But now with the Obama WH, I think it’s clear, and already should be clear from several examples (i.e. torture photos, etc.) that when the WH moves to the center or to the right, it’s going to catch holy hell from the left.
That sounds like the "We're gonna hold his feet to the fire" theory.
So far that isn't working out so well. Obama's online supporters won't hold his feet to the fire out of fear of burning their lips.
Posted by myiq2xu at June 4, 2009 07:38 AMHmm. The book is called "how the internet changed politics and the press," but Boehlert says that bloggers had little impact on the Dems and Obama, except maybe that the dems now get noisy feedback from the left when they do something we don't like. So besides A listers, who are now fixtures on Maddow, after making blogging a successful business, the rest of the bloggers are just spinning their wheels. And even the A listers aren't making much of an impact besides being the topic of O'Reilly's 2 minit hate sessions.
Also, you said the 2nd and 3rd parts weren't going to be about the campaign, but now you say the 3rd part was about the blog war of 2008? Was there another blog war I'm not aware of? Don't get me wrong, it was fun taunting the kids from Effluence, but sheesh. What more is there to discuss? Also, what are the examples of people "editing themselves" to cut down on reader irritability? I don't believe you censored your posts, nor did anyone else, as far as I could tell, though the pressure on you in the comment threads was immense, though you did get a following amongst the crazies like low-iq guy here.
Hey, meatprod, write any forced oral sex jokes lately? 'Cos your last one was awfully hilarious!
Posted by Twinky P* at June 4, 2009 07:46 AMGo read about LOONS - it applies to you.
(Lying Obot Optical Neuropathy Syndrome)
Posted by myiq2xu at June 4, 2009 08:04 AMTwinky P*,
Your comment that "I don't believe you censored your posts, nor did anyone else, as far as I could tell...." is interesting when juxtaposed with your comment "What more is there to discuss?".
If you didn't know that many bloggers were self-censoring themselves in 2008 to avoid being thought of as either being against Obama or for Clinton, then you don't know much about what was really happening behind the scenes. Some bloggers told me this personally - and I'm not going to name names - but if you thought the pressure was intense against my posts, you have no idea how much more intense it was for people who depend on blogging for a part of their living. I certainly didn't censor my posts, but there was clear pressure from some readers to get me to stop and on multiple occasions I wrote to Steve privately offering to move my blogging elsewhere if he did not want me to continue my coverage here. Steve has always been an independent voice and to his credit never batted an eyelid when it came to making sure that independence was maintained in the front page of TLC.
So, what else is there to discuss? Holy cow - one could write *entire books* about the stuff that needs to be discussed about what happened in 2008 and that has *hardly been discussed* outside of a few blogs. I am barely scratching the surface of the tip of the iceberg in these interviews. You and I obviously differ rather strongly on the need to understand what really happened and why, because without understanding why the 2008 primary turned out to be the way it was, we will never be able to figure out how to prevent that crap from happening again.
It's kinda like saying, we know Bush/Cheney lied - so what else is there to discuss? By that argument, I might as well *not* have done any research into the aluminum tubes, Nigergate, and many other things - because it was already known at the time that Bush/Cheney had lied about these things - so what else was there to discuss?
Posted by eriposte at June 4, 2009 08:06 AMAnd, please, I am making a strong request here to everyone to stop the name calling and personal attacks in the comment threads and use this space for a legitimate debate on your respective positions. If you disagree on something state that. I am tired of the silly personal attacks that will only make it harder to have an honest conversation about what happened, why it happened and how we can address that substantively going forward.
Posted by eriposte at June 4, 2009 08:09 AMSo, what else is there to discuss?
Point taken, eriposte. I remember Avedon Carol and a couple others trying hard to remain neutral, while people on both sides fought it out in the comments. The arguments took on a life outside the campaign itself, and is still going on, as evidenced by the last thread. I guess I'm sort of interested in the macro psychology of last year, rather than rehashing the silly talking points on both sides, but I'll back off and let the kids relive the salad days of their martyrdom and show off their dorky new acronyms for ya.
