Hillary-ious! Try, try, try as they might, the pro-Hillary slimers are now trying to smear Obama as a DLC stooge, when in fact the Clintons are two of the chief architects of this Republican-lite strategy!
Posted by at February 24, 2008 09:20 AMBig Tent is right as usual, except in his support of Obama. The A-list blog have never listened to Obama. They hate Hillary, among other thing, because Bill was a DLCer. Now they love Obama, a DLCer if there ever was one, and hate Hillary the DLC suspect.
The all world is up site down. Nader rejects Hillary because she is not Universal Health care enough and supports Obama who, according to Nader, is.
Progressive support Obama, who is to the right of Hillary, because Hillary is not progressive enough.
In this hall of mirrors, the Democrats will surely lose the White House and will have no one but themselves to blame for it.
Posted by Koshembos at February 24, 2008 09:28 AMThere is a difference between the Clintons creating the DLC and the DLC coming to Obama.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at February 24, 2008 09:30 AMha-ha-ha-ha... Obama to the right of Hillary... ha-ha-ha-ha... that is a good one. The Hillary-borg is losing its collective mind... well, the collective part is still strong, but any sense of rationality has long gone out the window!
Uh, and mark my words, Obama in a landslide in November!
Posted by at February 24, 2008 10:47 AMYeah, yeah, yeah. Obama's rhetoric gives pause to progressives who have challenged DLC-style policies and politics.
But here's a question I have: Just how damn stupid do you have to be to attack Obama for being too close to the DLC, but support Hillary?
If the Edwards supporters or Kucinich supporters (or what's left of the Nader supporters) want to slam Obama for tilting right I can accept that. But Hillary supporters? For fuck's sake people. Learn something about your own damn candidate. She is NOT anti-DLC.
Posted by space at February 24, 2008 11:01 AMSo, the DLC finally hopping aboard Obama's wagon means he's the sell-out? Maybe, but Hillary's never been anything but a sell-out, she's DLC through and through. If your point, eriposte, is that us liberals don't have enough liberal choices, then you are correct. If your point is that Obama's a DLC sell-out and Hillary is not, then you are full of it.
Posted by Brian Bell at February 24, 2008 11:14 AMAll the "He's not a progressive!" rants against Senator Obama might have more credibility and gain more traction if Senator Clinton were a progressive.
We lefties lost our best chance when Al Gore decided not to run; we lost our second best chance when John Edwards faded. Our third best chance is Any Democrat.
I am living in country that is run by people who disagree with me on nearly everything. I am an in-law at the family dinner, a spouse at the high school reunion.
Please don't ask me to feel strongly about Senator Clinton or Senator Obama. Neither one feels anything for people like me.
Posted by James E. Powell at February 24, 2008 11:27 AMWow, eriposte...you must have hit a nerve when basically the response to your posting about Senator Obama's DLC-like political talk is basically boils down to...but Hillary is too. (reminds me of those Bushistas' who say "but (preznit)Clinton did/said it too" when they try to justify something DimSon did or said.
Posted by emal at February 24, 2008 11:30 AMAnyone want to comment on Senator Obama's "take a look at vouchers" and "merit pay might be okay" stances as it compares to the Democratic Platform?
Instead of Hillary does it too, which doesn't address the point, which is that Senator Obama seems to be drifting away from basic Democratic party planks.
Is he going to give it a try if someone can show him that private accounts for Social Security might be a good way to solve the republican media manufactured Social Security Crisis?
Or maybe we should ask Ted Kennedy how that approach worked with the No Child Left Behind act? Because that was pretty much the same thing, and it's value as an education policy is pretty much null at this point.
Posted by Duckman GR at February 24, 2008 12:06 PMEmal - you got it right. It appears that HRC supporters are *automatically disqualified* from criticizing Obama or pointing out myths prevalent about him.
Space - when you started commenting a while back I actually gave you some benefit of the doubt that your comments were based on good faith. But with the kinds of comments I've seen of late, I no longer can. According to your logic, if one candidate claims to have been "consistently" anti-war, it is unacceptable to point out that the claim is bogus, just because the other candidate was not "consistently" anti-war. According to your logic, if a hypothetical Candidate X runs on a platform of unrestrained liberalism even if he is running to the right of Clinton, Clinton supporters are supposed to nod their heads, clap their hands and join the chorus that proclaims Candidate X as the candidate of unrestrained liberalism. Not to mention, I find it laughable that Edwards somehow gets the right to criticize Obama because Edwards had a progressive campaign this time around, even though his actual voting record was either not that different or in some cases worse than Clinton's. Thanks for joining the Clinton Double Standard in the comment threads.
