I Never Asked for the Truth, But...

by Molly Ivors

A serious question: what the hell is up with Barack Obama?

I don't get the guy. Is he a Dem? Or is he prepping to run with Michael Bloomberg should this whole "Democrat" thing not pan out?

I realize Iowa is two days away, and people are getting edgy, but between his health plan, attacks on Social Security and unions, and now Al Gore and John Kerry, he sounds like nothing so much as a Republican.

We here at the Whiskey Fire Institute are quite sympathetic to the argument that politics as usual is not really, shall we say, working. The Dem majority in Congress wears on their collective forehead a bigger buckle than John Fucking Alden's hat. But the answer to this problem is to be proud and unapologetically progressive, not to attack your teammates and fuck over the people putatively on your side.

Let me state the obvious: Dude, the people you are trying to appeal to are never going to vote for you. Despite what David Broder says, there's not really some mushy middle waiting to be addressed by you. If acting more like Republicans were really the key to victories, then why is Harry Reid not King of the Fucking Universe?

I'll tell you why: because it's a bullshit argument. People know that we're in a heap of trouble in this country. The planet is melting and our jobs are evaporating and we're in a stupid fucking war breaking young men we aren't bothering to help fix. It sucks. And sucking up to and adopting the framing of the people who brought us global warming and rewarded outsourcing and lied us into war and smeared vets who dare to speak out is pretty fucking useless, and no way to actually address any of these problems.

So what the fuck is up?

PS. Give some kudos to our buddy Jon Swift for his NYTimes link. Well done!

Comments

[Bill]

In a time when even our dick of a prez puts down the dems I think repugs get off on the split/riff the dems are playing, when on the repug side its a who's dick is bigger in gods eyes bullshit. Let's get together folks....DO not let anyone make us loose our focus.

[actor212]

And people laughed when I endorsed Hillary over Barack, essentially saying that at least we know where she stands while he's just a total phony...

[Linda]

Well said, Molly! Obama has repeatedly used republican framing all through this campaign - with regards to social security, health care, and who is and is not a special interest. And now he's attacking AL GORE??? Is he fucking stupid???? What is it about "stolen election" that he doesn't get? Some of us are still pissed off about that election. And now this pipsqueak pretender wants to pretend that it was because half the country didn't want to vote for Gore? How Rovian of him to reinvent history to benefit his campaign.

[Tim]

Obama has never attacked anyone who hasn't attacked him first. What should he do? Let AFSCME spread lies about him without responding? His health plan is clearly superior to those of his opponents. They created this bs about it not covering everyone.

Obama is far more progressive than either Clinton oR Edwards. Unlike them, he has principals. He is consistent. He does not say what people want to hear - he says what he believes.

As for the comments about 2000 and 2004, they were only mentioned in one reporters blog. He never criticized either candidate and he is entirely right that both campaigns were horribly run.

And part of the problem was this cowardly approach of not running a 50 state campaign. There are far more democratic votes out there that never got tapped. Gore would have won in 2000 without Florida (which was stolen) if he had actually campiagned in his home state of Tennesee!

I worked hard on both those campaigns in spite of my reservations about how they were run. I support Obama because he is our best shot at not suffering another agonizing defeat.

[rageahol]

Tim: "principles"

also, count me in as one who is irritated as hell with obama's willful embrace of right wing narratives. (see also: "social security must be fixed!")

fuck him.

[SteveB]

He does not say what people want to hear - he says what he believes.

Honestly, Tim, how can you know this?

Go ahead and vote for Obama if you want to. But why the need for this child-like faith in a total stranger?

[myiq2xu]

Barack has been listening to Old Weird Harold Ford and is trying to run as a Republican-lite.

Uh, Barack? Did you notice how that worked out for Harold?

[SteveB]

Let's get together folks....DO not let anyone make us loose our focus.

Oh my God, it's so close - can you feel it? The Presidency - it's almost ours! No, wait... dammit - aargh! Lost it again!

Fuck.

[lambert strether]

It isn't just that Obama adopts right wing talking points and narratives. His voting record isn't that strong either. Take a look at this post about CAFA:

Obama's attacks on "trial lawyers" has substance behind it too! We are, along with unions, typically the biggest funders of non-DLC type Democratic candidates. And in the single most important issue for us to come up while he was in the Senate, he stabbed us in the back and voted with Trent Lott and Geroge Bush.