Posted by Twinky P* at June 4, 2009 08:30 AMTwinky P*,
I know you said you didn't need to read the book since you saw things happen real-time, but you might find it of some interest to at least peruse Boehlert's book. Talking of self-censorship, here is an extract from page 136 of the book:
After the hype died down, even some corporate media observers who had been relentlessly critical of Clinton's campaign, including some at the Washington Post and Politico, concluded that there was no wayYou asked for examples of self-censorship, there's one for you. Posted by eriposte at June 4, 2009 08:49 AM
anyone could have construed her passing RFK comment as suggesting that she was awaiting Obama's assassination. Yet lots of bloggers made that leap. Wrote one online writer for the liberal American Prospect, "Hillary Clinton suggests, elliptically at the very least, that she's staying [in] the presidential race in case Barack Obama is assassinated."
"I thought it was character assassination," Digby told me a couple weeks after the RFK controversy had passed. She was exhausted by the toll the campaign had already taken on the blogosphere. She was also aware of the kind of pie-fights that would erupt on her site if she posted a condemnation of those who unfairly attacked Clinton for her RFK comments. So Digby, who never endorsed either candidate, simply passed on the story. "I'm a chicken shit," she said with a shake of her head.
That's why it's nice to be a nobody in blogistan. You can say what you feel without having to worry about alienating your fan.....readership.
Posted by snark at June 4, 2009 09:03 AMThanks for asking the question about the lack of footnotes (or endnotes) and a bibliography. Boehlert effectively confirmed what I suspected, which was that the book was rushed out. This caused all sorts of compromises that worked substantially against its quality. The biggest problem is the lack of comprehensive reporting and research, which was quite detrimental to several sections, including the two chapters on the civil war between the online Obama and Clinton camps. I go into this even further in my own review of the book. For those who are interested in readnig it, please click here.
Posted by Pol C at June 4, 2009 09:21 AMno way anyone could have construed her passing RFK comment
Thanks, eriposte, I'd forgotten about that idiocy, though it seems to me digby did mention the RFK thing, which was obviously a case of pearl-clutching at the time, but then, a lot of politics seems to end up in a flurry of faux outrage, on every side. As I recall, digby had to start moderating her comments during that time, too, because of the nastiness aimed at her; even being "neutral" was a statement in itself. We're seeing the same thing happening with Sotomayor, aren't we? Republicans know she's going to be confirmed, but pretending she's a radical will help them organize and fundraise. IMO, it's a media-driven narrative that commenters glommed onto, though.
Even the neutral people couldn't be neutral, really, because even if you didn't come out for anyone or against anyone, you were assumed to be for someone or against someone. Like I said, a lot of the craziness happened in comments. I know my attitude about blogs changed after the primaries once I realized that the golden age of blogging was over, and that everyone, including myself and the bloggers I used to look up to, were hypocrites. Humans are hypocrites, IMO. You were right back then that reality-based blogging no longer existed, which is why I don't take much of what goes on very seriously any more. Now, it's silliness like this joker above - if you don't nitpick Obama's every move, you're an Obot, if you do nitpick, you're not giving him enough room to get things in place. Frankly, I don't think Hillary would be any different than Obama at this point, except, I believe the right wing wouldn't be so fractured and leaderless, because they'd be working as one with a common goal and ready made talking points about Bill/Monica, etc.
I guess it was eventual that the bloggers who are trying to make a living at blogging (really, are there that many who can do it full time on ads alone?) now have to consider their readership just like any other information outlet, it's the nature of the game, isn't it? Unless you're an FDL or Huffpost, you're just there to say what you feel, like snark says. In that respect, if you're not an action blog or org blog, you're just running a glorified chat room, aren't you? Anyone with illusions of making a difference in the world by commenting on a blog is just kidding themselves. Still, the cranky old white man media "stars" are dying out, and are being replaced by online personalities who were already on that track anyhow, but found the blogs to be a perfect springboard for fame. Nothing will have changed, only the medium is different, and the feedback is more immediate. I think Maddow is the best there is out there, but even she has to answer to the execs at MSNBC, doesn't she? The only surprise for me is how good Ana Marie Cox is at what she does - I knew she was better than her "ass-fucking" persona, but dang, she's a pretty savvy analyst, and finally has a good spot to show it off.
Posted by Twinky P* at June 4, 2009 09:45 AMNow, it's silliness like this joker above
Did you not notice eriposte's request to stop the name-calling and personal attacks?
Posted by myiq2xu at June 4, 2009 10:00 AMIn your discussion towards the end of the book you cite some Obama supporters mentioning the fact that the Obama campaign never really did any kind of outreach to their blogger-supporters.
eRiposte, Does this statement absolve "A" list bloggers who were accused of implicit support of Obama? Say for example, Kos?
