Kos is on a roll against Hillary tonight. On the same night that he accuses others of distorting what Obama said, he completely distorts what Senator Clinton said about Lieberman.
In his post entitled"Hillary has Lieberman's back"
Kos has a video clip of a Clinton interview and states:
Hillary thinks Lieberman should keep his committee assignments, even though he's campaigning for Republican John McCain.
Listen to the clip. While the interviewer did ask about Lieberman's committee assignments, Clinton very carefully stayed away from discussing them. Basically this is what she said:
He caucuses with us, he votes with us and I certainly believe that it is important we continue that.Posted by MO Blue at January 18, 2008 08:58 PM
I don't ask this to be a jerk, and I am not a partisan of either Clinton or Obama, and I am second to no one in my loathing of Reagan, both the reality and the myth, but I really have to ask this:
Is this the kind of thing I really need to care about?
Posted by James E. Powell at January 18, 2008 09:33 PMI am surprised that Kos is this tone deaf, but not that Obama is.
What I find interesting is that even though eriposte and others on this site have done an admirable job of pointing out how Obama seems to have a bad habit of echoing GOP talking points and throwing the progressive movement under the bus, there seems to be an unwillingness to accept that people have legitimate concerns about Hillary on this issue.
While I concede that Hillary does not seem to talk like a Republican as much as Obama does, I am deeply concerned that she seems to surround herself with serial triangulators, including her husband.
Posted by space at January 18, 2008 10:10 PMJames,
If you are comfortable with the Republican party being called "the party of ideas" by a leading Democratic presidential candidate in this era, then you have nothing here that you should care about.
Space,
I guess I don't understand your comment. This post is not about Hillary Clinton. I'm not asking you to support her. Please support whoever you want, even Obama if Obama is your pick. That said, Bill Clinton being a triangulator over a decade ago in a completely different era where there was no progressive movement whatsoever, if not the same as Obama triangulating even more in an era with a strong progressive movement and a population receptive to progressive ideas.
Posted by eriposte at January 18, 2008 11:19 PMBill in 92 and Obama and Huckabee now are/were ALL 'triangulating' in the good sense. Huckabee gave a very clear image of a triangle: he didn't want to be a 'horizontal' candidate and meet anyone in the middle and split the difference, he wanted to be a 'vertical' candidate, solving problems by rising higher, using new approaches acceptable to both.
I forget what Huckabee's approaches are, but Bill's in 92 were practical ideas for actually solving problems. (Like, balancing the budget BY paying down the National Debt.) Obama's now seem to be something like getting opponents into the same room to figure out their own solutions while Obama sits in the back row humming Kumbaya.
HIllary and Bill are still the same team so I expect they'll do the same thing they did last time: find practical solutions acceptable to whoever they've got to deal with, make as much progress as they can. HIllary just talks about the needs and the practical methods.
This is all silly. Let's just give them a Dem congress for the full 8 years so they don't need any stinkin triangualtion or bi-partisanship or anything.
Give 'em hell, Hillary!
Posted by 1950democrat at January 19, 2008 12:00 AM"Hillary thinks Lieberman should keep his committee assignments, even though he's campaigning for Republican John McCain."
Why do the Democrats continue to show Lieberman any respect whatsoever? Is he that important to the Democratic Party, even though he is obviously a Republican in Independent clothing?
Posted by Judith at January 19, 2008 05:04 AMThis is a very old battle and Kos is usually on the other side. Obama is doing what is called "process talk" and Kos and digby and others have long excoriated democrats who do this--in fact originally I think Kos complained about Obama doing this too much before the primaries started--which is to say giving long, round about speeches about "what someone should do" or describing "how things ought to be done in a more perfect world" instead of *proposing to fucking do them already.* Kerry, as I recall, was faulted for this. I happen to think that Obama's suck up speech about Reagan was incredibly stupid historically, politically, rhetorically, and every other ilogy, oology, and ologically on its own terms *but it was also really stupid* because it transferred all the good karma/good ideas/good history to the republicans and said rather bleatingly that we'd be doing ok as dems if we just imitated the other guy. That's just hugely bad thinking. But its also quintessentially a kind of process talk and you can see that in the continued insistence of obama's supporters that we don't understand what he really meant. Because when you come right out and say what you really mean (my party is great! here's my ten point plan!) and when you *act like you have confidence in your own ideas* and not just the delivery system *people don't misunderstand.*
aimai
Posted by aimai at January 19, 2008 05:48 AMI worry about Obama, saying things that frame the Republicans as innovative, progressive thinkers (the "party of ideas"). Say what you want about Obama, he does a poor job of advancing liberal talking points, explaining progressive positions, or helping the liberal cause. Time and time again since he's become a Senator, he has damaged the Democrats with muddled talking points. (There are some great analyses of his appearances over the years on Liberal Oasis.)