Bob in Pacifica,
Your comment is illustrative of the mindset that is all too obvious with some of the alleged "progressives" supporting Obama. Bill Clinton embraced the DLC at a time when conservatives dominated the political and media environment and the progressive movement was weak. In fact, some alleged "progressives" were too busy trying to link Clinton to cocaine smuggling at Mena to care about defending him on things that deserved defending. Some of these alleged "progressives" are still busy talking about Clinton's link to cocaine smuggling at Mena (something that has long been debunked by Conason and Lyons in Hunting of the President)- as was evident from your comment recently at Talk Left:
And don't forget Mena. That was a major entry port for cocaine importation during the Clinton years there. Barry Seal didn't just decide to fly into that corner of Arkansas. Seal used to carry around a "get-out-of-jail" letter signed by Bill Clinton and showed it to his friends.So, I find it rich that alleged "progressives" are busy criticizing the Clintons today. In fact, arguments like yours and Space's are the ones I addressed in my previous post:
And Asa Hutchinson was the federal prosecutor there, too. True bipartisanship.
What is fascinating to me is that I sometimes get arguments defending Obama along the lines of "well, he's not doing much more than what Bill Clinton did in the 1990s". Actually, what Obama is doing is strategically much worse for the progressive movement than what Bill Clinton did. Bill Clinton acted as a "triangulator" during an era of conservative dominance and when fighting Republicans (like Gingrich) were on their ascendance. After Clinton's failure to pass universal healthcare, skittish Democrats were afraid of Clinton pushing for very liberal policies and Republicans went on a full-frontal attack, that included blocking legislation (even shutting down Government - a tactic that Clinton fought them on and won) and non-stop investigations against him and Hillary Clinton. During most of that era, the media was firmly in the Republican camp and hated the Clintons and manufactured stories about them, and there was no real "fighting progressive" movement online as we have today, to support and defend progressive Democrats. It was in that era that Clinton tried to keep the Presidency in the hands of the Democratic party by appealing to Independents and Republicans - and interestingly, despite some of the bad Bills he passed, he got through numerous progressive Bills because he and Sen. Clinton knew they would not take the right's attacks and obstruction lying down. In contrast, Sen. Obama's career in the IL State Senate was one where the IL Senate Republicans were much more closely aligned ideologically with the Democrats than how California (or national) Republicans have been aligned with their Democratic counterparts - making it easier for him to help pass "bipartisan" progressive legislation. Once he met real opposition in the U.S. Senate, it became clear that all his rhetoric was mostly talk. Whether it was the Patriot Act, Iraq, universal healthcare, nuclear power, and so on, all that Sen. Obama accomplished was to pass what the Republicans approved - and he has since touted this as somehow being a unique accomplishment even though Sen. Clinton's record was essentially no different in the Senate. Now, in an era where conservative dominance is declining and progressive power is increasing, Sen. Obama has been applying a strategy that was designed for another era altogether - one of conservative dominance - to this era. It is just like applying a tax package designed for a boom as a solution to a recession. What's worse is the blind acceptance of this as a BrilliantTM strategy by some segments of the "netroots" when in reality it is the exact opposite.HRC is not a progressive icon, but her voting record is very similar to Obama's and her rhetoric in this campaign, while not perfect, has been much more progressive than Obama's in many respects. It would simply be false to claim otherwise.
I also know that both HRC and Obama will likely tilt their rhetoric even more to the right in the general election. That wouldn't surprise me a bit. That said, we are still talking about the Democratic primary for now.
Posted by eriposte at February 24, 2008 12:16 PMIn fact, in recent weeks, Obama has been drifting into more traditional Democratic constituency politics. Note his Janesville economic speech.
Right now we are in "winning election" mode. Later will come "governing" mode. Understand what is happening, people. Also understand that as a black candidate, he has to play this game differently than white progressives... in the same way Hillary needs to as a woman. Sad, but true.
Posted by at February 24, 2008 12:17 PM"All the "He's not a progressive!" rants against Senator Obama might have more credibility and gain more traction if Senator Clinton were a progressive."
You know, it's not a zero-sum game. I bet a great many post-Edwards Hillary supporters really don't think she's very progressive on a great many issues.