Did the Clinton campaign do any kind "of outreach to their blogger-supporters"? And if you know, could you give us a couple of examples?
That's why it's nice to be a nobody in blogistan. You can say what you feel without having to worry about alienating your fan.....readership.
Thank you snark!
Because when you attempt to support comments about blog history, because you had once lurked at Corrente... you get called a no-list blogger and blogstalker.
Posted by Seven of Six at June 4, 2009 10:09 AMDoes this statement absolve "A" list bloggers who were accused of implicit support of Obama? Say for example, Kos?
Wasn't Kos himself involved in the "darkened video" smear?
Posted by myiq2xu at June 4, 2009 10:21 AMThank you for this post. Looking forward to what you have to say about the "blog war" of 2008.
Posted by gail at June 4, 2009 10:23 AMDid the Clinton campaign do any kind "of outreach to their blogger-supporters"?
I think there were conference calls and fundraising emails, I still get spam asking to pay off her debt. The one specific remark she made at the convention "get over it," was ignored, obviously. Isn't Penn working for the Republicans now?
you get called a no-list blogger and blogstalker
Yeah, I read some of the stuff there and at Effluence. They're championing Sarah Palin, saying her rep for stupidity is manufactured by misogynist obots. Yet, I saw another thread on Corrente where Michele Obama was ripped apart for her clothes and "fat ass." Like I said above, everyone is a hypocrite, and I include myself, especially on the blogs. No one is real except for the people trying to make a living at it, all of us are our id selves.
Posted by Twinky P* at June 4, 2009 10:28 AMYeah, I read some of the stuff there and at Effluence.
Off topic and insulting.
Posted by myiq2xu at June 4, 2009 10:41 AMIsn't Penn working for the Republicans now?
He's the ultimate prostitute... he works for anybody that pays. I think he recently hired a bu$h operative for (one of) his lobby firms.
Single worst decision Hillary ever made was hiring Mark Penn.
That, and not concentrating on the caucuses and thinking she had it in the bag after super-Tuesday.
Wasn't Kos himself involved in the "darkened video" smear?
Was the question addressed to you genuis?
Posted by Seven of Six at June 4, 2009 10:48 AMBoehlert effectively confirmed what I suspected, which was that the book was rushed out.
eriposte, did he say why the book was rushed out?
Posted by Twinky P* at June 4, 2009 10:49 AMThey're championing Sarah Palin
There is a big difference between "championing someone" and defending her from misogynist attacks.
A big part of last year's blog wars was people abandoning principles in favor of tribalism. The sexist attacks on Hillary Clinton and her supporters didn't come from the wingnuts, they came from allegedly progressive Democrats. The same sexism and misogyny used against Hillary was later directed at Palin.
Posted by myiq2xu at June 4, 2009 10:52 AMHe's the ultimate prostitute... he works for anybody that pays. I think he recently hired a bu$h operative for (one of) his lobby firms.
There was a consultant on Daily Show a while back who said that they're all pretty much 'hos - there are very few true believers any more. It doesn't make for a dedicated manager, IMO, as Penn clearly demonstrated.
Posted by Twinky P* at June 4, 2009 10:53 AMWas the question addressed to you genuis?
Once again it is quickly evident where the blame for last year's blog war lies.
Posted by myiq2xu at June 4, 2009 10:56 AMThe same sexism and misogyny used against Hillary was later directed at Palin.
And now at Michele Obama, and other targets, like the NC beauty queen, f'rinstance. A lot of it coming from people who were supposedly appalled by what happened in the primary. Like I said, everyone's a hypocrite for their own tribe.
Posted by Twinky P* at June 4, 2009 10:57 AMLike I said, everyone's a hypocrite for their own tribe.
Does that make it okay?
Posted by myiq2xu at June 4, 2009 11:03 AMDick Cheney's daughter (the strait one) certainly has made a meteoric rise on the Talking Heads circuit, hasn't she? MSNBC just had her on to provide a point by point rebuttal to Obama's Egypt speech. I wonder why the networks haven't hired Cheney's other daughter to do Obama hatchet jobs also?
Posted by T2 at June 4, 2009 11:23 AMDoes that make it okay?
