Yup.
Posted by vastleft at June 6, 2009 08:48 AMeRiposte writes:
... Nowhere near being able to drive a truly progressive agenda in some key areas ...
If the key areas are considered to be health care, the credit crisis, Af-Pak, the restoration of Constitutional government, and global warming, do you see the progressive blogosphere, as a whole, driving the agenda there? Shorter: "Some"? Don't you mean "all"?
Posted by lambert strether at June 6, 2009 09:21 AMObama denied being a liberal. He praised Ronald Reagan and used rightwing frames. He eschewed taking strong stands on anything, and had very little record to back up his rhetoric.
When he flip-flopped on issues like FISA his supporters barely blinked. That was just one in a series of reversals and broken promises. What leverage does the progressive blogosphere have left?
None.
Unless there is some major development (like another war or natural disaster) Obama's reelection will hinge on the state of the economy and the quality of his opponent. He will almost certainly be the Democratic nominee and will likely face no opposition in the primaries.
The blogosphere had its chance. They blew it.
Posted by myiq2xu at June 6, 2009 09:31 AMExcellent post and assessment! Hope Jane stops by to read it.
Posted by Dakinikat at June 6, 2009 09:43 AMLambert,
Regarding "some" versus "many", I have to leave this to each reader to judge based on the issues that matter to them because that is how everyone should be evaluating and pushing their leaders.
To me personally, the most immediate issues where I would like to see Obama pushed more to the left are the following: healthcare, the handling of Wall Street and the toxic securities, the budget (cut defense spending and make it more progressive), national security & restoration of the Constitution & Bill of Rights and judicial nominations.
Posted by eriposte at June 6, 2009 10:31 AMThere is much here I agree with, but I have a key disagreement-that Hillary and Obama were basically, policy-wise, the same. Hillary may not be inherently more liberal than Obama (who isn't a liberal at all) but she recognized the rising liberal tide in the nation and chose to ride it; Obama, if he recognized it at all, chose to subvert it. And the progressive activists of the blogs by and large helped in that subversion. Whether Hillary would have governed more liberally than Obama is, I agree, unknowable and irrelevant. That she campaigned well to his left isn't.
I don't think any analysis of where we are and how we got here can get around this: the supposed liberal activists backed the least liberal (apart from Biden, and look where he is) candidate on offer. If we don't face that and try and understand how and why that happened (I suspect in large part a trap set by decades of equating "minority" with "liberal" but it is a complex question and I doubt there is a single answer) we aren't going to prevent it happening again.
Posted by tdraicer at June 6, 2009 10:35 AM>>Where are the blogswarms and where is the activism to push Obama more to the left on his Supreme Court nomination?
They were told to sit down and shut up.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090512/pl_politico/22441
And they did.
Great leadership, as you said. Apparently Mike Lux is the person empowered to tell us when we can and when we cannot push the administration.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
Here's the link on the Lux reference.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
Great comments tdracier.
There was a record and history from which to judge both candidates, (or in Obama's case, a non-record and an autobiography) and yet very different narratives were created.
Where did these narratives come from?
Every time I try to understand why people see Obama as the great liberal savior I come to the same conclusion that you consider - "minority" = "liberal". I don't think that's a big surprise.
The shock was what drove the narrative about HIllary. Liberals were willing to embrace the right's talking points about her and go even further. Smart, strong female = power hungry, evil b*tch. And since she was running against a minority, add in "racist". A narrative driven by misogyny. How else can it be described?
The dynamic was 2 sided. I don't know if the outrageous hatred towards Hillary would've been as great if she were running against a white male. It still would've been there but not as loud. They were able to make Hillary look even MORE like a heartless, hateful conservative by saying she was against the minority candidate.
Obama used the rightwing narrative about Hillary - remember his arguments about how 'divisive' and 'secretive' Hillary was? And how she brought some of that right wing attack upon herself? The list is long. Obama and the left's embrace of the right's misogyny towards HIllary is what devastated so many of us.
Is was shocking and unforgettable.