Posted by Voodoo Chile at February 24, 2008 12:21 PMVoodoo Chile (a slight return),
That is my point, really.
For progressives (as I understand that constituency), neither Senator Clinton nor Senator Obama seems to be a clear choice. It is silly for either to criticize the other for not being sufficiently progressive because neither one has built a progressive campaign. They both run as "hope no one on the right-wing gets mad at me" Democrats.
And that's worked so well for the last thirty years.
Posted by at February 24, 2008 12:35 PMeriposte:
I am sorry you think that my posts are no longer made in good faith. I assure you they are. If my latest was unduly caustic, you can rest assured that it is only because it is so tedious to constantly read these one-sided posts (and ensuing comments) about Obama.
The reason I have commented here of late was largely because I found this site refreshing. Mainly because you defended Hillary from a progressive angle and I found virtually all Hillary defenders elsewhere in the blogosphere to be pseudo-centrists, echoing DLC talking-points. FWIW, in the past several weeks you have successfully changed my opinion of Hillary. I no longer see her as a DLC-backed "centrist" -- i.e. exactly what you appear to fear Obama to be.
Instead I see Hillary as a rather tone-deaf and out-of-touch progressive wonk who is completely oblivious to the harm that her association with her husband, Penn, McAullife, et al. do her progressive bona fides. Had she jettisoned those losers back before her campaign started, and been smart enough to understand the political value of attacking the lobbyist culture, she would have chopped Edwards' campaign off at the knees. If Obama started tacking right, Hillary could have made the progressive arguments that are found on TLC, but virtually absent from Hillary's campaign rhetoric (last time I checked "hope v. experience" is hardly equivalent to "Obama is GOP-lite".
WRT Edwards, my take on him is that his relatively conservative voting record was more a factor of him representing a conservative constituency than being corruptly beholden to lobbyists. Running for a national office has allowed him to take positions that are more aligned with his personal, more progressive views.
WRT to whether Obama has been consistently "anti-war," Obama was clearly against the war -- and, I'd add, for the right reasons -- before it started. Everybody agrees that Hillary and Obama have very similar, post-invasion voting records in the Senate.
So we are forced to ask, is the Hillary/Obama voting record "pro-war" or "anti-war"? You and the Clintons would have me believe that Hillary's voting record was about responsibly ending the war, but Obama's identical voting record was a record to continue Bush's war. This is logically inconsistent and complete bullshit. If Hillary's voting record is not "pro-war" then neither is Obama's and the Clintons should stop trying to attack him as some sort of flip-flopper. If Hillary's voting record IS "pro-war" then it is no surprise that her criticisms have gained no traction: better to vote for a guy that was right once than for someone who was never right.
Posted by space at February 24, 2008 01:45 PMThe DLC may not be the greatest organization because it is not progressive enough, but given the way Americans had turned against the Democrats during the Reagan years, I thank them for helping BC the presidency. I will also agree that BC was "Republican light", but that was better than what we had in Reagan and H. W. Bush. So stop bitching about the DLC, their work was helpful.
Posted by Prabhata at February 24, 2008 02:07 PMI'm sorry eriposte. your increasingly shrill rants against the admittedly politically shrewd Obama campaign and for the indisputably pro-DLC Clinton camp have simply lost my sympathy.
I have followed most of the links you provide (although, given time constraints, it's a big chore) and tried to judge the arguments fairly. In this case, I have to give the edge to smooth.
I have to ask you truly, can you support a candidate Obama if, as seems likely, within the next two weeks, it comes to pass? We need to consolidate behind whomever get the Democratic nod. None of my favorites are still in the running, but I simply don't feel I have the leisure to do other than support the last one standing.
Posted by DemnNewJ at February 24, 2008 02:36 PMI'm really not sure why it's so baffling to people not to want to let the DLC get cozy all over again (if that's the case) with someone who's looking more and more like the presumptive nominee every day.
Armando, though, is about as bitter and dishonest a lefty blogger as ever there was, so it comes as no surprise that he'd contrive some confusion for an opportunity to take a swipe at the blog that dumped his sorry, incorrigible ass. That probably explains his completely bonkers-ass belief that the only people who can legitimately be tepid and tentative in their support for Obama are Armando himself, and Russ Feingold.
I mean, raise your hand if you don't want to prevent the DLC from using Obama's success (no matter what it's based on) to rebuild the case for their relevance.
Anyone?