I guess it depends on whether you can admit it to yourself or not, sweetie, and whether it really matters anymore.
eriposte, have you seen this post by Jane Hamsher? It only tangentially talks about the primary, but it does have a bearing on the future of blogs and progressive activism:
What happened instead was that progressives divided into camps and started projecting progressive opinions onto candidates who had never expressed them, and fought relentlessly to establish a huge gulf between two candidates whose political records were largely indistinguishable. The progressive movement became subverted into a cult of personality on both sides from which it has yet to emerge, sucked in by a media complex that really doesn't know how to cover an election or interpret politics in any other way.
I wonder what Boehlert has to say about Jane's assertion here:
But Obama does bear some responsibility for the current state of affairs. The administration has consistently moved to distance itself from progressive leadership, refusing to even meet with the Progressive Caucus until recently. They have also consciously corralled progressive organizations and sought to strictly controlled their messaging. Media Matters and the Center for American Progress may have been important voices in the progressive movement at one time, but they're little more than arms of the White House now, playing a zero sum game with Republicans who really don't matter. When Democrats control both Congress and the White House, nobody needs the GOP's help to pass legislation.
Seems a pretty clear accusation of collusion, don't you think? Dems herding cats is right!
Posted by Twinky P* at June 4, 2009 11:24 AMI guess it depends on whether you can admit it to yourself or not, sweetie, and whether it really matters anymore.
So we need not adhere to principles as long as we admit to ourselves that we are being hypocrites? If we have failed to live up to our principles in the past are they now meaningless? If others fail to live up to their own principles are we free to abandon our own?
If it doesn't matter then why are we discussing it?
Posted by myiq2xu at June 4, 2009 11:36 AMOnce again it is quickly evident where the blame for last year's blog war lies.
For blog history's sake... You PUMA folks are hilarious... at first, I was just a "no-list blogger/blogstalker" and commentor at TLC.
Now you want to blame me "for last year's blog war"?
Please, you give me way too much credit.
You genuis, on the other hand are clearly an "A" list blogger who helped start a hugely supportive movement, with a base of at least a few hundred strong. Now, who has more to do with keeping the flames burning?
Sorry eRiposte, I'm trying to keep this down.
Now, who has more to do with keeping the flames burning?
Did you not notice eriposte's request to stop the name-calling and personal attacks?
You're the one throwing flames here.
Posted by myiq2xu at June 4, 2009 11:52 AMIt's not too late for Boehlert to supply his footnotes. He could put them up on a website.
Posted by gmanedit at June 4, 2009 12:02 PMBTW - Let's not forget that I got involved in the discussion on the previous thread only because you brought my name into it.
Posted by myiq2xu at June 4, 2009 12:03 PMWell, at least threads like this give a good example of why, no matter what any politician does, it's almost impossible in a country of 300+ million people to keep much more than half of those people supporting them on any given issue. Let alone across a broad spectrum of policy.
Posted by snark at June 4, 2009 12:12 PMBTW - Let's not forget that I got involved in the discussion on the previous thread only because you brought my name into it.
And yet here you are playing hall monitor, having jumped on the post as soon as it was up. It's never your fault, is it.
But snark is right, this is dumb and now boring. Luckily, Sadly No has a buncha new posts. Buh-bye!
Posted by Twinky P* at June 4, 2009 12:14 PMLet alone across a broad spectrum of policy
The irony is we're all pretty much in agreement on policy.
Posted by myiq2xu at June 4, 2009 12:15 PMThe irony is we're all pretty much in agreement on policy.
Yup. It's just that big personalities have a way of gumming up the works.
Posted by snark at June 4, 2009 12:32 PMBTW - Let's not forget that I got involved in the discussion on the previous thread only because you brought my name into it.
Yes genuis, I brought your name in it for blog history's sake... your name is both revered and reviled.
Like I said before, be proud of your notoriety.
That's the sad part of you PUMA folks... you can only try and place blame... instead of gracing yourselves with diginity. Makes your movement all the more inelegant.
And Twinky that was one of genuis's goals... to take over TLC... how did they put it in "the effluent" comment section, "One blog at a time, if need be."
13 comments so far by myiq2xu and his PUMA crew hasn't even showed up yet.
It's just that big personalities have a way of gumming up the works.
So do trolls
Posted by myiq2xu at June 4, 2009 12:57 PMSo do trolls
Takes one to know one. Meatprod, care to tell everyone how many blogs you've been banned from, including pro-Hillary ones?
Posted by I Like Pistachios! at June 4, 2009 01:00 PMcare to tell everyone how many blogs you've been banned from
I'm willing to bet it's less than you have.