Posted by sarahfdavis at June 6, 2009 11:21 AMThe person who wrote this must have participated in a different primary then I did. The candidates had different stances on foreign and domestic policy. Clinton wanted a universal health care system and said that she would pursue mandated coverage after a specific time period. Obama wanted to focus on cost controls. During the first stimulus Clinton wanted money spent on infrastructure, Obama wanted everyone to get a check(who could forget Goolsbee on TV ridiculing Clinton for saying that the money should be utilized to bulk up programs like the one that provided help for seniors with their gas and electric). Clinton was a bit more hawkish regarding foreign policy. She didn't appear keen on non conditional talks with folks we didn't have normalized relationships with(her foreign policy seemed more traditional.) Obama appeared more open and more likely to dialogue with those we did not agree with.
He had a record. Granted it was a state record but it was a record. He abstained voting when it came to choice. He flipped on gun control(which by the way is in no way saying I believe it is unnecessarily bad that someone change their position). He put his name on legislation that others wrote because someone wanted to "create them a US Senator." These were all things I looked at and considered.
I did my homework. The person who wrote this shouldn't project. When I was for Edwards I had no problem criticizing his support for the Bankruptcy bill or his support for the Iraq war. When I supported Hillary Clinton I had no problem criticizing her position that the Iranian guard be considered terrorist. I recognized the people. There was no cult of personality for me. It waqs about finding the candidate I felt would bring us closest to where I wanted to see us go in the primary. In the general it was the candidate I felt would be better for my ideals long term. I thought and continue to think that Obama's commitment to liberal policies was/is weak at best. If I wasn't going to get a candidate with a commitment to policy postions that are liberal I preferred the idea of allowing the GOP to get stuck holding the bag when things went south.
I don't know strategically where the progressive blogoshere has to go. Last I heard your default vote was always going to be for the Democrat. It doesn't leave you with very many choices when you are essentially putting all your eggs in one proverbial basket(even though that basket has holes in it). In all likelihood, you should focus on Congress where you, at least, can threaten to primary. I'd say work on public financing so that the people you choose had a chance against an incumbent rolling in money from special interests but I wouldn't hold my breath since I saw the hypocrisy first hand on public financing last year during the primary. As far as influencing Obama. I'd say you blew it. He knows that he has you no matter what. You have no place else to go.
Cwaltz,
If you are referring to me, I did a thorough analysis of their voting records and policy positions. The point I made is that their records overall were largely similar when you compare them to the Republicans but I did point out back then that HRC was more progressive in certain areas like healthcare and social security and Obama was more progressive in other areas. My point is that in comparison to the Republicans, their positions were close to each other.
The point of this post, though, is not Clinton or Obama. This post is focused on the blogosphere and "netroots". So, I didn't want to get into gory details about the nuances of the differences in the candidates' policy positions.
Posted by eriposte at June 6, 2009 12:00 PMThanks eR.
I have to say after finishing Eric's book, I am even less sanguine that we have an effective progressive movement that can fight the moneyed and vested interests. The discussion around health care is a huge sign of this. The inability to truly change the default discussion about the Bush torture state (which is not being dismantled fast enough or denounced effectively enough). The fact that the financial masters of the universe still own our government. I think you are right that the civil war was a leading indicator of the problem, because it was easy to see that much of the reality based community still didn't have a very good handle on reality.
I still think a lot of the problem came from cognitive dissonance - but by not realizing that or figuring out how to overcome our own blinders, we seem to be condemned to be blindsided and side-stepped by those who exploit that trait.
Posted by Mary at June 6, 2009 12:57 PMWell again, I don't think you can analyze what went wrong unless you face the fact that the progressive blogosphere not only embraced, but did so in a cult-like manner, a very not-progressive candidate. You can't leave the Obamamania out of the equation, because that is the root of the problem.
(Unless you believe that all these activists would still be silent if Hillary was President and behaved as Obama is behaving. Which I, for one, don't buy for a second.)
Posted by tdraicer at June 6, 2009 01:01 PMGreat job Eri.
Sotomayor does seem more conservative than she could have been. I know I quite happy with the nomination. I want her confirmed before she gets yanked ala Miers. I'm so glad that Sen. Cornyn has had some good leadership from our side.
Look at his new appointment of Alexia Kelley to a senior Health and Human Services "faith-based" position. Nice appointment for me.
Remember the stress test for banks? They were set for much lower unemployment rates.
Posted by peter at June 6, 2009 01:02 PMThe "they are all the same push" even occured during the primaries(at least a Dkos). In my opinion, to the detriment of conversation on how their positions would effect policy later on down the line(which is why you now have a candidate that isn't really progressive).