Specifically, Barack Obama voted for the Orwellian-named "Class Action Fairness Act" or "CAFA." This law gravely harmed small businesses and middle class consumers. Zero members of the Democratic coalition favored it Unions, civil rights and consumer groups, and public employees opposed it. CAFA, by contrast, was supported by Bush, Lott, McCain, Santorum, George Allen, Bill Frist, Joe Lieberman, Conrad Burns, Grover Norquist, Mel Martinez, the credit card industry, the oil companies, and the big insurance companies. Barack Obama took their side, not ours.

Opposing CAFA in the Senate was the core of the Democratic Caucus, including Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, Durban, Leahy, Boxer, Wyden, Harkin, Clinton, Biden, Sarbanes, Corzine, Stabenow, Dorgan, Murray, and Lautenberg.

Opposing CAFA from outside of the Senate were Bill Clinton and John Edwards. President Clinton vetoed similar legislation in 1995.

That's just not good.

Now, all this could be a clever plan to win Iowa by attracting low information independents and Republicans, since these talking points are familiar to them, get them into the caucuses, and have non-Democrats choose the Democratic Party's nominee. Fine. Politics ain't beanbag.

But I know all this crawfishing with right wing talking points (and the support he's gleaned from Kristol, Brooks, Sullivan, Brooks, and even George Will) is going to make any kind of progressive mandate in the general impossible.

And that's what progressives want, right?

So, running against your own base might be Obama's novel strategy, but I'm not sure it's going to end well.

[Nancy Willing]

Awesome rant Molly.
I feel purged of Obama's nonsense now, as it was starting to hurt my noggin. You blew that shit right out into space.

[Nancy Willing]

Good Catch SteveB.
I'm 'rescuing' your comment in the interest of greater distribution.

[Nancy Willing]

er, that would be lambert strether's post.

[Phil]

I've never read this blog before. I just read this post. I will be reading this blog from now on.

[Phil]

Also, it seems that Clinton's vetting argument applies as much to progressive politics as it does to what Republicans will attack him Obama on.

I mean everyone may not love Clinton, but at least you know where she stands and how she operates. She may not be the next political messiah but we at least know she won't be fueling the GOP attack machine. Say what you will but Hillary know's how politics works. Remember when Chris Wallace asked her why she was so hyper partisian and she replied that it was because Republicans are partisian. That's the kind of fighter we need in the White House.

[JenJen]

It's like the blogosphere has united in opposition to Obama. I actually find the arguments to be fascinating (but please, no more links to columns written by Shailagh "The Devil Writes Copy For The Post" Murray!).

Regardless, Obama and Edwards are still my two candidates. I feel either has an excellent chance at not just winning in November, but actually whalloping. I realize Obama is still not a sell to many, but I'm just not getting this visceral negative reaction to him. At this late date, I'm still with both of them and don't feel a burning need to choose yet (I'm in Ohio).

The move by Kucinich to urge his Iowa suporters to vote Obama on the second ballot is jaw-dropping, though, isn't it?

Will anyone be persuaded should Obama actually win IA, NH and SC, or will the skepticism intensify? That's what I'm most concerned about, and I wonder if more will be pushed back toward Hill.

[mdhatter]

The planet is melting and our jobs are evaporating and we're in a stupid fucking war breaking young men we aren't bothering to help fix.

well said.

What candidate has really addressed this, as well as the cause of it?

I say Edwards.

[Molly Ivors]

JenJen,
I didn't go into this disliking Obama: quite the opposite. But Krugman's argument--that he's setting up the failure of his own policies by his own words even if he should win the nomination and election--compelling. I'm much more sold on Edwards these days.

[lambert strether]

JenJen:

The whole Kucinich thing is good for one time only, in Iowa, in a state where Kucinich has no presence. It's hard to know what's in Kucinich's mind, but this looks purely tactical to me, and not some massive endorsement of Obama's (vanishing) progessive cred.

[SteveB]

There was a piece in the Economist about Obama, saying he showed promise but needed to prove his "seriousness" by going after the teacher's unions on merit pay and charter schools.

When I read that, I wondered, "What are Republicans required to do to prove their seriousness?"

For some reason, it's only Democrats who are required to fuck over their constituents to prove their seriousness. No member of the pundit class demanded, in 2000, that George W. Bush demonstrate his seriousness by taking on the oil industry. And who would dare to suggest that Huckabee needs to prove his seriousness by taking on the Christian right and advocating the teaching of evolution in public schools?

And it's Democrats who always have to "prove" that they're willing - and even eager - to use military force. Because the voters need to be reassured that a Democratic President won't be a total pacifist. No reassurance required that the next Republican President won't get us into another stupid war.