I'm not sure that he is a real progressive, as Paul Krugman points out. He is a great speechifier, but what will he do to right the wrongs of the past 7 years when he is in office? I'm not looking for some lukewarm "tread the middle" and "compromise with the Republicans" President.
We know that someone who really tries to work for bipartisan agreement as President will be faced with Republicans demanding their way or the highway. The result will be skewing policy right over and over and over again. The past seven years show that weve had more than enough of that. What we need is someone who will steer left enough to bring the country some of the ways back toward the middle, at least.
Hillary's campaign tactics (the shuck and jive comment was awful, for one thing) are abominable. But she does talk like a Democrat.
Posted by Tom Burka at January 19, 2008 06:43 AMAs others have mentioned kos was on tear last night with several front page posts full of cherrypicked quotes (minus the context) for which he fanned the flames of divisiveness among democrats using harsh rhetoric and words.(He called Edwards and ass because John said he would never compare himself to Raygun ..sigh) I thought Obama and his supporters were all for messaging the party of hope, unity...( I guess that is except among fellow democrats). kkKarl is smiling when kos starts dissing fellow dems.
I understand he can vote for whom he wishes, and express his opinions as loudly/strongly as he feels on his blog....but when he starts trash talking the others (who are on the same Team) and accusing them of misunderstanding his candidate yet does the exact same thing to them in the next post well what does that prove...that he is a hypocrit?
Anyhow I stayed away even though I was very tempted to knock him harshly in a comment that I almost posted (glad I didn't). I'm getting better at waiting before I hit post and find I have less regrets with my commentary. And I do think kos' previous and earlier membership in the repuke party might have influenced him...but having said that I am wondering this morning what his true motives were with those posts...or was it just how he really believes and sees things....was he trying to make a point? clean house and drive away others away who are either undecided or committed to other candidates?
If kos becomes "shrill" (had to say it) like he was last night, I think I'll be avoiding the sight and his posts until the nominee has been decided. He'd been fairly good not bashing others too harshly and keeping his emotions in check somewhat even though it had been relatively clear who he supported. I also have to wonder if he still would actually support the nominee even if it isn't his candidate? And wonder if the "truce" the candidates offered earlier this week is officially over?
But really, I have to ask...why aren't the democratic candidates running their campaign against the other party instead of each other...Why aren't they constantly bashing repuke ideas, practices, and policies these days, as the last 8 years have been the best example and living proof that they suck...Big Time! And that is a feeling that clearly unites 2/3rds of the country! We need to capitalize on that feeling right now and put make sure come this next election that republican ideas are put to bed/or the grave once and for all so they won't be reincarnated down the line in say 15-20 years by the young republicans of the world and their mentors so their won't be a chance of any more kkKarl's, Grover Norquist's, Yoo's, Addington's, DeLay's,Kristol's,and Cheney's using another Fabled Actor or Dim Son surrogate again as their front guy.
emal,
that is such a great post. I, too, am avoiding Kos at the moment. And I, too, wish they would *run against the republicans*. This battle is *not sewn up* and even Obama who says he wants to reach out to the right side/conservative/reagan democrats should be grasping that this is a *teachable moment* when every single candidate and every democratic advisor and player should be on the attack against the last eight years of real republican rule. Reagan is a long time ago and to the extent that the (diminishing and aging) population of reagan democrats remember him they do so with the bitter knowledge that bush wasn't reagan. They (and their party) have been comforting themselves with the assertion that "bush wasn't a real conservative" or that these weren't the conservative policies that they thought they would get with bush. Of course as Kos and others have shown repeatedly *bush is the quintessential conservative/republican leader* and he has done nothing that wasn't foretold by people who paid attention. The job of all the democrats is to hammer that home--bush is conservativism, conservativism in this country is ugly, divisive, jingoistic, corporatist, and most of all just plain dangerous. Quod erat demonstrandum by the last eight years. Any democratic candidate who spends any time at all trying to tell the voters how many democrats dance on the head of a pin is wasting time. The job is to sell the brand (Democrat! Democracy! Good!) while the republicans are unselling themselves to their own followers.
aimai
Posted by aimai at January 19, 2008 07:38 AMAnyone paying attention knows that Kos is far more anti-Clinton than he has ever been (or ever will be) pro-Democrat. This is the one, unshakeable hold over from being a Republican. The same is true of Huffington. They would rather the Democrats go down in flaming defeat than see HRC be elected to anything.
