President should consider his plans once he gets into office. That’s called living within the reality based universe. The Clinton campaign is using this as a smear, and I’m disappointed to see it repeated here.
Neither is a progressive. We will have to fight whichever one wins.
But Senator Clinton is now explicitly using right-wing and Republican framing to attack Obama and praise McCain. It’s repulsive and disgusting. It is also standard DLC operating procedure (refer back to the Harold Ford Jr. campaign).
The choice has come down to one candidate who keeps the DLC at arms-length and another who is a DLC member that openly embraces their techniques.
Now that I have gotten over the nausea of early morning Liebermanosis,
One thing I will be VERY interested in is just exactly where the traitorous little bastard does fit in with either candidates plans.
Short ride has gotta go.
Yes, we need to hold Kiddo accountable for leaving his lady and company alone and not following his promise to meet them in an hour!
The ultimate question I will have for supporters of either candidate during these days of pie fights will be, whoever gets power, what will you hold your winning candidate accountable for once in office, assuming s/he wins? If your winner gets some accountability fire from people who once supported your opponent, will you simply defend your winner, or will you join in for merited criticism?
Great post and a great question, Pach.
I’m so glad yo opened this door for constuctive discussions.
Hope both candidates’ supporters accept the invitation to share constructive answers here.
Kiddo — are you male or female? You are cracking me up.
Does it matter?
Didn’t Obama sponsor legislation to make earmarks more transparent?
That is a little tiny start. But transparency has to be part of what changes.
If we can’t see what is going on, then we don’t know what to hold anyone accountable for.
I don’t think either candidate is perfect, but I think it will be more difficult for Obama to be pushing this populist campaign and then get all secretive. He has definitely set the bar higher than Clinton has. And I expect if he gets elected, he will want to get re-elected.
Two separate questions here, one that I’ve asked, and one that has come up to the effect of deflecting the discussion from my original question:
1) To what are people willing to hold their candidate accountable, should they gain power?
2) How does one go about holding a president accountable?
I didn’t ask the second question, and I’m still listening for answers to the first, not only here, but across the netroots and throughout this primary campaign.
now that i’ve written about what i think is so important about this post… i’ve got something else to say…
i am so sick of my dislike of senator clinton being attributed to misogyny. if i write anything out of line (sexist, racist or whatever) i hope and expect to be called on it.
but is it not possible that my extreme dislike of hillary (and bill) clinton is NOT based on misogyny or from watching tv?
please, enough is enough. cut it out. call me on it or stop implying my irrational dislike is either misogynistic or fed by watching tv.
I think we’re missing the point. I see the Democrats in the House & Senate holding a Democratic president accountable. It pisses me off too, because the repukes would never do that to one of their own, but at the same time, I like an executive branch and the Congress being co-equal and keeping the executive branch in check above all.
I think it would be hypocritical of all of us to say we wouldn’t want a Democratic president reined in when needed. What has been so frustrating over the past eight years is watching the republicans (and a few Democrats) consistently protecting the criminals in the White House. It pains me that no one of substance in the Bush Regime will be held accountable for their actions. Sucks!
Hello Kiddo – The horses have more sense:)
I totally resemble these remarks. As a middle aged white guy, I was seriously bummed having lost my John Edwards; not because he was another middle aged white guy, but because his strong message of fighting corporate corruption rang absolutely true to me when taking a single broad issue to counteract what is currently going wrong with America. A broad brush, to be sure, but Edwards’ commitment an sincerity impressed me and the fact that a CORPORATE media refused to give him credence, only enforced my belief in him.
With John gone, I did find myself projecting my hopes (transference, perhaps?) onto a tall, good looking black dude — almost audaciously so. Why? Because, I identify with tall, good looking black dudes; not so much. I realize that neither Barrack nor Hillary are truly as progressive as John Edwards in political approach; but, there certainly is a bad taste in my mouth for the Clinton brand. From that perspective, Ms. Clinton is a know quantity and it is not that I find her experience comforting–rather I find my own experience of her discomforting.
Irrational as it seems, I am caught up with the superior oratory skills and significantly superior charismatic aura that surrounds Barrack. I realize the irony in this; because it is those self same lemming like tendencies that I ridicule in the right-wing kool drinkers.
So, there it is. In a nutshell, I’m buying into the idea of HOPE. I hope I’m right.
He didn’t actually praise RR as much as say RR got support because he vocalized a change in direction. OY and did he.
But Nadar is correct about corporate abuses. He’s spot on.
Another thing, I’ve been hearing a lot of talk about the DLC. Funny thing, I didn’t hear anyone here talking about the DLC back when everyone was kissing up to Al “DLC” Gore!
That whole “DLC” talk sounds like an excuse to me.
You asked the wrong question, Pachacutec. Thus far, neither candidate
has promised anything worth holding their feet to the fire. Each has a
lame-assed health plan, and each promises to begin drawing down troops.
Shrub is drawing down troops, if only because the present levels are unsustainable.
For the record, I am for Obama for several reasons.
Hope isn’t such a bad thing.
He will bring out more new voters in the general.
He will draw more crossover voters.
While neither is a progressive, I’ve never considered her as liberal, even. And, her behavior of the last couple of weeks is nothing short of shameful.
True. I’ve written about this sort of thing over and over and over, myself. But it’s completely irrelevant to the questions I’m asking.
My head will explode if either Barack or Hillary has Lieberman in their Cabinets knowing how he backstabbed them both by supporting McCrazy over them.
well said. thank you.
What Kay said!
I did not name you, and in fact did not have you in mind at all. Large trends always subsume exceptions. Please don’t personalize a statement that is logically inconsistent with an application to any specific individual.
As you point out, from the policy perspective and politics all of the candidates are in the same “box”, including Edwards. This becomes more obvious when one looks behind the curtain and examine the people associated with each campaign. ie Robert Rubin (CitiGroup) for Hillary and Austan Goolsbee (U. Chi and DLC) for Obama. It’s pretty much dowm the list. It seems to me that at the beginning of the campaign there is a “pool” of consultants and advisors and the candidates just pick their team form the pool. Obama bragged that his campaign have more “old” Clinton people than did Hillary.
In the ‘08 election the problem is McCain and not the Dem, no matter who it is.
This is sad question.
Bush has proven that the president can do exactly what he wants. There will always be sycophants surrounding him to justify anything.
ELECTED OFFICIALS DO NOT LISTEN TO CONSTITUENTS. They listen to powerful monied interests.
Parachtec, for an obviously smart guy, you come off in this post as being incredible naive. It is nonsense to think that we have any way to hold any of them “accountable” once they are sworn into office. Get real, please.
I was an Edwards man, because he recognized the corporate threat. Both Clinton and Obama will continue to enable the corporations. I favor Obama because he is clearly a better human being than Clinton; her recent tactics have irrefutably removed any possible doubts as to the truth of that. And two big bonuses I see with Obama, but not with Clinton, are, 1.that the younger generation will feel like someone is finally looking to their future and that they have a stake in the political process, and 2.that all the non-white people in this country will have a concrete reason to finally believe that they have a shot in this racist and startified society, and that they should be engaged in mainstream life.
imho, it’s all about the ground game and building a strong progressive caucus. In ways the presidential race is just a distraction. Strengthening the legislative branch is the best remedy for executive overreach, oversight and shaping policy.
He praised him. I saw the video. I forgot to issue my usual caution when I bring this up, so I’ll issue it now: Don’t tell me he didn’t praise Reagan. I saw the video and he fucking praised that fucking racist moron traitor.
So, the argument is one should line up unequivocally behind a candidate and abandon hope of exerting any political influence or pressure afterward?
This is a progressive argument, or an escape from freedom?
There are some states so red or so blue that one persons vote will not make a difference. Even though Al Gore won the popular vote, it did not sway Bush to moderate his stance. The Archie Bunker crowd can be won over simply be replaying McCain’s statement that the jobs aren’t coming back.
OT, but here are some results:
Barack Obama 58%
Hillary Clinton 40%
with 30% precincts reporting
Largest counties still are not reporting in.
for those of you despairing as to accountability -
have you hooked up with your local Democrats ? and yeah, I know how frustrating that can be X(
however, my only reason for going to caucus was to meet and greet locals in hopes of a shared world view – 300+ in our little town, many of them will fade away after November, but at least 100 of us agree on the progressive agenda and have now met twice and have agreed on just what we want the candidate t/b accountable for – a Port Hutto Statement as it were
a sampling -
Restoration of Habeus Corpus and other Constitutional casualties of the last 7 years – yesterday !
Iraq – out now !
Universal Healthcare – timeline please !
Engaging the Electorate in Govt – what’s your plan ?
and so on, we copied the County and State Chairs, letting them know we were diggin’ in – we’d be recruiting at the State convention no bygones be bygones crap, no kumbay f’in ya
yaddah, yaddah, yaddah Go Local Firedogs !
Survival Economics #101 … You really need to read this.
http://elainemeinelsupkis.type…..y_matters/
well, it’s not your micro-partisan or anything ;)
All our horses are smarter than me. They just eat, drink, hang out in the winter wheat pasture and the barn. They produce almost nothing. They are complete welfare Cadillac boys and girls. ;0)
ding ding ding
Male. But I can fight and think like a female. ;0)
Jaundiced eye is looking, Hold nose shut, I don’t really believe I can hold them accountable and I don’t just sit here writing negative commentary, all my calls, all my protests, the obvious fact that this war was wrong from the beginning. What do I get for that? the rhetoric in this country that means nothing but darkness and so obviously wrong, I have divorced myself from my sisters, my mother, I speak out constantly, what will I do to hold them accountable bwaaahahaha, it is a joke, sorry for this but you tell me what I can do and I will do it.
Media, traitors to what this country should be, at present they serve the ones that have been served for thousands of years, and they, in a healthy country would not be given countenance. the only way to fight that is to mobilize massively and that would be a miracle in this country where you mention politics and everyone around you nuts up. Yea I will stand up anywhere anytime but I sure as hell don’t hold my breath.