All this would just be a bad joke if some Democrats, like Obama, didn't actually take it to heart.

[lambert strether]

Well, SteveB, I wouldn't be too concerned.

I mean, if the Village asks Obama to prove he's serious by attacking the teacher's union, I'm sure that's all the proof they'll need.

Don't worry. Everything's going to be fine.

[SteveB]

Sorry, in my frustration with Obama, I left out my usual dose of vitriol for the Junior Senator from New York.

Her stab at "seriousness" was saying that a nuclear first-strike should be an "option" with regard to Iran.

Because she needed to reassure those who worry that our next President might be too reluctant to use nuclear weapons. We all know people like that, don't we?

[gwojtowy]

You know what gets me? Obama said to his Illinois constituents: "Elect me, and I will represent you!" Though not in so many words. Every representative from Maine to Hawaii and Alaska makes that promise to their people back home. Six years is the term for a Senator. Obama couldn't even stay for two before he caught Potomac pneumonia! If Obama can't even keep his word to his own constituents, how can the nation expect to trust him?

[JenJen]

This post by Jane has given me a little pause.

http://firedoglake.com/2008/01/01/joe-trippi-sit-and-spin/#more-14740

I've been wondering how so many of the blogs have been in tune the last few days, in terms of pushing back against Obama. She's practically drawing a diagram here.

I don't think there's a damn thing wrong with the way Trippi campaigns, but I am a little concerned that a new, sort-of off-the-grid Village may be forming.

[Janus Daniels]

This disappointed:
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES
January 1, 2008
BY ABDON M. PALLASCH Political Reporter/apallasch@suntimes.com
JEFFERSON, Iowa
... asked if he would fight another "stolen presidential election" like some Democrats believe [sic] happened...
... Obama gave the hard-charging answer... "If for any reason this thing is close, we will fight it tooth and nail till the end. The nice thing is, I'm a voting-rights attorney as well as a civil rights attorney."
...
Obama did not mention... his first day in the Senate... voting not to join Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and African-American congressmen in rejecting the vote totals from Ohio, where Democrats say [sic] faulty voting machines and bad voter-registration policies threw the close election to Bush.
Obama said through chief strategist David Axelrod that he voted to accept the results because Kerry himself said he did not want to fight it."
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/721461,CST-NWS-iowa01.article

[fourlegsgood]

What's up?

Obama is not ready for prime time. He doesn't have a clue what the country needs at this time.

What we don't need is someone who thinks they have to simultaneously get along with the right, while kowtowing to the village media.

I think he's starting to believe his own hype- and he's let his ambition get the better of him.

[Jon Blaque]

Familiarity breeds contempt, and - sadly - I'm becoming all too familiar with Obama's tactics.

John Edwards for president.

[Molly Ivors]

I saw that post by Jane, JenJen, and I don't know what to think either. The comment in question does sound like Obama's idiom, though I admit (as I linked) that I got it from Newsday as well. Having said that, I haven't seen video.

But he's looking for a way to cut Edwards' legs out from under him, and tarring him with the Kerry brush seems like one of the few weapons Obama has against Edwards right now. I guess that's why it rang so true for me.

[JenJen]

I think you're spot-on, Molly. I mean, honestly, how do you really go after Edwards? He's likeable, he'a fighter, he has an impressive life story, family and career.

He's also much-loved within the Democratic base, so to out-and-out attack him wouldn't be a smart thing to do in a primary campaign, and could indeed backfire for Obama.

Exactly what seems to be happening right now, actually.

[actor212]

When I read that, I wondered, "What are Republicans required to do to prove their seriousness?"

Steve,

The Republican party is made up of two main constituencies:

The economic royalists and the Jesus-freakers.

The economic royalists get their promises in the backrooms of the Harvard Club. Those promises are kept.

The Jesus-freakers get theirs out in the open. Sometimes they are kept. Sometimes not.

You'll notice abortion isn't outlawed. It never will be. The economic royalists don't want it to be, because it would force paid maternity leave to the table.

You'll notice gay marriage is trotted out when the GOP needs a win in an election. But you'll also notice that gay marriage and civil unions is gaining momentum in the states (and ultimately at the Federal level), mostly because the economic royalists either have no real passion about it, or see some reason to exploit gay marriage.

[actor212]

Edwards lost my vote when he flipflopped on Amanda and Melissa. It made me realize his "apology" for the Iraq war vote was cynical, calculated, and that he couldn't be trusted.

[actor212]

Edwards lost my vote when he flipflopped on Amanda and Melissa. It made me realize his "apology" for the Iraq war vote was cynical, calculated, and that he couldn't be trusted.