BTW - Did you not notice eriposte's request to stop the name-calling and personal attacks?
Posted by myiq2xu at June 4, 2009 01:21 PMIt's not too late for Boehlert to supply his footnotes. He could put them up on a website.
Posted by gmanedit at June 4, 2009 12:02 PM
Good idea. He could do it with the outtakes, too. He said in the first part of the interview that he cut 35,000 words. That is around 80 pages or so. Some of those trims must be pretty meaty.
The GOP isn't the only one who choses to use opinions over fact. When I asked how Obama's health care plan got us to a single payer system during the primaries I was told it did not matter because anything offered up by the President was liable to be changed. On the front page of Kos we were told they were all the same despite clear and obvious differences in both domestic and foreign policy(and for the record I favored Obama over Clinton on foreign policy)that many of us wanted a substantial discussion on. When many of us asked why Obama would make the statement Reagan was transformational we were basically given the excuse that it all was political juditsu. The same thing with when he chose to give McClurkin the pulpit to call gay an affliction. The ones who didn't surrender and insist opinion be substantiated by fact were often attacked or got tired of arguing with brick walls who insisted that their opinions were facts.
I can remember on various occasions on DK back when Edwards was still in the primary how one day you'd have a post saying Clinton and Edwards were conspiring, the next you'd have one stating the opposite. There was absolutely no fact checking required to post a diary. You post a slur a day if you wished, it didn't matter if they were fact based or not.
The GOP isn't the only one who choses to use opinions over fact.
Yet, you still voted for McCain?
So, basically, the A-listers who stayed quiet on certain issues for fear of the Obamanaut attacks, became a VILLAGE of their own, quivering before their attackers, to keep their $$$$$ and get gigs on MSNBC.
How does that make them any different than the whores in the MSM?
No WONDER the number of Independents is rising, as both the Repubs AND the Dems are losing membership.
I have better things to do than watch a million-dollar TV pundit who's a Rhodes Scholar literally GIGGLE about "tea-bagging."
I already raised an adolescent. YUK.
Posted by Mary at June 4, 2009 03:22 PMYes, I still voted McCain
If I was going to be stuck with someone who obviously feels gay is an affliction(a la McClurkin), was against a single payer system to the point he smeared a national health care plan (with Harry and Louise ads)and thinks Reagan is transformational(his words, not mine)- I felt I might as well go with the real Republican.
I felt I might as well go with the real Republican.
That was my theory - elect a real Republican now and we had a shot at electing a liberal Democrat in 2012.
Now it will be 2016 or 2020 before we get another chance.
Posted by myiq2xu at June 4, 2009 03:34 PMInteresting thread Eri. Nice to see the lack of purity here, a lot of gray areas. Compromises being made by all to get elected....
Nice discussion Twinky and Seven.
Posted by peter at June 4, 2009 03:42 PMIts one thing to let readers dictate the leanings of a blog. Its another for a blog to perpetuate lies and innuendo. Many took a stand and it was "anything goes" to say we won, period. Thats alot of dis-information spread far and wide. Something I would have expected from the Corporate media, another from bloggers. I think many blogs consider themselves to be a part of that corporate media now (Kos). its very sad. What could have been a great thing has become what they were fighting against. I heard plenty of GOP talking points spewed by so-called Progressive sites in the last political cycle.
Posted by Glennmcgahee at June 4, 2009 05:44 PMWell said, Glenn. They became what they previously purported to despise: media whores, and spouted GOP talking points to win.
Who could possibly respect unprincipled crap like that?
The irony of it all , is that Obama USED them, and now ignores them, and they don't even get it. Just read Seven's posts; he's still playing the same childish game.
Hoist on their own arrogant petards, and too stupid to know it.
Sheesh
Posted by Mary at June 4, 2009 06:08 PMSoS,
Regarding your question:
eRiposte, Does this statement absolve "A" list bloggers who were accused of implicit support of Obama? Say for example, Kos?Did the Clinton campaign do any kind "of outreach to their blogger-supporters"? And if you know, could you give us a couple of examples?
It is not that the Obama campaign did zero outreach - it's just that many Obama supporters felt that the outreach was very limited. If I recall correctly, the campaign got a bit into panic mode after McCain picked Palin - and did some outreach - but once Wall Street collapsed and McCain's numbers collapsed with that, they went back to their primary mode. I wrote a bit during the primary about the different approaches to the "netroots" - the Clinton campaign was better.