And again, sorry for this.
Government control has always been about money and we need a candidate who will reign in the influence of lobbyists. Obama’s campaign has proved that you can run with small donors.
The answerhe only way to move the winner toward progressive values and keep him/her there is obvious. The more progressive members we send to the House and Senate, the less likely we will see whomever move in Lieberman’s direction.
Oh, and make Howard Dean the Vice President. That would be a big, huge help.
ok, pach. but it’s possible that other people react the way i did. maybe if there hadn’t already been other posts i’ve read the same way (not yours).
What will I do to push Obama should he win? I will write a book about America and what I think change might look like. I will donate $$ to environmental organizations and media watchdog organizations and blogs and progressives willing to challenge sell outs in the primaries or especially awful Republicans in the general elections. I will speak to friends and on line when I think he has not done as well as he might have and support him as stongly as I can when he does take positive steps. There is not much else one can do.
If Hillary wins I will do a lot of that but I do not know how much because I will not be very hopeful — mostly because she will have gotten there based on a constituency not so inclined to significant change, though I do have some hope that she might be OK on some domestic issues and I would try to push for some progress on health care and climate change where she may be amenable to moving forward. I fear though that she cannot win in November. I will vote for her of course if she is the nominee.
If McCain wins I will tend my garden since I live in Canada presume that I will never set foot in the land of my birth again (since I am now too old to image living for a better day in that circumstance).
That is the reality in this system.
What selise does and many follow is phone and fax pressure.
I have tried for years just to speak to my critter on the phone. Impossible. Not even a top aid.
As a response in general, not specific to anyone,
I think
Please don’t personalize a statement that is logically inconsistent with an application to any specific individual.
should be at the top of a lot of posts here.
I would have bolded that, but, I don’t want to Yell here.
I believe that Al Gore and the DLC have parted ways. I find it difficult to see much in common with an environmentalist and the the pro business DLC.
I meant the answer is obvious…
I have advocated that progressives take to the streets and mount huge demonstrations. That seems to be one way to get some attention.
But the press has ignored demonstrations and when they cover them it is a debate about how many attended and not what they were demonstrating about.
We need some direct action.
And if small donor prove incapable of saying for what they will hold him accountable once in office, what then?
The argument for small donors is an accountability argument, but accountability, like muscle, must be exercised.
120 comments in, and no real answers to or engagement of my questions.
Good answer!
If McCain wins, I’ll join you in Canada because you can stick a fork in the Democratic party. If they manage to fuck it up, AGAIN, after eight years of Bush, then there really is no hope for that bunch of losers.
Online activists aren’t a good metric for this; the ease of infrahumanizing opponents is much easier here, that’s why flamewars happen. Talk to people offline. I see no more than the usual campaign level of intensity about the candidate and tactics of the other side.
I think a lot of the grassroots supporters won’t do much to hold him accountable, because a lot of grassroots supporters just won’t be very active after the campaign is over, it’s the way of the world. But for those of us who are, I think we have a good chance to have a larger pool who will respond when we try to lead them in that direction.
It seems to be conventional wisdom that now is the time when we can really influence them, but I have to say, I don’t really get it. Early in the primary process when they’re still figuring out what works, sure, but now? What is the great leverage we’re supposed to have now?
Unprovoked wars, politicized DOJ, equal rights for all, voting rights, keeping Roe v Wade, affordable health care, preserving social security, letting rich bastards transfer all the wealth to a few…just for starters and in no particular order
Pach -
These are the tough, poignant questions. Whenever we interview a candidate on FDL, I ask the person the same question I ask the others: What think tanks do you plan to use and who are your current advisors?
If they are running for national office, I expect them to be engaged in national and international policies and I need to know from whom this person is getting advice. It is critical. I loved Donna Edwards because she gave the most in-depth response and clearly thought about this while preparing for her win. With most of the others, the response was generic or totally without thought or consideration.
When you are starting a job with a new company in a key position (not necessarily the CEO), you study up on that company to understand past decisions, and, you create a plan on where you intended to take the company or influence the product. Simply, everyone knows what you are bringing to the table and expect you to follow through. I expect as much from a political candidate.
This is a recognition of reality. I can’t get a constituent meeting with a CLinton staffer now. You think his or her staff will be more responsive in the WH, with no electoral risk in play?
One of the real benefits of having this extended campaign is that they both have been forced to publicly take more progressive positions than they wanted to, particularly on the occupation. Obama will have a much more difficult time dancing his way around the need to keep a force of 50,000 or so “non-combat” troops in Iraq.
The tone of this post is insulting. It makes it sound like anti-Clinton folks are all hateful, irrational misogynists. Senator Clinton:
…is a leading member of the loathsome DLC.
…co-sponsored a horrendous flag burning bill with a Republican.
…Voted for the horrible Kyl-Lieberman amendment.
…is using Republican framing to attack Obama and praise McCain.
…Failed badly in the 1990s to bring about health care reform, partly due to her Cheney-like need for privacy.
…After failing the health care fight, never came back to it during the remaining Clinton years. And yet she says she’s a “fighter”.
…Believes in the 50%+1 strategy that helped to decimate the Democratic Party.
…Believes in small, incremental change and triangulation. This also led to Democratic losses during her husband’s term.
i think this a absolutely wrong.
and here’s why… politicians (of both parties) have been depending on lying to the public to get stuff done. they pretend to support one policy and then work behind the scenes to make sure it fails.
holding them accountable mean, to me, that we don’t let them get away with their lies. we can’t stop them from doing what they’re going to do – but we can stop them from getting away with lying to us. all we have to do is watch them very carefully and call them on it publicly each and every time.
and in the long run, i think this will work to change policy – because politicians will do what they need to do to get support. and when the kabuki no longer gets them supported, they will have to resort to actual legislation.
Again, the question is not, what will you do, but for what will you do it?
I probably shouldn’t have brought that up again. Anyway I would be glad to have ol’ “A-Bomb Al” instead of these two!
Seems to me this post misses the point. In the last 20 yrs we’ve has 12 yrs of rule by Bushes, and 8 yrs of rules by Clinton. This domination of US political power by two families is very unhealthy. This is one important reason for favoring Obama,
Ok, now someone has answered. Thank you, chrisc!
120 comments in, and no real answers to or engagement of my questions.
Well, there are two ways to read that result, aren’t there?
You may have divorced yourself from blood family, but you have embraced a new one. Si?
We all get affected by the short term, but, in the end I think you (and, I mean that in a personal way) tend to see the bigger picture.
hug.
Because it is unanswerable dammit, we have all said the things we would do, but they sure as hell so far avail us bupkes, or am I too stupid to get the point.
The money would dry up from the small donors. The key is to elect the candidate that would rein in the lobbyists. Jane and Christy have already shown how faxes and phone calls can help.
Apparently, Maddy at 145, he wants a list of the issues most important to us. Bizarre way to phrase that.
I don’t understand, I guess. Pach says his question wasn’t answered. But it was: If your candidate wins, will you always support him/her, no matter what, or will you hold his/her feet to the fire? Funny — I saw many answers to this. Many said they WOULD keep up, hold feet to the fire, donate accordingly, etc. And many (myself included) stated that Obama wasn’t as liberal as they were, and that he wasn’t their first choice, this season.
If I am confused, maybe someone else is, too.
Thank you Demi
Just as we hold our Senators and Representatives accountable by contacting them and voicing our concerns, I see no difference for the presidential spot. Because that position encompasses our entire nation, I would therefore expect less responsiveness to our individual voices than at the state level.
I’ve contacted my Democratic Senator and Representative (who I voted for), especially when I’ve been unhappy with their behavior. I may do that with a president, but I’m less certain of the impact I can have at that level of government.
- Tom
And we should immediately without hesitation create a Progressive Party in this nation. FDL and other large liberal blogs have the power to get us started too.
Individually our vote seems minor but collectively it’s large and the internets have made a hugh difference.
JPL9 et al on small donors.
Presidents don’t need small donors to fund their reelection campaigns.
They don’t have to run in a primary. You can’t hold presidents accountable except by switching party in the general.
They did that when Edwards pushed the conversation that way and they needed to adjust. But since Edwards dropped out, and his supporters lined up on one side or another, where’s all that conditional love gone?
Supporters can give their love conditionally or unconditionally. What I see in this primary race is love with no price among supporters of either side.
If I offer to sell you my house, and then I let you live in it before we agree to terms, what incentive do you have to pay me a cent for it?
Theodore Roosevelt would be rolling in his grave, LOL!
I say BULLY, to a new, true, progressive party!
This is a moment of accountability for Obama because his campaign is not just about what he proposes to do (similar to Clinton’s proposals) but how he proposes to do it. Will he resort to the tactics of distort, distract and divide to win? As a community organizer he understands that accountability is to your principles and your constituents and without both your approval ratings are so low that you can’t get anything done anyway. If he wins the presidency it will be because he has built a sustainable coalition for progressive change and the same voters who trust and support him will vote for like-minded candidates for Congress. I’m from Vermont so I will entrust Pat Leahy, Bernie Sanders and Peter Welch to keep Obama true to the principles that get him elected.
Count me in!
Don’t take it personally.
(Isn’t that what said?)
Or, maybe you’re not…and maybe instead, you’re pointing out that if we Knew What To Do, we’d already be doing that?
You are so smart.
In a perfect world PowerLine or Red State would be having the same conversation.
I support many progressive positions and will attend any demonstration in war, human rights, economic issues. 1199 is right there with boots on the ground when they are asked. We are an 1199 household.
I do not believe in giving money to candidate who don’t pledge to install public finance of all electoral politics.
We need to get money OUT of politics. It disenfranchises the poor.
I can only offer that I am an honorable person and I would not screw a fellow human being that way…oh, wait, you’re making an analogous comparison to a political circumstance. I guess honor doesn’t transfer the analogy membrane, metaphorically speaking.