[actor212]

Edwards lost my vote when he flipflopped on Amanda and Melissa. It made me realize his "apology" for the Iraq war vote was cynical, calculated, and that he couldn't be trusted.

[actor212]

OK, that was weird.

[Molly Ivors]

OK, that was weird.

I just assumed it was for emphasis.

[ken]

Barack is my Senator and he is a billion times smarter then you or Jon Swift or your other idiot hate Obama team.

Guess you can't handle the truth. I loved Gore and Kerry, but they were terrible candidates.

Sorry you can't see the facts through your hatred.

[Molly Ivors]

Uh, ken?

Did you read the post? Can you substantively address the questions?

If not, STFU.

[Captain Goto]

Sorry you can't see the facts through your hatred.<

Oh, *that* was impressive [/snark].

[JenJen]

Ken, for what it's worth, I'm supporting Obama AND Edwards (I'm in Ohio, so I have the luxury of not having to decide yet), and this blog has been more than fair in its critique of Obama.

If you'll read through Molly's comments, she didn't come into this "hating" Obama, and she doesn't "hate" now. The concern that Obama has gone negative against the base is a legitimate one.

It always hurts a little when one's favorite candidate comes under greater scrutiny. It's a Democratic primary and these things can get personal and frustrating.

From my perspective, though, this primary hasn't been anywhere near as nasty as 2004 was. It's far, far too early to throw out the "hate" word... no matter whom a loyal Democrat is supporting at this point! I'm certainly more irritated with blog commenters who are insisting on "pulling a Nader" if Obama's the eventual nominee... now those folks are the ones we should all be concerned about.

And, as we all know by now, there will be plenty of time for hand-wringing and second-guessing after February. :-)

[robota]

Don't comment much and sorry that I'm late to the discussion, but Molly, I'm afraid that you are absolutely correct in your understanding of the situation.

Well written post!

[waka waka]

While I haven't seen the Gore/Kerry transcript - and neither has anyone else - I'm assuming Obama's talking about his desire to end the hyperpartisanship the US has found itself in recently, not knocking Gore or Kerry. He wants people to vote more for the candidate than the party and to capture formerly "red" districts.

And besides, does anyone seriously believe any Democratic candidate would be stupid enough to criticize Kerry, much less GORE one day before the Iowa caucuses?? Please people, take a deep breath and think for a minute.

[o. v. wong]

You guys are overracting and reading too much into that sentence, besides we need some pragmatism.

He's absolutely right about his description of the political environment in 2000 and 2004. The country was divided 50-50. Half the country hated our democratic nominee. Yes, is true that Gore won the popular vote but not by a large margin (2 million) and definitely not to say that he was "very" popular with Republicans or Independents...far from it.

Kerry was just a horrible choice for Democrats. Even John Stewart made fun of Kerry comparing him to Mitt Romney when he launched his presidential bid saying, "...good luck with that."

The beauty with Obama (as well as McCain in 2000) is that he's able to bring Independents and moderate Republicans over to our side which is what we need to win an election and have a true popular mandate. So you can kick and scream all you want about what he is saying, but you ultimately need to be smart and look at the bigger picture which is the general election -- that's all that matters. Who's best to win and beat the Republican candidate...no doubt Obama can.

Democrats + Independents + Moderate Republicans = White House

Cheers,

O.V. Wong

[actor212]

OK, that was weird.

I just assumed it was for emphasis.

Posted by: Molly Ivors

I would have sockpuppeted.

[Kenny]

Molly, what the hell, with the "what the hell?"?? Calling what Obama is purported to have said as an "attack" on Al Gore and John Kerry, is just plain fabrication. He's clearly making a criticism of polarization aimed at Clinton, suggesting that she could lead to another narrow loss like 2000 and 2004. It was clumsy, but that's a far cry from suggesting a personal attack on Gore and Kerry. More specifically in your response, you say, "Dude, the people you are trying to appeal to are never going to vote for you." This is just plain WRONG. Think about it. You can certainly say that of Republicans. Anyone suggesting Obama's going to gain any significant number of Republican converts is simply a fool. But are you really suggesting that Obama can't garner votes from independents? And likely many more votes from independents than Clinton?

[SteveB]

Democrats + Independents + Moderate Republicans = White House

If this is such a brilliant strategy, why don't Republicans use it? Or, if they are using it, what overtures are their candidates making to "moderate" Democrats?