Posted by Kagro X at February 24, 2008 03:01 PMAmazingly, it appears these self styled progressives are more in awe of David Axelrod than Barack Obama. The ideas come from Axelrod, as does the strategy. Maybe it's the money that has been raised. After all, these are all signs of competence and power and success. But didn't George Bush have an equally successful fund raising capacity? And an equally successful (actually more successful) campaign? I guess that is no indication of actually governing...but more importantly, what evidence do we have that the Republicans have forgotten how to win elecitons? Only Bill Clinton figured out how to beat them twice...but hey, these self satisfied liberal progressives just know their time has come...they are so sure...it just has to be...destiny...
Meanwhile, another wing of the Democratic party doesn't like these types at all. They may not vote against them...but might gloat if they lose. And they certainly won't be united working hard for a win....Looks like a bad bargain to me...and we haven't even started talking about Carter's foreign policy team heading Obama's. Or Nader telling the world on Meet the Press that Obama was pro Palestinian before he ran the for state Senate, and that his team members want to meet with Hamas. I'm sure he will be warmly embraced for his Carter foreign policy...after all, it was such a success for Carter!!!
Posted by lily15 at February 24, 2008 03:11 PMThank you, eriposte.
You helped highlight something I noticed awhile back, namely, that Barack Obama seems to be using some of the same rhetoric, talking points, catchphrases used by Joe "The Rat" Lieberman, and we all know by now how our Pal Joey turned against the Democratic Party and our liberal democracy to side with the culture of corruption Republican, dare I say Fascist, Party.
Thus, in my state's pre-primary early voting the other day, I voted for Hillary Clinton, not only for this reason, but also with the "hope" that a President Hillary Clinton will make it one of her top priorities to uncover and expose the criminal acts of the preceding Bush administration. This will be a gargantuan task, which will require great strength and endurance by our next president, as well as the desire to leave no dirty Fascist Republican stone left unturned.
For instance, which Democratic president, whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, will immediately issue a pardon to former Alabama governor Siegelman upon entering office in late January 2009? Which one will leave no stone unturned at the Justice Department in going after those Republicans responsible for this political hit?
My impression is that Barack Obama wants to "make nice" with the Fascist Republicans, even after all the harm that they've done to our democracy, our military, and our civil liberties, while I'm hoping that a President Hillary Clinton, like the Dixie Chicks, will not be ready to "make nice," but will work mightily to get to the bottom of all the criminal activities of the worst administration in American history over the previous eight, long, torturous years.
I believe the Fascist Republicans are afraid of a Hillary Clinton presidency, primarily because (based on their Karl Rovian revenge way of thinking), a President Hillary Clinton may seek to "pay-back" the Republicans for all their slanderous lies over the past two decades involving the Clintons. This is why, I think, they are rolling out the "bitch" term, using reverse psychology, so that if Hillary Clinton does win the presidency, she doesn't use the office of the presidency to "bitch slap" senseless the culture of corruption, greedy Republicans.
I, on the other hand, voted for Hillary Clinton to be our next president in the hopes that she does, because after all the crazed stunts pulled by the Republicans over the past eight years, it will take a Democratic Party "bitch" to slap some sense back into the feeble minds of the Fascist Republicans, as well as some honor, integrity and honesty...while taking on the Herculean task of saving our democracy and reversing the blatant criminality of the Bush administration.
Posted by The Oracle at February 24, 2008 07:55 PMSome of us progressives want to actually win a fucking election.
Obama can win an election. Hillary can not. Nothing else matters.
So keep pissing into the wind, idiots. Your legs are already soaked, your peckers will wither away soon enough.
Posted by RAM at February 24, 2008 09:35 PMLily15, Carter might not have done much in Iran, but then there wasn't much he could do, less than four years out from Vietnam at that point. The army was just getting rebuilt. As for Carter's other foreign policies, like being the only U.S. president to conclude a peace treaty between Israel and an Arab government, I'd gladly take them over what we have today. But I suppose you must prefer the Bush-Cheney war-war-and-more-war policy, Lily? I hope Nader's to some extent right about Obama. We don't need another Bush.
Eriposte, Clinton and Obama are pretty similar, except he got the Iraq question right the first time, which makes all the difference in the world.
Posted by Brian Bell at February 24, 2008 09:51 PMSpace,
I'd urge you to point out a single post or comment where I asserted that Hillary's voting record - at least until she started to vote for a timed withdrawal or more - can be deemed "anti-war".