A certain core group in the blogosphere has decided that *the* reason for the Democratic losses of the 90s was Bill Clinton. Period. No need to look further, no need to evaluate the overall political environment, no reason to see what other Democrats were doing at the time. It is the core faith of both Republicans and Democrats in this group - all political misfortune suffered by the Democrats can be laid at the Clintons' feet. Every act performed, every statement uttered, every vote cast, approved or vetoed is *nothing* save an expression of the Clintons' inhuman and inhumane lust for power. That is how people end up supporting someone who really does seem to be uncommitted to any solid progressive objectives as some kind of savior. He can beat HRC and that is good enough for Kos.
Thus, as my friend Ang keeps saying, the entire 2008 presidential election for both parties is who will beat Clinton. HRC is running for President. Everyone else in the race is running to beat Hillary.
Intersting point, fergus.
It does seem that in our mania to have presidential elections be about anything other than the issues, 2008 is going to be about the Clintons and their dynasty. And that was fated as soon as she started raising her millions for the run.
Except we'll do everything but directly talk about what benefits or harm the country derives from enabling family political dynasties like the Bushes and the Clintons. Our political discourse can't have any actually meaning or substance, after all.
Posted by euzoius at January 19, 2008 08:12 AMPlease post this at the Daily Kos, someone, it's brilliant and spot on and many Obama supporters are too blind to see.
Obama is smart, he knows history, if not then there are other things to be concerned about.
Posted by Ellinorianne at January 19, 2008 08:29 AMeriposte,
I think the statements that are the subject of this post are nothing but ruminations and bullshit ramblings. I do not think that they mean that Obama believes Reagan, the Republicans and their ideas were great, or that he intends to govern as if they were.
I think we can disregard the entire thing as the standard, stupid shit politicians say because they have to act like anything and everything that has already happened in American history was all according to God's great plan for his most favorite country ever!
Does this give us any insight into how Obama would govern? No. Does this tell us what his policy priorities will be? No. Does it really tell us anything we need to know? I don't think so.
And with respect to what Markos says about what Obama says about Reagan, please!
Posted by James E. Powell at January 19, 2008 10:28 AMhttp://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j125/sarahfdavis/Obamasippycup.jpg
Posted by sarahfdavis at January 19, 2008 10:36 AMI'm sorry, but I disagree. I've been wondering at least since 2000 what Democrats really stand for. I know what Republicans stand for, but often Democrats seem to stand for the same stuff: Reid and Rockefellor want to pass telecom immunity; Reid said there would be no attempt to close the hedge fund loopholes; Clinton appears satisfied to leave US troops in Iraq for years.
So what do Democrats stand for? I see that the Democrats want to raise taxes on the rich, which I am ok with, but to what purpose? If it's only to spend more money, then what's the point. What are the underlying principles of their economic positions? I've looked for them, but I have never found them stated clearly anywhere.
I'd rather the Democrats be in power than the Republicans, but I have no idea what they would do with the power. Why do I think that once in power they will only pay off a different set of corporations?
Posted by lxm at January 19, 2008 11:00 AMKos is right. The Democrats have been in the back seat the last 15 years. The Republican Congress called the shots in the 90's while Bill Clinton reacted to everything. Gore had no ideas. Kerry contradicted himself. Reid, Pelosi, Daschle, Gephardt... on and on. Feckless. Nothing from them.
The GOP was in disarray for the 60's and 70's. Reagan changed that. He united them. He focused them. They became a party of ideas. Even if we oppose those ideas, it worked. Even the folks in the middle and center-Democrats rallied behind Reagan.
Can that happen with Hillary? He11 no. She's not for change. She's what's been wrong with the Democrats the last 15 years. He11, the last 30 years.
Obama is the JFK of our era. He is the Ronald Reagan that can bring together the left, the moderates, and the center-Republicans.
Posted by Burt at January 19, 2008 11:36 AMAmen, Burt.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 19, 2008 12:22 PM