More people self-identify as Democrats than Republicans (by a 50% to 35% margin) so why are the Democrats always the ones who have to rely on the support of "moderates" in the other party in order to win?

[Molly Ivors]

SteveB,
If you didn't see it, Athenae at First Draft linked to your excellent analysis of the "fuck your friends and maybe we'll let you into our club" demands placed on Dem candidates.

And I'm not too worried about whether Obama is smarter than I; I surely hope he is.

One question, though: how does his intellect undo the parroting of wingnut talking points?

[SJ]

Why is that progressives try their best to devour their own? Don't people see that we need more than a 51% edge in order to get progressive legislation enacted?

So Obama points out the obvious that both Gore and Kerry had high negatives and that makes him a right wing hack?!

How the Democratic candidate campaigns will contribute to their negatives. Edwards will no doubt have higher negatives then he did in 2004 as the VP candidate. And his 'burning down the house' talk [not to mention how genuine his positions really are] won't sit well in the general election. Hillary has even worse negatives.

Obama is positioning himself for the general election now. Edwards would have to make a 180 degree spin to make his arguments heard if he became the dem nominee.

[SteveB]

Don't people see that we need more than a 51% edge in order to get progressive legislation enacted?

See, this is something that really irritates me about Democrats. They're greedy. Never content to win with 51% of the vote (hell, George W. Bush was happy with less than 50% of the vote) they're always grasping for some Johnson/Goldwater-style blowout.

So we've got a majority? Not good enough! Let's water our message down a bit so we can pull over a few "moderate" Republicans. Pretty soon we're either electing someone who might as well be a Republican (like Hillary's husband) or we've painstakingly built a "consensus" around nothing.

If there was ever a year in which the Democrats could play a little closer to the left edge, this is it. But no. Can't take that risk, can we? You know what? Greedy and totally risk-averse is not a good combination.

And this:
Edwards would have to make a 180 degree spin to make his arguments heard if he became the dem nominee.

Huh? Make his arguments heard by whom? I guess we'll find out tonight, but it seems like the voters in Iowa are hearing his arguments just fine.

Oh, and this:
And his 'burning down the house' talk...

See, that's what's known as parroting right-wing talking points. Go after the corporations who effectively control our government, and it means you want to "burn down the house." Where did you get that phrase, anyway? A David Brooks column?

Oh, and one more:
So Obama points out the obvious that both Gore and Kerry had high negatives and that makes him a right wing hack?!

What the Obama supporters here are either incapable or unwilling to address is that this incident is part of a pattern of behavior by Obama. For me, just for example, it was his repeating the false right-wing talking point that Social Security is in crisis. Any of the Obama supporters here want to defend that?

[actor212]

Steve,

The unfortunate truth is, we DO need more than 51% to enact progressive legislation. Republicans need a bare majority to maintain a status quo.

That's inertia. That's America. Our nation would rather watch the latest Britney Spears video on TMZ.com than ponder the world they're leaving for their kids. That's what republicans play on, and why, even WITH a 51% majority in the Congress, we can't get a goddamn thing done.

Change needs momentum. The status quo merely needs silence.

[geoduck]

I know several people who will not caucus for anyone who voted for the war.

[SteveB]

The unfortunate truth is, we DO need more than 51% to enact progressive legislation.

I think there's some confusion here of two things: 1) the next President's margin of victory, and 2) the extent of popular support for progressive ideas.

Since this is taking place in the context of a discussion of the election, I was arguing against the idea that the next Democratic President needs to win with a lot more than a 51% percent majority to enact a progressive platform.

That's not true, because there's already a broad base of support, well beyond 51%, or even 60%, for some basic progressive ideas:

1) End the war and bring our troops home quickly

2) A major restructuring of our health-care "system", possibly including a tax-supported single-payer system supprted by taxes

2) Adressing the radical redistibution of wealth upward, that has occurred through the Clinton and Bush years, by increasing taxes on the wealthy.

Of course, we should all be doing what we can at the greassroots level to build even more popular support for these ideas, but that work - talking up the issues in your union or at your church, holding public forums and organizing supporters, etc - must be done by us. It would be foolish to rely on any candidate, no matter how pregressive, to do that work for us.

There's an important tradeoff we face here: watering down the message in the hopes of winning over "moderates" may bump up the Dem candiate's margin of victory in the Presidential race, but at great cost, because it means weaking the strong popular support needed down the road to actually force these changes through Congress.

I think, as progressives, the best strategy is to get the most progressive candidate possible into the White House by any margin, and then it's up to us to build on the base of support that already exists to help that President enact a progressive program.