I’m really not able to make any sense out of what you are saying here. Yes, I agree Edwards forced them left. The supplemental on Iraq did too. And, I am saying, extending the nomination process is also doing that. Clinton accuses Obama of being weak on NAFTA or phony on the occupation, and he moves left. But he or the press will then do the same to her, and the whole public position moves left.
People who support presidents get one shot. I have no idea what this:
What I see in this primary race is love with no price among supporters of either side.
means.
Nor that closing question.
ok, pach this one i AM taking personally – since you claim there are no exceptions.
each of my comments addressed a specific part of your post. what exactly do you want?
i don’t have a horse in this race (not being a big fan of either obama or clinton) – so i figure i have to hold them both accountable. and as i said upthread, for me the most important part of that is to hold them accountable for telling the truth.
+ me
In my post number 12, I was expecting to catch hell regarding Governor Dean become the Second Chair. Obviously, my suggestion is being seen as somewhat outdated or ridiculous.
And the Latino vote is indeed “soft”. Last year, I attempted to raise some dollars among Chicano military vets in order to establish a polling outfit focused exclusively on Chicanos. And done so in order to counter the numerous fallacies in our public discourse.
And lost among all the chaff and chatter, there is no 527 Organization that has been established or maintained, and thusly, the ‘loud and loutish’ voices among Chicanos are drowned out by the presumptive Conventional Wisdom.
And not to be ignored, 16% of the Chicanos are affiliated with the Republican Party, and their voice will definitely be heard and funded by the McCain campaign.
We need closed primaries. We’ve let the Pukes choose our nominees for us.
Oh great. I’ve made a former president roll over in his grave! *giving myself a V8 juice bonk to the forehead* LOL
Thats what yer after?
Fine, thats easy.
An energy policy that is not a direct assault on Americas furture viability.
You want my biggest one?
LETTING BUSHCO WALK AWAY SCOT FREE FROM ACCOUNTABILITY!
That is THE biggest thing I am personally going to be hammering on.
As a matter of fact, lets pull the veneer away and call it what it is, I want REVENGE!
Yes, and I agree with him. This does not make him qualified for the position. It sounds good on the surface but where do you take it. It soothes my emotions but I hit a dead-end after that. If he is going to effect change, he needs to win people over, influence, LISTEN, and work with those with whom he disagrees.
Personally, I’ve been disgusted with Ralph for years. He sounds disgruntled for the sake of being disgruntled. He is submerged in the blame-game. Nader is an extension of my-way-or-the-highway.
I still listen to him when he is in interview. I don’t dismiss what he has to say. When I feel really negative and want to vent, I like listening to Ralph Nader.
Yup, he did. SanderO may be right about the point he was trying to make, but it’s still a fact that he did it, and it was a dumb thing to do. I was pretty pissed off about it at the time, but all candidates are going to do dumb things sometimes, and he seems to have learned his lesson on that one.
The candidate that has benefited most from netroots action should be the
more responsive to the same in future. I did not say who or will. The
fact that the DLC was founded by the Clintons for the Clintons is not
in doubt, it is an essentially republican metric, the result of the
Reaganization of politics in the 80’s. All current contenders have traces
of it, the DLC era is not over, yet it must be ended or we will never
have accountability from any candidate. The DLC is the organized Neocon
apparat of the Democratic Party. Who is their candidate? Vote the logic
of your own answer and try to bring a mistaken era to an end, soon, or
there will not be anything left to fix.
I think maybe part of the problem with the question of accountability is that a lot of us aren’t willing to say or allow to be said true things that reflect badly on the candidate we prefer.
I don’t think anyone here is naive enough to believe that either campaign or candidate hasn’t done its/their share of dirty fighting. The question is do we stop pretending it doesn’t exist after the general?
Passing through. Hello Patchacutec.
Indeed it is hard to converse with a cardboard cut out.
Para. This is indeed the problem
Frankly I like neither of these candidates. I am far more worried about a clinton2 presidency and mainly because I do not believe for one minute that she will go after any of the bloody crooks in this administration. Obama, on the other hand, may not be able to avoid going after the bastards as he will have to populate his administration with some non-insiders (read progressive) personel and I do not some of those (Edwards, Dodd?) standing idly by and I think he will have to “prove” himself to a rather sceptical population. clinton2 on the other hand does not give a sweet shit about anyone or anything other than power….power for the clintons
I wish I knew an effective way to hold someone’s feet to the fire once they’re in office. I have a list of things I want from the government, and I have no real idea if it’s even possible – a fair judiciary, a little bit of attention to rule of law, getting the hell out of Iraq, single-payer health care (and the elimination of the health insurance racket), holding corporations accountable for their wrong-doing and not shifting their costs onto the taxpayer while keeping their profits offshore, getting rid of the pay-for-access game with our elected officials.
If we had publicly-financed elections, perhaps office-holders would be less beholden to special interests and more responsive to their constituents – not to mention the time they’d have to do the people’s work without have to worry about fundraising.
That’s what I’d be pushing my elected official for.
And, yes – I have no problem with holding my candidate to the same standards and subject to the same criticism that I have for those in office now.
I hope you’re right, RedShift!
Thanks. That’s helpful and more specific.
Worry not, the term “Progressive” has been co-opted in the past and will be many times in the future. Of course, we could replace “Progressive” with something else like…hmmm…”Sane”.
Join the SANE party because the alternative is that you aren’t!
I guess that sounds a skosh of the hubris.
You’re wrong. A new party takes years, if not generations, to be viable.
What we need to do is turn the Democratic party progressive. We have a head start on that, and with the power of the blososphere, it is easier now than before.
He won’t be in Obamas cabinet. You take that to bank. I’ve been watching him and listening. It’s not going to happen. Lieberman is no longer a Super Delagate for the Democratic party because he is Co-chairing McShames candidacy.
What would you do about states such as GA where you don’t declare your party affiliation except in the primary? Would my vote not count?
In response to Selise, #138
Selise, we’ve got a lot of folks recognizing and protesting against the last 7 years of lies. How’s that working out for you so far?
That’s why I am focusing on my perception that Obama is simply a more decent human being. His behavior up to this point demonstrates that. It’s all I have to go on. Will he shape-shift after elected? Maybe, and there’s nothing we can do about it if he does. In a system where we only get two choices, the dynamic will always be to chooses the least offensive. They all know that, and they all rely on it. And it works. Without a real third party or an armed rebellion, nothing will change that dynamic. But at least the Internet provides all us dissenters with a good opportunity to masturbate.
I’ve bolded my last paragraph in the post, in the perhaps vain hope someone will actually engage the questions.
Even that question is offensive. Of course we’ll fight and criticize whoever takes office. That’s what we do. Only cultists wouldn’t behave that way. So why would you ask this question in the first place unless you thought some followers were cultists?
I don’t think Obama will do that- justice maybe but not revenge.
I want revenge too- or a least a part of me wants revenge.
We don’t have to look far in history to realize that revenge is very very ugly.
Justice is way better although maybe not so emotionally satisfying as fighting a civil war.
Anyone want to discuss (or debate) on the advantages of Obama over Clinton, you have five more minutes. Otherwise I’m going to get my ad-hominem rear end on my horse and join my lady and friends down by the river for some issue oriented political discourse. And bloody Mary’s.
i have said elsewhere, i think clinton would make the (marginally) better president, but i think obama is more electable (read: clinton has a ton of baggage the repubbbs are just salivating to jump on in a general election).
that being said, if somehow the two run on the same ticket, no matter who’s prez and who’s vp, there’s no way a repubbb will get into the white house for 16 years.
The Sane Party! Love it.
YellowdogD, giving up already? No wonder we can’t do shit in this country.
I don’t know. Maybe we would have to declare our party affiliation a certain number of days before the primary– say 90 days. That would limit people’s ability to cross over.
How about:
Standing up for the Constitution and the rule of law. Accountability. You know, the things we used to take for granted.
Standing for human rights instead of property rights.
So it is the what…. not the how…
#1 is universal healthcare – as a cancer surviver…
#2 is Iraq and any future wars
#3 economy
#4 is energy…. publicly owned, accountable to the public and renewable
#5 holding the current crop of bast*ds accountable
It’s been my experience here, that sometimes the odd comment, not always the direct, correct answer, leads to an interesting discussion.
(I know, I use too many commas.)
Justice is bought and paid for in this country, that is a fact.
The only way to stop what Bush has gotten away with is to make insufferably painful to attempt it again.
OK. So I see here holding them accountable hasn’t worked. Demanding they stand up for the Constitution and Rule of Law hasn’t worked. So what’s left?
Revolution! Enough already!
Ultimatums from the headliners and commentors are not helpful in the
situation we are in, we have very limited choices offered to us be the
system as it now functions, it will have to be modified in future. Vote
on the basis of your own logic and perhaps an evaluation of the sanity
of any particular candidate… you don’t get a guarantee of outcome
from any human cinstruct except prison.
Hi, skippy! I should have used “blogtopia” (and yes, it’s your copyright).
i don’t expect immediate results – and i don’t expect that republicans care two hoots if i see through their lies.
on the other hand, i do think that the dem leadership in congress does care (a bit) about what we think. look at all the effort they have gone to in order to pretend that they are trying to resist the bush administration’s demands on fisa – when they are doing the exact opposite of that.
Very excellent point.
I heard that it might be a possibility…
Anything at this point to ensure Dems move into 1600, works for me.
I know, I know – this will sound gloomy, but…
I don’t believe it is possible for a progressive to be elected president of the United States of America. Ever. This has to do partly with the nature of the electoral process, and the amount of money required to successfully compete.
And once the president is in office, I don’t see that there is very much individual voters or groups of voters can do to demand accountability. Again this relates to structure – in a parliamentary democracy, if the PM becomes too much of a liability or is unable to bring in a majority, there are methods for getting rid of him or her. The methods are messy and sometimes destructive to the party, but they are there. But you are pretty much stuck with a president – short of impeachment.