Just so you know, I have never accused any Obama blogger of colluding with the Obama campaign. Whether or not that was true is of less interest to me than whether or not what they wrote on their blogs was fair and accurate.
Posted by eriposte at June 4, 2009 06:48 PMI'm not sure Obama won't continue to be able to USE them(and by Obama I actually mean the DNC leadership not just Obama) because at the end of the day they have said that they will continue to vote Democrat. As long as they are a sure thing what incentive is there for the leadership to do anything differently? They have the progressives between a rock and a hard place because the progressives have all their eggs in the Democratic basket.
My biggest problem this cycle is the primary became a cult of personality. Anytime some of us wanted a discussion on issues, we were told they were all the same. Anytime anyone brought up valid concerns and attempted to have a discussion on Obama, they were shouted down(and I don't mean politely in most cases). Anyone who supported someone other than him was either uneducated or racist or both. People didn't let a little thing like facts get into the way when making the accusations either.
SoS,
Regarding your comment:
Single worst decision Hillary ever made was hiring Mark Penn.
That, and not concentrating on the caucuses and thinking she had it in the bag after super-Tuesday.
You are absolutely right about the second point. On the first one, you are right in part. I think Penn was vilified by many people for a number of things but not all of it was his fault. There were others who screwed up too. Hillary realized the mess in late Jan/early Feb and revamped her campaign - so she did learn and react but the mistakes were costly given that the media was waiting to tear her apart every passing day.
Posted by eriposte at June 4, 2009 06:52 PMTwinky P,
Jane's post deserves a more thorough response, so I don't want to sound-bite my response. I'll try to comment on it later.
Posted by eriposte at June 4, 2009 06:54 PMSoS,
I do want to make a point that it is not fair to stereotype all PUMAs as having been the same. I know some who absolutely did not vote for McCain or get into the gutter by passing on unsubstantiated right-wing attacks on him. They were extremely upset and didn't want to be told that they had to vote for Obama. I wouldn't club them all together as if they were one group. Part of the issue is that the people who originated PUMA completely lost control over the "label" as it got taken over by random people who responded to the months of Hillary hate with their own Obama hate.
Personally, I don't care at this point who was in what bracket. I'm open to listening from everyone, including those whom I criticize, as to how we can prevent the 2008 mess in the future.
Posted by eriposte at June 4, 2009 07:00 PMFor the record, I don't hate Obama.
I disliked the tactic he and his supporters used(which cemented my distrust of him) and I disagreed with his positions on domestic policy such as health care and his stimulus policies(I felt the first wave of stimulus should have been on infrastructure.)
In order to hate a person, I'd have know them. Otherwise I'll just have to stick with hating their actions.
Posted by cwaltz at June 4, 2009 07:46 PM
As always eRiposte, thank you for the detailed response. And please, accept my apology for past indiscretions and criticism of your blogging, especially during the primary last year. My regret.
While frustrated with current pace of progress from the Obama Administration he is a hell of a lot better than McCain would have been. Who would have been at the State Dept., Interior, NSA, CIA, EPA, Labor, Justice and replacement for SCOTUS? And while I'm unhappy with Geithner at Treasury, I cannot see Phil Gramm there (or any other repuke)... he would have stolen what was left of America and left us high and dry.
I have tried to find common ground with the PUMA folks on the "Part 1" thread... I understand their position, it's the blame game that gets old. But really who could vote for McCain as Commander in Chief? That's just plain nuts! How could everyone forget what got us to this point? I mean really, could we have possibly survived another 4 years under repuke control?
I'm hoping Obama can seat all his Cabinet positions that need approval by the Senate. And we need to remove all the bu$h/cheney burrowers. America cannot have corrupt saboteurs dismantling a duly elected Administration just because they are unhappy with the outcome of an election.
Obama might not be the minority that everyone wanted, he's better than another rich, neo-conservative, white, christian male.
A little progress in America is better than none.
A little progress in America is better than none.
You have a funny way of defining progress.
I'll admit Obama isn't as bad as I thought he would be. He's a lot worse.
The only promise Obama has kept so far was to take Michelle (and the press entourage) out for dinner and a Broadway show. The rest he has broken or ignored.
Posted by myiq2xu at June 5, 2009 12:48 AMMcCain promised to appoint Democrats in his cabinet.