By the time we got to the general, the lynch mobs had decided that anyone who wasn't on the Obama bus was to be torn apart. Conversation broke down further. There was absolutely no attempt to understand the concerns of Clinton supporters or allay them. On the contrary, we were told how brilliant Obama was for concentrating on the GE during the primary, how it was all part of the grand plan to beat the GOP. Anyone who found that difficult to swallow was termed a Republican mole or r@tf*cker. It was incomprehensible that some of us might prefer to have a Republican clean up the mess their party created instead of having a Democrat that wouldn't give us a liberal health care policy or that might decide to pull apart social security. There was no respect and certainly no dialogue on strategy once the office was achieved. We were all somehow covert Republicans.
The irony at this point is the progressive blogosphere did exactly like Bush did with Iraq. They didn't plan what to do once they achieved their military(and it was quite militant) victory. There was little to no discussion on how their behaviors might impact down the line. There wasn't any discussion on how that might effect their ability to impact the issues, rather than just achieve the objective of electing a persona. They were very myopic. Unfortunately it was to the detriment of alot of their causes. There are many folk out there that aren't likely to be anxious to join hands and sing kumbaya with people that labeled them bitter, uneducated or Republican "r@tf*cker" now that he's elected. They don't trust you. Why would they? They don't respect you. Again why would they? If your viewpoint was consistently mischarecterized, misrepresented and treated with scorn would you be anxious to respect or trust the people who treated you in that manner? The primary was very eye opening for me. Prior to this cycle I had thought name calling was something I could expect from someone like Hannity or Rush. It never in a million years occurred to me that it could come from my own side of the aisle. I have found I am truly an individual without a political home. I can't trust the Democrats and I disagree with the Republicans. The best someone like me can do is focus on the issues and continue to adhere to principles I think are important. It will always be in the back of my mind though that many of the people I thought I liked and shared values with turned on people like rabid dogs simply because their viewpoint didn't conform to popular opinion.
Posted by at June 6, 2009 01:12 PM>I'm so glad that Sen. Cornyn has had some good leadership from our side.
Based admittedly just on that post, I'd like to opt out of that "our." Thanks!
Peter,
I am guessing that Cornyn's hire of Orin Kerr is a good sign that the Republicans realize that Sotomayer is fairly palatable compared to Souter - which you seem to agree with.
I like Sotomayor but unlike you, I would have preferred a more progressive nominee. I guess it is what it is, right? :-)
Posted by eriposte at June 6, 2009 01:49 PMThere could be way worse choices then Sotomayer. I suspect I will disagree with her on matters of choice based on her statement that the government has a right to take the anti choice position and use tax dollars to support it. That being said, I do agree with her position that different experiences bring different perspectives to the table. Her personal narrative is compelling and it should be interesting to how her personal narrative affects the SC and her interpretation of law.
Posted by cwaltz at June 6, 2009 01:57 PMFrankly---and it surprises me---I agree with Obama on the "progressive pundits" (although he was mostly talking about MSNBC)
They're much like WWF Wrestling, and no one really learns anything by listening to or reading them. Including Jane.
The competition to "get to the top" of their own Village, gain well-paid spots on Matthews or Olbermann or Maddow through goofy , tacky giggling attacks about "tea-baggers" completely blew their credibility.
WWF Wrestling. Bottom of the barrel. Credibility blown by adhering to their own Village methods of using Republican ratf*cker talking points to win, at any cost. (Yes, that's about Markos et al).
Notice that Jane mostly says none of that was Obama's fault. She might as well bat her eyelashes like a teenager.
They didn't support a true progressive, and now have no influence at all in influencing for change.
They did it to themselves.
Posted by Mary at June 6, 2009 03:51 PMHey thanks, eriposte, for telling me once again that I got suckered by a cult of personality when I voted for Obama in my state's primary. You hadn't mentioned this for a few weeks and I was starting to become complacent. Now I am properly chastened again and I promise, promise, promise to get back and see the therapist who was helping to deprogram me.
I think I know what you need, eriposte. It's the time travel gizmo from one of the Harry Potter books. Every time you flip the little hourglass over, you go back in time one hour. So, you just need to flip the thing about 15 thousand times to get back to early 2008, at which point you can rush to find Senator Clinton and advise her how to change her campaign to defeat Barack Obama.
By the way, your schtick about self-censorship is ridiculous. What? Are you selling a product and tailoring your message to attract the maxibmum number of customers? Of course not. A blog is instead simply a place for you to post whatever you want.