Reform of the Dem party is the only realistic way at this point in time..Our Country wasn’t designed for a multi-party form of politics.
Duvenger’s Law
Getting us the HELL out of Iraq. Changing or dumping NAFTA. Undermining and eventually eliminating corporate welfare. Single-payer health care. Raising taxes on couples who have more than two children (as if THAT would ever happen but it’s one of the things I want).
Bringing back more support for art and music in the public education system.
See my #192 for that.
You want specific Pach?
An end to the butchery in the middle east
A serious addressing of the oil nightmare by all nations together
A Los alamos type address to global warming. Not some study, but a concerted no possibilities left unexplored scientific effort.
George bush, dick cheney and all responsible punished for their crimes
Abolishment of homeland security
Abolishment of the patriot act
Abolishment of all trade laws like nafta
Ttrade laws that protect american labor
Free health care
Free education
18.00 dollar an hour minimum wage
Busting up corporate monopoly’s and taking away their personhood
Free campaigns, and I mean free totally, and shortened considerably.
That is just the tip of the iceberg, what else do want to know,
Show me what you got.
Maybe it’s time to send Congress a reminder, you know, send them a pocket-sized US Constitution/Bill of Rights for them to read? With a potted plant as a ‘thank you’, of course. ;-)
You better get out of the way if you can’t lend a hand, ’cause the times they are a changin’
- Dylan’s corollary to the status quo
.
Us non-aligned folk who call out both sides or better yet try to bring reason to all the partisan sniping and outright tin-foil-hattishness tend to get beat up harshly by both sides, our points being drowned out by rounds of accusations of being surrogates for the other side. We’re out there. Waiting for the dust to settle so we can get to work for the Democratic Party candidate, whoever is left standing.
Sigh.
Choose to be offended if you like, but if I ask a question, it’s actually possible that I seek an answer, and if I should clarify it or ask people to engage it, if that’s an insult, well that’s how you take it. Your choice. And please, don’t put words into my mouth. I’m perfectly capable of choosing and writing my own.
We should begin on the day the new president is sworn in to watch everything he/she does, complain often and with one voice if we don’t like what is or is not being done, and make quite clear to the new prez that this is OUR country. I plan to complain a lot no matter who is elected. We demand that our rights are not violated or taken away and that all of us are equal. I believe that the prez should be viewed as one of us – not some king who rules.
Wow! Obama ahead 66-33% right now in Wyoming (per CNN bottom ticker on the screen).
Not giving up! How is changing Democratic party progressive giving up?
Hail fellow, well met!
Exactly Twain. *thumbs up at my hips* ;-)
Off topic (sorry Pach) but I just gotta say how awesome you are. Hope the recruiting at the State convention goes well.
I expect an “October Surprise.”
Why else would the Bush Administration keep grasping for more power less than a year from the end? Why else would candidate McCain embrace the endorsement of President Ninteen Percent? Why else would he publicly accept with gratitude the endorsement of someone who calls the Catholic Church a whore? IMHO, the Republicans have in mind an October Surprise that’s guaranteed to restore Bush’s credibility and put McCain in the White House.
Don’t think so. They have trashed our reputation around the world, stirred up the entire Middle East, wrecked trade and emptied the treasury. Mission accomplished.
“Giving up” probably wasn’t the best choice of words I’ve ever used (sorry!), but what I was trying to say is we can’t just make up excuses (such as, ‘it’s too hard!’ or ‘no way possible that’s gonna work’) and let another 4 years go by without doing something.
If progressives are elected overwhelmingly after the 2008 election, then changing the current Democratic Party might be viable. We’ll have to see what happens in the first two months of a Democratic president being elected. If we see a future not far removed from what we’ve witnessed over the last eight years, then that is the moment we should move to creating a viable 3rd party. Agree?
I don’t really care which one of them gets the nomination. I’d be happy with either of them.
That said, I wish they’d stop beating each other up and go to town on John McCain. Then let us decide which does the better job. Unfortunately they haven’t done that and don’t seem willing to give up trying to destroy each other.
Now…
Bringing the Bushies to justice is high on the list, along with strong support for the impeachment of Alito and Roberts for perjury before the Senate.
That depends upon whether he or she deserves it.
Fern, I agree with your assessment of America’s current political strictures.
Yet I expect a different outcome. Kevin Phillips syas this far better, but the US has seen at least two great reformist/progressive political waves in the past 150 years. Both came when money help power more directly – and blatantly – than is does today.
And both came in the same wealth disparities we see today. I sure don’t celebrate our economic misery, but do expect the result to be progressive’s reclaiming the power to lead.
Okay, off the top of my head:
a. Ending the war, getting the troops out. Maybe I’m being too charitable, but I read Power’s comments as meaning “of course the exact plans change once you have all the inside information,” not “throw our promises out the window.” (Ms. Redshift is fond of pointing out that even as a child, she was mystified that Nixon was able to run on a platform of ending the war twice.)
b. Building a grassroots movement to support fixing our healthcare system and moving us in the direction of universal healthcare. Furthermore, recognizing that this is a long-term process for mass involvement, not a project where you can put forth your plan and say “well, I tried.”
c. End the politicization of justice and the politicization of science. Neither candidate has talked a lot about these, it’s true, and perhaps I’m relying on faith that they think they’re no-brainers. But if they don’t, I may as well leave the country.
I do not see the netroots going away after the election, especially
the left blog readers… I think they will continue to discuss policy
and attempt by the action opportunities that this and other blogs offer
for e-mail and letter responses along issue lines.
Far from giving you any grief for this, I agree with you. I rather liked what you said, and I have also thought of Howard Dean as a running mate. Of course, you do know that you did not answer the question that Pach asked, right?
Katymine at #15, I also agree with you, since it seems you are thinking right along the same lines I am. However, I don’t believe that quite answers the questions Jane and Pach are looking for.
As for myself, I’ve gone from interested in politics, to much more an active participant over the last few years because I don’t like what’s happened to our country due to GWB. Problem is, all I feel I can do now, due to circumstances beyond my control, is write letters, make noise (since the squeaky wheel gets the grease) and try to hold whoever is elected accountable by blowing the whistle as shrilly as possible when they go too far. What do you want from me; I’m a disabled person on 24 hour oxygen and on a fixed income! *g*
Really, I will expect the new President to be more in tune to the electorate. For instance, Hillary gained my respect for the way she was running her campaign even though I had misgivings due to her stance on flag-burning. Now that she’s decided to adopt a scorched earth policy, and has become some obviously Machiavellian, actually I would go so far as to call her Rovian, in the way she is running her campaign, I’ve become less enchanted with her by the day. As long as she plays that game, I will not feel bad about throwing poo at her. The way I see it, people who live in glass houses shouldn’t be throwing some of the stones she’s been throwing. OTOH, if Obama became President and suddenly started showing his true colors, and they were not what we thought they were when he got elected, I would probably be prepared to call for his Impeachment. I feel the Repugs should have been ashamed enough of GWB that they would stand up to him and would not have allowed him to disrespect our Constitution, to promulgate the theory of a unitary President, or to corrupt the DOJ for political purposes. Therefore, I will be watching the new President for any sign that he’s willing to take those new powers and use them against the citizens of this country. Since Obama is a Constitutional Professor, I would certainly hold him to that standard. I could go on, but there’s a new post up and this has gotten long enough. (Damn that phone call from the utility company that came right as I was getting to this post!) Sorry!
Apology accepted, and I agree to a point. We don’t have to wait four years.
Every week we meet progressive candidates through Blue America and work on their behalf. Much quicker, IMO.
I so much agree with the thoughts expressed in this diary. Thank you for saying much of what I’ve been thinking during this primary season.
Given the mess that Bush is leaving, I don’t expect much from either candidate although restoring the concept of checks and balances would be a good accomplishment and not expensive.
pach–
what about when one of the candidate’s feet are held to the fire and is villified for doing something, and then, ends up they didn’t do it?
what does the other side’s supporter/someone do then?
nothing. not a word.
people are funny that way.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com…..ional/home
go dodd.
((((PACH!!!!))) Oh God Bless You! You and Tom Traubert both said it perfectly. We are out here waiting for sanity. I find the bombast just a little scary on the left. It’s too much Gods and Devils for normally thoughtful people to partake in (as in kool-aid?). The flagrant disrespect for the hostess’ repeated requests for ceasefire is also disturbing. I guess our friends here in the comments are not so impervious to drumbeats either.
*sigh*
Right now I’m thoroughly disgusted with the HC campaign, and won’t vote for her. But, you’ve presented a way out in a way I can take in or even consider. That’s something! To answer your question, Pach, yes, I will/would be just as critical of an Obama presidency as any other, It’s not the candidate, it’s more the issues and the governing that matter to me, particularly constitutional, rule of law, and foreign policy, and social security which he’s talked about privatizing.
Pach I must be reading the wrong post. Did you change the title to “why your candidate sucks?”
The better title would be: “Will you irrational misogynist cultlike Obama supporters ever criticize President Obama for anything?”
In the political season you must finally choose a candidate, that will
color the discussion threads naturally I guess. Jaw, jaw is better than
war, war, Churchill said. I thought blogs were just the development that
saved critical discussion from the oblivion of a dead MSM journalism.
It could be that smaller issues work better in this format, but I think
the sometimes heated discussions here serve the function of the
broadsheets of the revolutionary era., the Libby trial as a fine example.
I hope discussion is not shut down, it can actually help focus and
synthesize opinion for action by letting the pols know where people stand.
Great point. And I have thought about it a lot too. We’ve been, as a people, abused for so long by the current pResident and have attempted for the whole time to see him held accountable, to no avail (yet, the eternal optimist here). I personally am so accustomed to fighting the current regime that, YEAH, absolutely, I would be holding my candidate’s feet to the fire and expect a quick, open and honest response.
I just hope that which ever candidate gets this nomination, and after they screw up (as any prez does), that the entire left blogosphere doesn’t go into another “civil war” of “if only”s and “that’s what you get”s, and “we TOLD you so’”s causing the issue to be completely plowed under.