I believed him.
What I feel his cabinet might have looked like is just as plausable as what you believe his cabinet would look since we are dealing with conjecture.
In reality world(the alternate universe we get to live in since McCain and Clinton didn't win), Obama just appointed a female Catholic anti choicer(Alexia Kelley) into his administration(I can't wait to see NOW and their crew crucify her like they did Palin and him for appointing her..........I won't hold my breath waiting for it though because I know hypocrisy is alive and well). Obama has expanded the Faith based office so that they will have a say on policy(I just can't wait until we have our own equivalent of the Taliban, can you? )
I also hear he changed his mind on taxing employee health benefits like McCain suggested he would do and was demonized for during the GE. Although on a bright note I hear they are considering a public plan(and in the end what we have will resemble Clinton's plan)
His Secretary of the Army is a Republican as is Gates, who continues to run defense as he did under Bush.
Obama's Justice Dept. is still arguing state secrets just like Bush's did.
Guantanamo is still open(like under Bush) and will not likely close in 2010 since Congress won't fund it's closing until Obama can submit a plan(go figure, all of a sudden they are all plan happy. They certainly weren't when they were handing billions over to banks)saying what he will do with the detainees.
Just the other day I read that the brilliant folk who were supposed to be using the money on "shovel ready" projects evidently didn't feel those projects should include the projects already in the works and the Highway fund is scheduled to go bust in August(I guess it was more important to funnel the money to ACORN)unless we add 5 to 7 billion to cover its projects already in the works.
Heh, I guess it's all in how you define progress.
Posted by cwaltz at June 5, 2009 01:41 AMSo much for my tepid hopes on healthcare. As usual, the devil is in the details. Getting the plan would require cuts in Medicaid and Medicare and the poor would get waivers so they could opt out of mandated coverage(I guess its too much to ask that we subsidize their care).
Sigh.
Posted by cwaltz at June 5, 2009 03:14 AMI disagree with the notion that the caucuses sank Hillary. Obama won those caucuses in part because the bastions of Democrats in the caucus states were colleges and university towns. He already had that demographic sown up. Then there was the problem of the caucuses themselves, which were crazy free-for-alls that encouraged unethical behavior on the part of the unscrupulous.
No, Hillary's problem was Florida and Michigan, two states that *had* to count before it was all over but whose delegates for her were deliberately withheld from her win column, creating the perception that she was behind all season when she wasn't.
In the end, Obama "won" the primaries by a measly 17 committed delegates, all of them ill-gotten gains from Michigan.
Those of us who were disenfranchised, sometimes by our own governors (mine is Corzine) know the real score. The attempts to rewrite history and spin it as a victory by caucus won't wash with us. We will never forget. What kind of party is it that would allow a handful of sparsely populated states overrule their bigger, more party loyal states? What kind of party allows for votes of two crucial states to be jiggered so that the predetermined "winner" is allowed to override the will of the electorate?
These are the questions that need to be asked before the next primaries. The worms that lurk in the mud need to hatch out. Because over our protests, the Obama contingent had its way. But what kind of Democrat has Obama turned out to be? It was all very predictable. But when you're heart's on fire, smoke gets in your eyes.
Thanks for the series eRi....interesting stuff and I think you know I share(d) many of the same concerns. I absolutely became disgusted with that time frame and was so disillusioned because I always thought the left was so much more objective and better and wouldn't let something like self censorship infect it.
I have another question as I haven't read the book...was there ever any thought or fact supporting the idea that there were paid operatives from either side working the blogs in the threads or comments or diaries.....I've always suspected that there was (and even still may exist). Now I have nothing factual to back up my suspicion but I do think that the blogs were "played" by the campaigns in this manner...and yes I feel that Obama's campaign was more successful at it than the others.
Can't wait for the next installment.
Posted by emal at June 5, 2009 05:53 AMWhat kind of party is it that would allow a handful of sparsely populated states overrule their bigger, more party loyal states?
It's this kind of argument that makes the PUMAs look so silly. Save for the special cases of Florida and Michigan, all of the candidates knew exactly how delegates were to be apportioned long before the primaries began. The candidates developed electoral strategies based on that common understanding of the rules of the contest. There was no guarantee that those strategies would work (i.e., Obama did not have college and university towns "sown up" at the beginning, he had to work to win and maintain his popularity with those voters). Obama's strategy worked, and once it became clear that he was likely to get the nomination, the PUMA cries of "undemocratic caucuses" started. Did any of the people who went on to become PUMAs complain about caucuses before the primaries began?