Kagro X,
I understand Armando doesn't exactly have the best relationship with Daily Kos, to put it midly, but my interest is in assessing whether the statements he makes are valid or not. I've disagreed with Armando in the past, sometimes strongly so - so, let me get back to your question. It would obviously be a concern to me to see the DLC piggyback on Obama but I personally don't see the DLC doing anything much of substance at this point given Obama's rhetoric and rewriting of history. The DLC turned into a loser organization a while back and I don't see them materially impacting Obama's vision or rhetoric.
Posted by eriposte at February 24, 2008 11:00 PMSpace,
I have to say that I'm surprised that I managed to make you convinced that HRC is not as DLC-ish as you thought she was, but I do agree with you that some of her campaign advisors have led her to the bad situation she is in - and by definition, she should and will take responsibility for getting advice from those people.
That said, I am pretty convinced that no amount of her sounding progressive or taking progressive views would have made any significant difference in this primary. The damage was done long ago and there's nothing that was going to change that at least as far as the "netroots" is concerned.
Posted by eriposte at February 24, 2008 11:07 PMThis would be a great way to Sister Souljah the kook left blogosphere: Obama should join the DLC.
I agree there is a good bit of DLC in him, and my guess is he would have been a part of the org if this was the nineties instead of the 00s.
The only way he has a chance to win the Presidency though is by making clear that he is not a "liberal". Having the DLC on his side is a very good way of doing that.
Posted by Jonesy at February 25, 2008 12:02 AMeR,
Great. Then we have no problem, and Armando's asshattery stands on it's own.
He misreads the intent of my post, and he does so in order to create issues he can gripe about.
Are the statements he makes valid? The ones about there being a similarity between some of Obama's rhetoric and the DLC's? Sure. The ones about there possibly being a renewed relationship? Sure. The ones about his being the only principled approach to voting for Obama? Not a chance in hell.
The article was never about Obama affinity with the DLC. Nor was it even really about similarities or relationships between their styles of rhetoric. It was about the DLC's M.O. of grabbing credit for any Democratic success no matter what the realities are.
Are there similarities? Yes. Might they have direct connections and origins? Yes. Does Obama want to allow the DLC to claim credit for his success? I don't know. Do I? No.
This is not extraordinary.
Posted by Kagro X at February 25, 2008 05:18 AMKagro,
I'm surprised you'd want a nominee who fits in so perfectly with the DLC's agenda.
You know the DLC would never jump on board with Dean, but Obama? Hoo-yah!!
Obama is not the Democrats' or Progressives' friend.
Just like those who voted for 2 terms of George Bush, we now see supposed Dems voting against their own interests out of stupidity and people being so enamored of their internet savvy that they pay no attention to the little details. Like their candidate's support of conservative ideas. Vouchers? Thats been the downfall of the public school system here in Florida brought to you by Jeb Bush.
Posted by glennmcgahee at February 25, 2008 06:11 AMHillary is one of the founders of, and one-time head of, the DLC. You can pretend that she's not, but she is. I don't care how many commercials she runs pretending to care about the 'invisible people', that isn't her record. The Clinton's always claim to feel our pain, but god be damned if they'll ever actually do anything about it.
No, she only actually cares about the pain of the health insurance and credit card companies.
Posted by Soullite at February 25, 2008 10:51 AMRam,
Obama is not winning in November. And this time the Republicans won't even have to steal it to win. Democrats like Markos and Kagro X are giving it to the Republicans right now. But Markos does not get paid to win. Just to agitate. I hate McCain and I'm going to have to live with him for four years at least, thanks to the Liberal Obama fans.
Posted by sancho at February 25, 2008 01:56 PMI'm surprised anyone would think I want that.
What I want is to separate any Democratic nominee from the DLC to the extent possible.
Again, raise your hand if you think that's something you don't want.
So far, I've seen no hands.
I've seen a lot of politicking for one candidate or another, but no hands.
Posted by Kagro X at February 25, 2008 03:53 PMI love how the Pro-Hillary blog presents Obama as DLCer to her Right while the righty talking heads call Obama the most liberal member of the Senate.
I thought Kerry was the most liberal member of the Senate? What about Teddy, Hillary, Bernie Sanders?
These are of course all ridiculous claims.
Posted by midwestdem at February 25, 2008 05:31 PMsancho,
Respectfully. What are you talking about?
Posted by midwestdem at February 25, 2008 05:33 PM