FWIW, and maybe everyone’s moved upthread, the power of the people to influence or change government policy or even the make up of government is significantly linked to the zeitgeist or another way of putting this would be archetypal forces in play within history and the culture. We’re in an era wherein progressive and grassroots movements and youth in particular will grow in infuence and power between now and 2020, just as we saw in the 1960’s (1960-1972). Look at the revolutionary fervor that manifest worldwide. Don’t despair! Obama saying “our time has come” resonates with the cultural zeitgeist which will play out more and more in the years ahead.
That’s an excellent point, Peony. Obama is a great campaigner and motivational speaker. His candidacy has done a lot to build the party for the long term. He deserves credit for that.
OTOH, different skills are required for a President Obama or a President Clinton. That’s our personal decision to make. I choose not to endorse either one publicly for the reasons that siri stated @227.
“Obama was not my first choice, but I resent there is misogyny in my distaste for Hillary.”
Gore was my first, Edwards my second.
To characterize this as a “pie fight” demeans what I think has been thoughtful discussion on some serious issues.
Sen. Clinton has made more bad decisions in this race that Sen. Obama has.
Many more. To try and find “balance” in this is as ridiculous as the “balance” the MSM is guilty of searching for between Rethugs and Democrats.
If their roles were reversed, I’d be just as hard on him.
Thanks so much, I think we were all looking for an example of the polarizing kind of comment that has completely debased any kind of rational debate.
The Survey US poll (as analyzed by Pollster would indicate two things to me.
Clinton would do very well in many large, traditionally Blue states (with some important smaller exceptions…the Pacific NW, for example) but would not but into play many of the States in Howard Deans “50 State Strategy”. Obama has a lot more options, while also picking up almost all the major Blue States. Obama puts states like Texas, the mid-Atlantic States, and New Mexico/Colorado, as well as many Plains States, inti play.
Hillary would likely select a running mate who is popular in Florida (like Joe Lieberman? ;-) as that state is essential to her victory. Obama has coattails all over, and because he does better in more States overall has a buffer that would allow him to campaign in battlezone States like Texas, Virginia and the Carolinas.
He wins the Pacific Northwest…but he might consider someone from the Midwest/Plains…or North Carolina/Virginia…or Texas. I think selecting a popular individual from any of these regions would strengthen his bid to win these against McCain immensely.
Tom, I can’t wait for the dust to settle, either – and look forward to working with progressives to turn America’s wealth and power back to serving all of us.
I can’t wait until the candidate sniping ends and all of us progressives can come out to share ideas and solutions.
And I’m looking forward to doing it the way Twain sez.
I didn’t (and don’t) favor either candidate – but to answer Pach’s question:
I expect our servant – the President – to do hir f’n job.
Job description:
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
Operational definition:
1) Justice: Support human personhood (refund Legal Aid/end Drug War/end death penalty); end corporate personhood; restore the Constitution (thus impeach Federalist Fed Judges).
2) Tranquility: Resume paying for public safety, great schools, good transport, clean food, good water. [Get the money from war toys - we buy more than the rest of the world combined.]
3) Defense: Free us and Iraq – end the war….
and end our Imperial Expeditionary Mission. We worked for fifty years to control the world, and when we finally did, we fucked everything up. Oh – and we can’t afford the Empire, anyway. Take back control of the purpose and command of the US Armed Forces from General Dynamic and Boeing. Through the Sec of Defense, cull the political/theological officers – and the neocons. Protect the peoples’ America, not the think tank’s wet dreams.
4) General Welfare: We lived well under Ike/JFK – with personal tax rates 90 (under Ike) and 72 (under JFK). We taxed corporations and capital gains heavily. We can take that money and support adequate family income, excellent health care, sustainable farming, and conversion to a sustainable, eco-sane economy and nation. And we can do it in a nation where we celebrate our diversity – and support it.
5) Blessings of Liberty: Restore the Constitution. Restore FISA and the rule of law. Remove the Federal judges in the Federalist society uprising and the receiving lines for the megacorp bribes given as expensive “educational” events. Restore usury laws and fair bankruptcy laws. Public election funding to ensure our liberty.
6) to ourselves and our Posterity: We know what to do to preserve our planet (and us) – and the corporatists subsidize the opposite. We’ll liberate that river of funds and use them to implement our sustainable solutions. Advertising costs so much every year ’cause we don’t really need that much to be happy, healthy, and comfortable. We’ll live longer and better – so will those after us – even as we consume less.
_ _ _
Oh – and when they fall short? Redefine PR: Progressive Rage.
Yell about it, ride their fucking asses, and spit# on them publicly for each and every political sell-out.
They don’t like it? Tough shit. They’re ambitious pols – they’ve been running for Prez for years. If they’re too fucking dumb to read the job description, that’s their problem.
They swear to support and uphold the Constitution? Great, President SFB: start with the Preamble. That’s your job, contributionface – now do it.
Use the *blogosphere’s current fulcrum of power to tell the story about the real world vs. MSM/CW. We’re already crafting some of the narrative – we’ll do more.
Make them fear Progressive Rage like they once feared the Rethugs. Praise them when they do good, feed ‘em good ideas, punish disobedience, destroy careers for treachery. Use all the legal tools to fight power when used against progressive goals. And by so doing, become the power.
Then use the power for the people, not for the progressives’ endless fucking culture/identity wars. Fund what is demonstrated to work, not what gets faculty seminars hot and bothered. Leave the wonkery at home: tell stories and move people. Keep moving ’til we’ve attained #1-6 above.
Then celebrate. And celebrate while doing #1-6. Often.
Oh – and don’t use power to juice friends – that’s how you lose majorities. Serve.
* thanks Skippy
# – in the best metaphorical way, friendly NSA/SS agents.
At the end of the day, it wasn’t the media or Republicans that voted in the primaries. It was us.
So now, we have two candidates that we’re still not sure of. No point in whining about the media or the Republicans, we’re where we are by our own hands.
So now, we get to hold our nose and vote for the least offensive/ most charming/whatever. And I can promise you – the progressive community is about to endure what blacks have for decades. The Democratic elites (I’m looking at you, Hillary, and you too, Obama) won’t pay us any ragged-assed mind either.
How do I figure that? They already aren’t. They’re playing fast and loose with the war and the economy in primary season.
Folks really should look to see how third parties formed and evolved in this country. How the Democrats and Republicans emerged from a single party in the first half of the 19th century, and how the Progressive movment fragmented and was absorbed for a short period into four or five parties between 1900-1915….and then was lost.
There are lots of lessons there for efforts to create a new party “Top Down” based upon a single charismatic individual. The succfessful “new parties” were usually caucuses from within a party, with officials already elected under an earlier label. Then the party schismed, coincidently as the opposition parties implosion. The other party, unable to take advantage by gobbling up the fragmented other unit, also formed two new parties. With some shuffling, two new parties emerged with revised agendas and approaches and some new members from the other group.
Similar things happened when the Democratic Party began to push for integration and Civil Rights. They lost the Dixiecrat caucus, who shifted to the Republicans (who had previously been the party of Wall Street and Main Street). But there was no schism on the other side, so the Democrats had to rely on the greater participation of minorities, who were now registering in larger numbers, to compensate. The Democrats lost the nativist/racist segregationists and the party transformed internally as a consequence. It began shifting back during the Reagan years.
I’m not crazy about either Clinton or Obama, but the impression I have of Clinton is that she has a kind of ‘enemies list’ in the back of her mind – and it includes everyone who has said anything bad about her, probably including those of us who are far to her left. (I don’t know if Obama has one, but if so he hides it better.) I’m bothered by her talking nice about McCain, because it makes her sound way too close to the GOP for my taste.
And, slightly OT: the tabloids (National Enquirer and Globe) have started attacking Obama. It’s going to get far worse before the election.
Kirk: That’s an excellent post! Thank you. I would add that while we’re waiting for our new President, what we should be doing with all our energy is not sniping at the “other” candidate who sucks (thanks, Thers) but defending them all against the poo being flung by the right. I’ve seen a lot of the right wing propaganda showing up here in the comments presented as “fact”.
If you notice, Bush never had to fight against our criticisms. Kerry was abused by us for not fighting against theirs. Why? Because Bush had people to do it for him, and we failed to step up to the plate for Kerry. (Not that some of us didn’t try…it wasn’t enough of us acting instead of moaning about Kerry being “weak”.
IOW: All of us not only have to hold the eventual candidate’s feet to the fire, we have to fight for him/her against the right if we want a Democrat in the White House.
If Clinton, a universal health care system akin to medicare.
If Obama, a narrowing of those things that separate us; particularly, racial tension. Which, by the way, I think has played a major role in denying us universal health care.
“But online, the dynamic is pretty anti-Clinton, and most of the arguments and standards I see routinely applied to her to justify that stance can be applied just as effectively to make a case against Obama, in my view.”
I always respect your view, and continue to appreciate your efforts and energy here, but the above is hard to swallow.
The war vote alone is reprehensible, and the McCain lovefest is worse.
Sen. Obama or his campaign hasn’t done anything nearly as distasteful.
I don’t mean to pick on your comment, but this:
is the kind of statement that calls to mind all the Lady MacBeth stereotypes and smears that have been hurled at Hillary Clinton through hundreds of millions of dollars of propaganda for fifteen years. In that sense, it’s very like what we routinely hear from readers who oppose her.
This is the kind of thing in fact I hear from a lot of liberals, mostly (but not exclusively) men, and it seems to fall neatly into an unintentional picture, based on the speaker’s gut feeling, that she’s essentially somehow calculating, cold, vindictive, manipulative, and all of these things in measures more than are imputed to other politicians, who all turn out to be her male competitors.
There’s a lot I truly dislike about her record, her political allies, etc., but I don’t really credit the kind of character assessment expressed in your comment, so harmonious with (however coincidentally) the kinds of attacks routinely leveled against strong women or women in leadership, as unambiguous evidence of a rational review of her record or fitness relative to Obama’s.