By the way, one of the factors used to allocate delegates is "the proportion of votes each state gave to the Democratic candidate in the last three presidential elections", so "party loyal states" are better represented at the convention than other states.
Posted by dmd76 at June 5, 2009 12:30 PMIn revision world Obama clinched the nomination early. The truth is though the SD votes don't and shouldn't count until convention. Why? They are allowed to switch(and some did during the course of the primary). In truth what separated Obama and Clinton was a handful of votes. In other words, Michigan and Florida and how they were dealt with counted.
In Michigan she won 65% of the vote. He wasn't on the ballot at all. He made a political calculation and so did she. She paid the consequences in Iowa. Obama not only didn't have to pay the consequences, they overturned the will of 15% of the electorate in Michigan.
I'm sorry as long as we have people fighting and dying in the name of democracy, I'd prefer we not play banana republic. If that makes me or my argument(I agree with riverdaughter) ridiculous in anyones eyes so be it. Actions and behaviors matter.
Then to add insult to injury because the counts were so close they didn't even allow her a roll call vote. The first female presidential candidate and they didn't give her the courtesy they extended every male before her. They went ahead and pretended that entire electorates that voted for her actually voted for him. It was thoroughly disgusting and an insult to anyone who ever wore a uniform and defended democracy(and yes I am a veteran).
Thanks for not addressing anything I said in my comment, cwaltz.
It is astounding to me that people think the party nomination process has anything to do with democracy. Just because voting is taking place doesn't mean it has any relation to the democratic rights we have as citizens. Shareholders elect boards of directors, unions elect leaders, school children elect class officers, and political parties elect candidates, yet none of these have anything to do with a democratic form of government. The Libertarian Party, for example, held a convention in 2008 and just 626 people voted in the contest that made Bob Barr their presidential nominee. Where is all of the PUMA gnashing of teeth at this affront to democracy?
Posted by dmd76 at June 5, 2009 01:41 PMSoS,
Regarding your comment:
And please, accept my apology for past indiscretions and criticism of your blogging, especially during the primary last year. My regret.I am not sure any apology is needed. You were, as far as I can recall, fairly civil with your criticisms and didn't get into personal attacks unlike some other commenters.
As for Obama, as you know, I didn't have very high expectations of him (in terms of significant progressive changes) - so I'm not as disappointed as some others are. Based on my analysis of his positions during the primary, I'm not particularly surprised by the decisions he has made - which is not to say I agree with some of those decisions, which I don't.
My philosophy on politics is that we get who we get and we've got to try to make the best of it.
Posted by eriposte at June 5, 2009 06:02 PMMyiq2xu,
If you want people to think you are credible, then claiming that "The only promise Obama has kept so far was to take Michelle (and the press entourage) out for dinner and a Broadway show. The rest he has broken or ignored." is not a good way to boost your credibility. He has broken many promises but he also kept several promises - substantive ones.
If you are upset that people seem to dismiss you and others who believe what you do, then pay attention to the accuracy of your claims and be fair and thoughtful about your criticisms of Obama or anyone else.
Posted by eriposte at June 5, 2009 06:06 PMRiverdaughter,
The caucuses were a big reason for Hillary's neck-to-neck race with Obama on committed delegates. I was one of the people who openly criticized the Dem party rules and the disenfranchisement of FL and MI - and I still think that was a terrible thing to do - but everyone agreed to the "rules" up front, regardless of the fact that the "rules" stank to high heaven. HRC's campaign knew the "rules" and failed to account in advance for her disadvantages in caucus states. That is not Obama's fault or the Democratic party's fault. It was her fault.
Yes, we need to reform the whole system and I made it clear that my preference is to get rid of caucuses because they lead to more disenfranchisement- with ridiculously low participation compared to primaries. However, in 2008, the "rules" were what they were. I don't blame Obama for using the rules to his advantage.
Posted by eriposte at June 5, 2009 06:13 PMEmal,
regarding your question:
[W]as there ever any thought or fact supporting the idea that there were paid operatives from either side working the blogs in the threads or comments or diariesI have heard this mentioned, especially wrt the Obama camp. I have not looked into it and have no evidence to substantiate whether or not it happened. Posted by eriposte at June 5, 2009 06:16 PM