Finally, it sure is white of you to say that "none of this [abuse of Hillary Clinton by unnamed bloggers] was Obama's fault." Very white of you indeed, especially in the sense of that product called White Out, which some of us are old enough to have used with typescripts. TLC readers whose memories have not been erased will have no trouble remembering how commonly, how directly, and and how vociferously you blamed Barack Obama for all manner of abuse allegedly directed against Senator Clinton.
When exactly did you retain Winston Smith to edit your memories?
Posted by joel dan walls at June 6, 2009 03:52 PMApparently, joel dan walls has not followed the 3-part conversation in which Digby ADMITTED she self-censored, as did other A-listers who were interviewed for the book.
Joel proves your point, actually.
Uninformed drive-bys are his friend.
As such, he represents the problem.
Sigh.
Posted by Mary at June 6, 2009 03:56 PMJoel,
I generally don't respond to readers who don't actually bother to read my posts, but since you've been a reader for a while I'll make an exception.
This is post is not about Obama or Clinton per se - it is about the blogosphere. I said that earlier and am repeating it again so that you can, um, comprehend it. So, the fact that I criticized Obama for unfairly or falsely criticizing Clinton has nothing whatsoever to do with this post. The fact that a bunch of bloggers pretending to be "progressives" participated in a large scale character assassination of Clinton has nothing to do with whether Obama attacked Hillary or not - unless you are going to postulate that they did so under the orders of Obama - which is not what I am arguing.
If that is also not clear, let me dumb it down one more level.
a) The blogosphere is NOT equal to Obama.
b) Obama is NOT equal to the blogosphere.
c) This post is about the blogosphere.
Secondly, I did not accuse you of voting for Obama under a cult of personality. So, if you want to make s*** up do so somewhere else because my patience for this b***s*** is wearing thin. I was responding to a post by Jane Hamsher claiming that both sides exhibited a cult of personality and I wrote to correct that erroneous statement that it was largely one side and that too a subset of the one side (certain bloggers and "progressives") who, at best, fit that profile. I didn't include you in it.
Third, as Mary points out, before you comment, do me the courtesy of reading my posts.
Posted by eriposte at June 6, 2009 06:40 PMyeah Eri, it is what it is :-)
great to see you active again. and thanks for the admonition to be civil. we can have our disagreements and still be friendly.
I'm away from home this week, seeya around.
Posted by peter at June 6, 2009 08:13 PMClinton was to Obama's left in her domestic policy proposals, and to Obama's right on foreign affairs. I took the time to read both sets of proposals and it is unquestionable. People didn't want to hear it, not from me or from someone like Krugman, whom you'd think would have some credibility. In terms of actual vote records in Congress, they were very close, though Clinton was (again) slightly to the left.
As for the progressive blogosphere, it is weaker than it has been in some time. It peaked, imo, in 2005/6, and weakened from there. Obama proved that the prog blogs can be gotten around, that you can cut past the gatekeepers to the audience.
It was also, and this is important, and people don't want to face it, a triumph of identity politics and markers, over substance. People ran to the guy who looked and sounded liberal "he's black, and he's younger, so he must be liberal".
Posted by Ian Welsh at June 7, 2009 07:20 PMAnd Ian, I'd follow up by saying that Obama's & Clinton's foreign policy positions are pretty much indistinguishable - it was more a question of rhetoric than substance. Otherwise you wouldn't have her serving as his SOS.
Sigh. The whole thing is really depressing.
Posted by otherlisa at June 7, 2009 10:07 PMThe only real value in rehashing this sort of subject is to benefit from reflection. Eriposte was guilty of some of the most biased and blindly partisan posting histories during the primaries, and I detect *absolutely* no awareness on his part of how completely inappropriate his fanaticism about Clinton was. I can think of almost no one on either side of the primary debate who was more one-sided in their commentary.
And we still see the same "Obama only won because he was a black guy" nonsense in the comment threads, as if the discussion was frozen in amber. August Pollack (5/6/08) said it best, referring to a particularly deranged set of posts on TalkLeft and Corrente: "But if you really do believe this shit you're spewing, please try to find a few warblogs from 2003 or so and read how they sounded. It'll help you understand in 2009 why no one is forgiving you any time soon.".
Posted by Marc at June 8, 2009 04:52 PMWho wants forgiveness? Not me.
Posted by Ian Welsh at June 9, 2009 04:57 PM