Let me add that I don’t know you, have no way to or desire to judge you, and that I explicitly eschew any assessment of your character, etc. I’m responding only to the text of your comment.
Obama has been anything but a leader in the Senate pushing us to get out now. For the opportunities and the platform he has had, he has not provided actual anti-occupation leadership.
Both of their records are uninspiring to me.
Clinton is certainly taking a drubbing for her remarks about McCain, but Obama’s implied criticism of Dems for being too partisan/obstrucionist and his statements that he would end that by reaching across the aisle (a la Lieberman) is no different.
I say, let them duke it out. We can be critical, but let’s do the research and make sure to have BOTH their backs so we can push back against the right.
Pach- I agree that none of the candidates we have are “progressives” in the sense of establishing challenge points on the horizon like Wellstone or Kucinich or Feingold. The candidates records in the Senate are decidely mainstream “liberal”…but if one looks at his State Legislative record Obama was able to push through things like a State Ethics law with some teeth, as well as environmental and low-income housing agendas that would have to be considered progressive. If one looks at his voting record he almost always votes along with Feingold. Clinton is a tad more moderate (especially with regards to trade).
Obama has opposed since he was a Illinois State Senator the watering down of the Canadian-US trade treaties restrictions on labor/environment when it became NAFTA. His position hasn’t changed on this. He wants the treaty renegotiated to incorporate these protections back in. Similarly he opposed the invasion of Iraq as far back as 2001…this was an extremely unpopular stance to take for a Illinois state representative, much less one that was running for the US Senate. Recall what happened to many others who said that Iraq wasn’t involved in 9/11, had no relationship with bin Laden, and that there was no credible evidence of WMD’s or a threat to the US. Illinois isn’t California, or Washington…it was a very risky stance…and one that shows that he’s willing to take principled stands under the heat.
It’s the painting of Edwards as a progressive Senator that I really find surprising. Anyone who examines his voting record as a Senator would find a decidely “centrist” individual. He was a member of Lieberman’s New Democrat Coalition of Blue-Dogs. Edwards joined with the Republicans over 40 times in his tenure to give them a majority over the Democrats on such issues as the tax schedule, inheritance taxes, testing of “downer cattle”, public financing of elections, Trade, Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy, the IAUF, Nuclear Waste storage in Yucca Mountain, waiving military base closures, firearm sales through the internet, etc. Although their terms don’t overlap, his record was decidely worse than Obama’s simply if one looks to see where he left the folds of the progressive wing of the party and jopined with centrist Democrats, or the Republicans. Obama almost never did that. Edwards did it many times (although to be fair 95% of the time he voted with the party…but many votes, as well, are equally supported by both Party’s members).
I think it’s unimportant at this point which of the candidates is more to the left of the other because Progressive Punch disagrees with National Review on this.
The question we should be asking is: Will we have to eat our words later when it comes time to stand up to the right to defend the eventual nominee whichever that one is?
I just read “The Three Trillion Dollar War”…they come to the conclusion that there will not be an economy to support ANY major expansion of healthcare, or nay of the other needed social, infrastructural, or other services for many years. Iraq has screwed us up very deeply as an economic system. We’ll be treading water for many years, I suspect.
Getting extricated from Iraq will reduce the hemorrhaging, but the money will still flow into all the ramifying branches of metastasis that it has produced. So when one or the other candidates “promise” these things…we’ll great. But when the costs of the Iraq War and the current economic collapse strikes health care may increasingly become “public”…but more of a triage system.
Yeah, they’ll probably produce a likeness of OBL.
Just my opinion, but I found some of the assumptions used to form the premise of the question a bit troubling so I’ll just continue to read away and catch up on another thread.
Interesting discussion, though
Let me try again.
He voted against this war when it was very unpopular to do so, no matter where you were at the time.
She didn’t.
That’s a very big difference.
The votes in the Senate aren’t the same thing, because of troop funding issues after they are there. We both know he would’ve been said to be “against the troops” voting against those bills, no matter how ridiculous that statement is.
I too was in the post-Edwards void. However,; it appears elsewhere and for sure here in Colorado that it was Obama that brought record numbers to our caucuses. I want those same big numbers in November. It would really benefit progressives running on the State level. It would help Udall (who unfortunately is little more than another Salazar.)
If it is Clinton/McCain neither Dems or Republicans here will show up.
Tough question, Pachacutec. I vacillate between hoping my preferred candidate takes the nomination, and hoping they don’t. I fear the extent to which the losing side will hold my candidate personally responsible for failing to achieve their stated objectives. I dread the I told you so! In some ways I hope it falls to the other one because I think getting a truly progressive agenda off the ground in the next 8 years is a pipe dream.
You are correct when you say neither Obama no Clinton are genuine progressives as I define the concept. I think they are both weak tea in that regard. But, I’m not sure a genuinely progressive candidate could win this election, either. The obstacles are enormous; not the least of which are voters who are pretty complacent – at least until the looming economic crisis comes home to roost for those who either (a) have not yet lost their home to foreclosure, (b) have not yet seen their defined contribution retirement account go down in flames, or (c) have not yet awakened to discover they can’t easily afford their next tank of gas to get to work. Much of what a progressive agenda might accomplish, many have convinced themselves they don’t yet need, or want.
I have decided that a more reasonable question to the candidates is, How will you not make things worse? What will you do to prepare a seedbed for a truly progressive candidate in 2012? What do progressive voters need to do to help prepare that seedbed? How do we get our noses off our toes and forward think the next *6* terms?
This is a great post, btw. Thanks for putting it up. You are a brave one to do so, and I’m glad to see that Jane has your back ;-)
Thus my characterization of his refusal to lead, given the opportunity. You’re saying he’s placed his perceived political viability above stopping the killing. Well, you’re probably right, but it’s hardly a record on which to hang serious anti-occupation credentials.
The same could be said on any number of fronts: FISA, telecom immunity, etc. This goes for both of them.
But even if you disagree with me, and I expect you will continue to do so, I’d feel a lot more comfortable about the future of an Obama presidency and a viable progressive movement if I felt sure the people spamming our comment sections with Obama talking points (who accuse us of being insufficiently outraged Clinton enablers even when we defend Obama and criticize Clinton) were prepared to be just as vocal criticizing Obama if he does as Samantha Powers suggests he might, by extending the occupation of Iraq beyond the position reflected in his campaign promises.
the overwhelming message of this primary season in regards to the political blogs of left blogostan – DKos, Open Left, TPM, MyDD (except for Jerome), etc. – is that the outrageous righteous indignation hurdled at any and all not of the left blogosphere is hurdled from glass houses by a bunch of know-nothing, horserace-only, hypocrites.
FDL, Eschaton, TP, Hullabaloo and some others of the left blogosphere have for the most part remained true to progressivism and the .
.
It feels like the progressive community is in a rut about what to focus on and how to proceed. I share the frustration that we’re not being listened to adequately by our government. I can toss out some ideas for your consideration.
Maybe the progressive community should organize and develop its own platform of principles and goals (mission) that are agreed upon by a majority, outside the political constraints of the Democratic Party. Then when a Democratic or Independent candidate wants our support ($$$), they need to commit to our platform. This is similar to Grover Norquist and the anti-tax pledge he gets from Republican candidates. If they deviate from our platform, then not only do they lose our support, but we automatically support a more progressive opponent in their next primary or election. They would know all of this upfront as it would be included in the platform.
Our candidates need to operate in a principled, honest and ethical ways. We could include rules of ethics in the platform. If they deviate into Rovian tactics or corrupt behavior, they get the boot. If we have the truth, reality and good framing on our side, I believe we could get everything we want without stooping to dirty politics (emotional abusive manipulation tactics). We can fight assertively rather than aggressively. For more info, see my comment on the last page here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..90523.html
One other big area of impact, that I think should be a part of a progressive platform, is pushing for instant runoff voting. This will eliminate the spoiler factor and let voters choose, not from the lesser of two evils, but between good and not so bad. IRV could really change the direction of our country and help ensure someone extremely negative like Bush would never get into office again. IRV eliminates having to argue about Nader or any other third party candidate and focus on our goals instead.
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/
- Tom
“Thus my characterization of his refusal to lead, given the opportunity. You’re saying he’s placed his perceived political viability above stopping the killing. Well, you’re probably right, but it’s hardly a record on which to hang serious anti-occupation credentials.”
No, the vote is the record on which to hang serious anti-occupation credentials, and he does. Remember “the ditch” statement in the Ohio debate?
Let’s not throw out “the good” in search of “the perfect.”
Do you really think we’re even having this conversation if Sen. Obama voted as you and I both would’ve preferred on war votes for the last few years?
I don’t. He would have long ago been marginalized by the Very Serious People of the beltway as a dark skinned Kucinich who didn’t understand the grave nature of the war on terra.
The political process as you well know has a lot of “sausage making” to it.
A lot of the positioning is distasteful and involves tradeoffs we as progressives/liberals would rather our candidates not have to make.
As to your last point, rest assured if Sen. Obama said John McCain was more fit to cross the CIC threshold (whatever the hell that is) than Sen. Clinton, I’d lay wood to him as well.
Pach, thank you for this very important conversation!
Do you think the reason your not getting answers is in how your post is written?
I think what you have written is more a case of imprecise language rather than how it seems to come off. What you seem to be saying is that people are being intimidated into following one or the other candidates without thinking, which I think is unfounded and unwise. My opinion and my opinion only is that there are a great many well intentioned, articulate, intelligent, successful and wise people who comment on blogs. And, I really want to stress that I don’t think you mean it the way it comes off, but that is how it reads to me.
Cases in point:
One very good aspect in regard to the paragraph above is that it is neutral but below is where you are coming across as partisan and judgmental and possibly patronizing.
OK, we haven’t seen the emails which you mention but there are those of us “who don’t have a dog in this hunt” who see you taking sides in this very important question.
Do you think the reason people could possibly have an Anti-Clinton bias is that they actually know the Clinton policies? (Just a few: Plan Columbia; the repeal of Glass Steagal; the bombing of Iraq through the 90’s; the repeal of the telecommunications act … and on and on)
You continue …
Once again you seem to be dismissing the intelligence of those who happen to comment online because they are subtle sexists and easily manipulated as written in the last two paragraphs. It may be that you see some form of behavioral science and persuasion technology being used in the Obama campaign and if that is your point it would help if you provided examples
You continue
Once again, the netroots is the problem
Since this post is about supporters and not the political tactics of the campaigns I will not comment on the subtle and not so subtle mudslinging. Leaving these paragraphs out would help immensely in getting answers to your very important questions.
In answer to your questions
Thinking globally, acting locally. I.E. putting pressure on candidates on every level to act in the average persons best interest
I don’t have an overt favorite and I haven’t volunteered for any candidate other than Edwards so far, so I would join in the criticism of those in power (click my name for examples)
Sounds good to me. If only we had such a thing as an annual, netroots convention devoted to netroots organizing and development.
STTPinOhio:
Well, I would rather have seen the Senate work to defund the endless occupation, rubber stamping the Bush neocon agenda, consistent with the will of vast majority of the electorate. The “conversation” is only valuable if your goal is to elect Obama. Mine isn’t. You also assume Obama would be doing worse, not better, if he had actually led on this. That’s hardly assured, though it was his rationalization for his choices.
Obama and Clinton played chicken, literally and figuratively, on the Senate floor to see who would blink and vote with the president. It didn’t have to be that way. One or both could have chosen differently, and if they had been united in opposition to the war enabling, then Harry Reid would have gamed to process to accede to the will of the biggest presidential hopefuls in the Senate.
I’m saying I don’t see a rational policy basis for a mass movement to one alternative versus the other online, post Edwards.
I am saying we hear and read an overwhelming amount of visceral hatred for Clinton that boils down to the kind emotional sentiment barely removed from Rush Limbaugh’s radio show.
Yes, she’s been very conservative on things liberals care a lot about. But when I hear the dog whistle stuff about how calculating and manipulative she is, or vindictive (as in the comment above), then we know something else is going on. And it’s more common than not among online commenters.
There’s a steady, persistent drumbeat of common talking points that come to our comment sections straight from the emails and communications circulated among Obama campaign activists. Not even Obama partisans tend to deny this, if they are connected to this online hub. These folks very consciously believe passionately in what they’re doing, they tend to HATE Clinton, and they feel no compunction about hijacking any online discussion to serve their polemical ends.
The stuff they say about Clinton, about Jeralyn Merritt, about Taylor Marsh and so on is not just spirited dispute: it’s misongynistic venom. And when Jane or other women in particular who are not Hillary supporters nevertheless defend Clinton from sexist attacks, they get much of the same, as women.
Maddy, I hope you’re still here. All is not lost. One of the two candidates will be our nominee. I will work hard to support either one. I’m not going to engage in any ‘foot shooting’ before the election.
Then for accountability: I am working with a group of women who have decided to concentrate on the US Senate race in our state (Noriega over Cornyn) because having a working majority in the Senate is the only way to acheive accountability on a President. It was the genius of the framers of our Constitution who established three separate power centers of our govenment: Executive, Congressional, and Judicial. The beautiful balance of power, which we have seen eroded in Bush’s 8 years.
If you have a pivotal race in your state, get involved, talk it up on this blog and others, make a difference there.
And, of course, dialogue with that candidate to let him/her know what you’re looking for in a Senator or Representative.
You still have time…he/she is looking for you in his/her campaign.
Pach, if Clinton mis nominated, I’ll be voting against McCain, but not ‘for’ her. She just doesn’t strike me as someone I want to vote ‘for’. It has nothing to do with her being female, and everything to do with what she says and does.
I wrote here, a few weeks back, about a friend’s experience with one of Clinton’s appearances in LA. She was running very late, and chose to speak first to the press and bigwigs indoors (a group which did not include the local chamber members who had made the arrangements, or the local Congressman, or the area’s city councilman), in a room that was far too small for all the people who had shown up, at an appearance where her campaign had demanded RSVPs from people beforehand, then she was going to talk to the much larger overflow crowd who had been waiting, some of them, for more than two hours, outside.
This was an appearance dedicated to small business: what message do they get, when they effectively have to take half a day off to see and hear (but not speak to) a candidate for maybe as much as an hour? What is her priority, when the reporters and the big-money people get more attention from the campaign than the locals she claimed she was there to meet?
(Obama makes me nervous also because there’s a real potential for trouble with someone who has that much charisma: think of Heinlein’s “If This Goes On –” for what a charismatic (in both senses) religious leader could do, or think of Huey Long in Louisiana.) I heard secondhand about a person who met him and described him a scary, but I don’t know what kind of scary they mean.)
My wife and I have read your reply to john in sacramento’s comment. Lahoma asks me to say that she is very tired of people calling those who are not HRC supporters “Hillary haters”. My lady is being nice about this. I wouldn’t be so inclined to be as graceful with you.
—-
Sounds good to me. If only we had such a thing as an annual, netroots convention devoted to netroots organizing and development.
—-
From SourceWatch.org:
“The netroots activist, much like the new generation of grassroots activist, is fiercely partisan, fiercely multi-issue, and focused on building a broader movement. It’s not an ideological movement — there is actually very little, issue-wise, that unites most modern party activists except, perhaps opposition to the Iraq war….”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind…..e=Netroots
Apparently netroots differs from what I describe. Our progressive majority would need to buy into and be unified by supporting the whole platform. So, maybe what I’m describing is a progressive ideological movement.
Also, I don’t think a yearly convention is going to do it–only a small portion of the population would probably ever be able to attend. Maybe meetings could be done through web video conferencing or similar technology.
- Tom
Who do you support for president, Mr. Pach and Ms. Hamsher?
And why?
I thought I’d made clear I’m not supporting either over the other, but and advocating in whatever way I can for an approach to politics and democracy that is larger than any presidential primary race.
The only candidates I endorse are our Blue America candidates.
I don’t like any dem who is a republican-lite. When Bill was POTUS I felt this way about him. I feel this way about Hillary. I feel this way less about Obama simply because he has been more reasonable, less labile. But there in not much daylight between the two dems.
We need a revolution in the country. Not the bloody kind but one where the government is restructured. It is not take back the country time. It is built a country from the grown up that functions for the people.
I frankly don’t care. Some hard core Obama supporters are Hillary haters, and if from that statement you and your partner choose to interpret that I have declared that all Obama supporters are Hillary haters, then you do so for your own purposes.
If perpetual outrage and insult are your thing, hey, get your jollies any way you like, but don’t put words in my mouth, and don’t think you get to pound the table endlessly on someone else’s website.
Jeebus on a stick I cannot write today. Preview.
“The “conversation” is only valuable if your goal is to elect Obama. Mine isn’t.”
I don’t agree. My goal isn’t to elect Obama, either (not yet, anyway). I prefer the candidate that I feel will most align themselves to the progressive/liberal issues that most of us here are very passionate about.
In my mind, of the candidates that are left, that’s Sen. Obama. I don’t work for his campaign or receive e-mailed talking points from his office. In fact, he was my third choice, behind Gore then Edwards.
I think you have hit the nail on the head. I remember during the 2000 elections arguing with Republicans who were convinced that their candidate walked on water…there was just no talking to them. There would be no need to hold him accountable and his history was irrelevant.
I have been seeing this same dynamic across the left blogospere. I have ceased to go to Daily Kos purely because there appears to be so little rational interest in discussion of the issues spectrum as opposed to the short term thrill of the gotcha point.
When, not if, we end up with another corporatist (albeit a softer version), I foresee a great deal of wailing/gnashing of teeth and very little backward looking analytic process into how we arrived at that place. Just look at how the Dem led Congress has handled our issues the last couple of years.
If Dems want to hold their candidates accountable, they could do a lot worse than advocating for Nader in a cabinet level position overseeing Administrative ethics.
Ah, you had me until the Nader thing. I have no truck for Nader.
From prwatch.org:
—
Stauber predicts that although Clinton has been criticized by many left-leaning Democrats for her initial support of the Iraq war — an issue that has been central to many less-prominent bloggers and grassroots progressives but downplayed by many leading bloggers — she will likely enjoy the wholehearted support of online leaders like MoveOn.org or Daily Kos.
“It doesn’t matter who wins the (Democratic) nomination,” he says. “The netroots will coalesce around him or her.”
http://www.prwatch.org/node/6315
—-
If we can get IRV in place first, then the progressive movement would not necessarily coalesce around the Democratic candidate. All that would matter is whether the candidate signs onto the progressive platform. This would put the onus on the candidate to recognize and support us, rather than the other way around.
- Tom
But why? He is admittedly no politician. I don’t believe he ever thought he would make an effective leader. He was in it to push the issues. Where better than as a crank within the system?
Well, since you ask, I find his judgment and analysis abysmal.
Worse than we have witnessed the last fifteen years? Sincerely?
With human beings, emotion trumps logic. And actually, according to Dr. Lakoff, no person can reason without using emotion. Logical or not, decisions are made based on what a person is comfortable doing. We do have people in our society with impaired consciences and that’s why a progressive-minded person differs from a sociopath running our country. With a differently wired brain, the sociopath has little to no idea what a conscience is or how this deficit affects their decision-making. It’s why Bush can get a good night’s sleep while the world crumbles around him.
I do think there can be a therapeutic value in one blowing off steam on blogs, even when it doesn’t advance the discourse for other readers.
- Tom
Here’s another way to frame Pach’s question, I think: Under what circumstances in 2012 will you support a progressive challenge to your candidate should s/he win the Presidency?
What will your candidate have to do to disappoint you enough to provide the fuel for a challenger in the next Iowa caucus or New Hampshire primary?
Alternatively, what are the metrics should your Democratic not-candidate win the Presidency in November? Have you different expectations? Would you support a 2012 intraparty challenger, and under what circumstances?
In other words, is the accountability of your candidate different from your not-candidate? And can progressives look forward to a fabulous challenge to the sitting President in 2012?
If our troops are still dying in the middle East, count me in.
If there’s no universal health care in America, count me in.
If there’s no public financing of elections, count me in.
Those are my metrics for a 2012 primary challenge to the sitting Democratic president.
I’ve become polarized like most of us, but Pach’s questions are good ones.
I have a horse in this race, and I had gotten to the point that I didn’t see how I could vote for the other Dem while remaining sober. All I have to do is remember Bush/Cheney, and envision a McCain presidency to get some perspective. McCain is the candidate who will unite us! I do expect that if either of these Dems is elected, we will still have lots of work to do as advocates for our issues, but it will still be like breathing fresh air, comparatively, after years of stink. We won’t get everything we want, but we will have more of a chance for some progress, far more, than we have had for going on 8 years. Maybe it is the 8 years of oppressive crap that is making us so anxious and bent out of shape now that there is finally a chance to get some change, and perhaps our deepest fear is that we will fail even now.
That’s not the benchmark. The benchmark should be, of all the people with credibility and expertise to bring to bear to a given position, who is best suited for the job? I’m not an idiot, people also look to whoever supported them, but Nader won’t make either cut, in my view.
sounds like good solid moderate position to me.
The party will have to support whichever candidate who gets the nomination. If Hillary becomes president, she will be reluctant to give up the powers that Bush has built into the office. If Obama gets into the white house he will be more easily manipulated by congress. Since it is the peoples’ responsibility to correct an errant government, We will need to elect more congressional Democrats who are willing to reestablish the checks and balances that were built into the constitution. We cannot claim citizenship and not fix our own Democracy. We must force the next president to work for the people any way we can. We must stop the progressive steps towards a monarchy.
Forgot to add that I appreciate FDL as one of the few sites that has not become totally closed-minded about either Obama or Clinton or totally an advocate for the other.
I forgot to add that I appreciate FDL, period.
Fair enough. However, Nader is good shorthand for many who are not economic/legal/history or political junkies. I did not want to go into the whole Nader thing. I do, however, have a faith in his track record on the issues that is singularly lacking in the advisors of our present field.
Plus, he is such an outspoken advocate, I feel confident that were an Administration for which he worked doing something not in the American citizenry’s best interests, he would be the first to speak up. Just as he spoke up over NAFTA, bank deregulation and the Iraq war.
It would give me, at any rate, a sense of security knowing that Nader was in a positon to blow the whistle on an Obama or a Clinton Presidency.
But, anyway, good post. That is the question. How will those who so strenuously advocated for Obama and Clinton to the exclusion of Edwards and Kucinich hold their candidates feet to the fire when they do things averse to their interests. I’m betting they will develop a short term memory and bitch a lot; just as with the former Bush crowd.
I will critique whoever wins. There is no free pass.
Having said that no person who is ever elected will be 100% of what you would want. We must nudge the president to do the right thing in all instances. Help him or her make the tough decisions buy letting them know how we feel about the issues.
But above all we must ensure that the idea of the unitary executive dies with the Bush Administration. We should demand an investigation into every craptastic legalism they have put forth and tear them up one by one.
If we don’t kill the Unitary Executive NOW it will come back to haunt us in the future like the criminals of Iran-Contra scandal that were never punished and treated like the criminals they are.
Criminal behavior should not be overlooked. Ever.
I tend to agree for now. But, in the future it might become possible to see a transition away from the well-known incumbent (Lieberman) to an unknown Republican and then fight that person with a more Progressive Democrat to get a clearer more distinct difference before the voters.
As things stand we can’t beat him with another Dem and that’s not acceptable.
We’re facing several problems.
1) Apparently you can’t be a Progressive if you came from a Southern state since everybody knows you have to be from Massachussetts, Minnesota or Illinois to be a Progressive.
2) It’s hard to admit, but we are a minority of America. Even within the Democratic party we are a minority — growing and significant, but still a minority.
3) We usually refuse large donors and that makes it harder to campaign and win. It also earns a lot of derision and nastiness from the punditocracy who declare your candidacy dead before it’s begun.
3) There are far too many of us who will walk off to the Green party if a Dem candidate isn’t ‘perfect’. As Howard Dean said, we’ve got to stop making perfect the enemy of the good.
4) I’m sure there are more reasons. When you’re losing and you’re not in power there are always an infinite supply of reasons.
I wonder how many Edwards supporters went over to Obama thinking he was a Progressive. Surprise surprise, the Cool-Aid has a little bitterness in it.
Now we are all having to take a leap of faith not unlike the one we would have had to take with Edwards and the question of whether he was really a Progressive.
At least Edwards wrote his own speeches.
I agree that criminal behavior should never be overlooked and that no candidate is ever perfect. However, there is something to be said for beating the drums beforehand rather than electing people with dubious records on the issues and then having to hold them accountable.
For example: the Dem nominee who would come out and say that they were going to spend the next few years investigating things like the Unitary Executive and all that has flowed from that rationale would cement the liberal base in a heartbeat…yet all we hear from the candidates is crickets. If we are having difficulty “nudging” the Dem Congress on such issues as telecom immunity, imagine the difficulties we will face on new issues not as well publicized.
There was an uproar (albeit limited to progressive circles) in the late nineties at Clinton’s repeal of Glass/Steagall, yet nothing happened and we now see the fallout. Who is prepared to ask Hillary about that segment of her “experience”? Who is asking Obama, whose advisors hail almost exclusively from Wall Street, how he will deal with banking deregulations’ consequences?
All these things are tied together. The war in Iraq, the dependency on oil and the health care problem are devastating the economy.
Perhaps the only major issues not related to the standard of living of the people and to the economy is the Constitutional angle. Are we going to support the Constitution or are Republicans so fundamentally opposed that they are going to go even further than Bush and force a crisis upon us?
Ordinary issues are tough enough, to face a Constitutional crisis on top of it would seem to demand some very bright people who can handle more than just one or two major issues in a presidency.
I wonder how much credit is due to George W. Bush. He’s the backdrop to this campaign and he set the stage for this.
Of course it’s going to get worse. This isn’t a surprise. I and others pointed this out last spring & summer.
The question is not whether Democrats might nominate a tall skinny black man with big ears. The question is whether that kind of candidate can get elected in America today. I worry.
In response to Ann in AZ (220) and to cinnamonape (233).
I jumped the shark since my Member of Congress is a Progressive here in Arizona. His name is Ed Pastor, is a Member of the Progressive Caucus, and he has been correct 95% of the time on the issues. And yet, I too am bedeviled on how to keep Elected AND Appointed Officials on ‘toeing the line’ and fair criticism is of paramount importance. And given my political history, it comes down to the bookends of two notions, first for “spotting talent”–regardless of the business or political endeavors, and second, for “mainting the Moral High Ground”. So permit to further explain.
For ease of understanding, I am a Chicano and my history goes back with Ed Pastor and long before he had the germ of an idea for seeking elective office. Consequently, the political battles have been many and of long duration. Thus, I have the “luxury” of not being overly concerned with making my member of Congress ‘toe the line’. Perhaps, one’s political interest should commence with a political engagement within a respective district where meetings of like-minded acolytes take place and with an eye to the long term.
As to “maintaining the Moral High Ground”, I am using mililtary parlance since I am a Vietnam War vet and somewhat long in the tooth. Take, for example, the Vietnam War was premised on a bogus artifice known as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. In similar vein, the AUMF was a bogus artifice since the Constitution explicitly calls for a Declaration of War. Now, if I were pre-disposed in my opposition, and I am not, to Hillary Clinton, my political platform would be on her cavalier dismissal of the “unassailable” facts at the time and of the context. Of course, there were no ‘facts’ to support such a bogus artifice. To wit, “If ya’ got it wrong on the war, what else will ya’ get wrong?”
To date, I am currently engaged in a discussion with a raft of Confused Conservatives on “citizenship”. I am arguing that children born here in the USA and whose parents are undocumented immigrants, and who have as a family unit, returned to the parents’ nation of origin, are being “disowned”. As such, these kids have not reached their age of majority, and we know nothing of these kids as to whether they live in hovels, have three squares-a-day of good nutrition, have decent clothes and books to experience a qualitative education experience, or even have access to decent health care.
The Confused Conservative argument rests solely on “what is it about illegal that you don’t understand?” Thusly, their personal animosity coalesces to either my presumptive Attention Deficit Disorder or to my perceived transgendered behavior for becoming Miss Teen Age South Carolina. Consequently, attacking the messenger underscores their behavior for the the message and which is to Deny, Divert, and Deflect. So, my admonition is to recognize that soap and water is relatively inexpensive when it comes to washing off the filth and stink for waging combat in the political gutter.
At present, I am the Chief Jefe of the Chicano Veterans Organization here in Phoenix, Arizona, and I also write for the “Cactus Juice Commentaries” at our web site. In this regard, I compiled the approximate best of 75 commentaries for Calendar Year 2007, and titled,”Chicano Politics and a Commitment to Courage”. I also added or included a couple of commentaries on John McCain. I submitted this manuscript to three publishing houses and they have responded with their rejection slips. In any event, last week I went down to Staples and found the cost to be the equivalent of $17.00 a copy to self-publish. So I am contemplating the notion of making 100 copies and sending a copy to each chapter of MECHA located at the colleges and universities out here in the West, in order to help perpetuate their mission and organization via fundraising activities. Thus, expanding the scope of messaging and ideas, take time.
And finally, in closing permit me to make two observations. I expect McCain to select Senator Mel Martinez of Florida as his VP since he needs Florida to win in the general election, and Martinez will help him undercut the Latino support for the Democratic Party. And of course, I would be remiss in not mentioning that Senator Jim Webb is one of the stars in our political party and who obviously wears combat boots and not cowboy boots.