Kos has written his best and most important piece in over a year. I totally stand by all of it (including the part about Steve McMahon). What I don’t understand is why it took Kos so long to come to this conclusion, and why others, like Chris Bowers and Matt Stoller, seem to be staggering rather than running to embrace Dean 2.0.
Maybe Hillary Clinton’s personality blinded people. Maybe her gender was weighed too heavily. Maybe they took her voting record and policy positions at face value. Maybe they just craved partisanship. Maybe they were just afraid to stand up to the ‘inevitable’ candidate. But, for me, this has always been a contest between the DLC and the netroots/grassroots, with Obama and Edwards on one side and Clinton on the other.
We netrootsers have been going into battle every day for five-six years without the Clinonistas at our side. Half the time, and on the most critical issues, they have been standing on the opposing sidelines or actively undercutting our positions. How could any blogger/activist have ever seen the Clinton campaign as anything other than the mortal enemy of the movement, I don’t know.
How many times have I stood alone in fighting this battle? How much time has been wasted talking about meaningless differences in health care plans or partisan ‘framing’? So many in the Netroots turned out to be either cowards or pinheads…all the while the McAuliffes, Begalas, Penns, Ford Jr.’s, Carvilles, Bayhs, Carpers, and Liebermans were out plotting to steal our lunch, if not castrate us outright?
It sure is refreshing to see that Kos gets it. I hope the rest will get it soon, too.
“a contest between the DLC and the netroots/grassroots”
It is going backward to the Reagan Republican era or going back to the FDR-Kennedy-Johnson era. The future will not be something new, but something old. For Democrats, a renewal of some version of old liberal-socialism, the beginnings of which may be something like universal health care as a prelude to single-payer health care. Perhaps some day we can come up to the social democracies of Europe, where our economic system is a shared entity, “for the people” and not just the special interests or the wealthy.
Simple: I think the netroots, for quite some time, has taken the position that the only way we will get anywhere is with a bare-knuckled fistfight with the GOP. However, Obama has been able to cultivate a grassroots following that spans partisan lines – but still adheres to sensible, pragmatic progressive policies. The fact that he didn’t gain his advantage in a brawling fashion (something that John Edwards tried and failed at) is at odds with the usual attitude the netroots takes towards fighting the right wing and conventional wisdom (something which Stoller would call the ‘bar fight’ primary).
Furthermore – and this has been revealed as the primary process has continued – the netroots got confused by what exactly ‘partisanship’ in the Clinton playbook meant. One of the things that many netroots folks (including myself) had said in the past was that the Clintons, regardless of their policy positions, would always stand up for the party. As time has gone on, though, it’s become clearer that the Clintons only fight for themselves – and not for the Democratic Party in the broader sense.
Lastly, the netroots has gotten hung up on doing exactly what it railed against in the past – being a purity troll. Whether it was residual troops in Iraq (Bowers’ pet issue) or mandated health care (e.g. Paul Krugman), people got hung up on really stupid matters. Never mind that Obama was the most liberal state senator in Illinois or has maintained a liberal voting record while in Congress. Never mind that his pathway to the nomination didn’t include a right-of-center record in legislature (Edwards) or occupations that could hardly be deemed friendly to Democratic causes (Clinton’s tenure on Wal-Mart’s board). Because Obama is largely viewed as a slate onto which to project one’s hopes and dreams, people hoped that Obama would turn out to be the liberal prizefighter…even though his tenure in an executive position (as editor of the Harvard Law Review) suggested that he had a much different style of governing.
That’s why the netroots was slow to get on this train. Ironically enough, it’s also because the generation of the netroots bloggers is older than the young group of people driving the Obama campaign.
well they are all younger than me.
Not all of them.
You may have a few years on me, but the many of the folks who showed up to our organizing meeting yesterday are quite a bit your senior.
That’s an excellent analysis, on all points except the very last.
Some of blogging re Obama are older than you think! π
Seriously though – that’s really true on all the other points – especially re the desire for a knockout fight. I was there too, briefly. But when I heard Obama speak, I realized right away this is the voice that could move us forward, and much further than a ranting partisan could take us.
And yes, returning to the DLC would be a huge step backward, not forward, for our party.
I hope before he leaves office we all write and thank Howard Dean for all he’s done for our party. The 50 state strategy was absolutely the way to go.
Stoller and Bowers? Why did they not see things your way?
I don’t think it had anything to do with Hillary Clinton. It had to do (it still has to do) with them. Who they are and why they blog.
It had to do with their obsession with claiming that they are responsible for a candidate’s electoral victory.
Obama didn’t and doesn’t really need them. They will never be able to say that they were responsible for Obama’s victory in the way they like to take credit for Ned Lamont’s victory (although notice that Ned Lamont is not the senator from Connecticut right now). Obama went around the netroots, he never sucked up to the netroots; much to the netroots’ chagrin. Obama found his own way to use the internet and its tools – Obama didn’t need them to help figure it all out.
I understand that you and I differ on their motivations in blogging. I see them as among the most selfish bloggers in the entire netroots – completely obsessed with themselves and their reputations. I remain convinced that part of what they do is out of a need to appear to be important “big men on campus” and Obama ignored them. They probably will never really forgive him.
It’s to kos’ credit that he eventually came around. But let’s face it. Kos doesn’t suffer from an inferiority complex and he has other ways to prove that he’s the big guy on campus. If Obama ignores him, I’m sure he sees that as Obama’s loss.
I think it is an insult to their intellectual pride, not their personal vanity. It’s not that he didn’t kiss their ring, it’s that he did it all without following any of their advice.
I consider intellectual pride to be the same as personal vanity.
But if you don’t, I concede the point. I’ll call it intellectual pride.
the difference is that they don’t care that Obama didn’t ask their opinion, they care that he is breaking their rules and defying their analysis.
Yes. They take great pride in their “analysis.”
Are these guys just a bunch of out of touch trust-fund-babies, or am I reading them all wrong?
Yes. I understand. I conceded.
I hereby subjugate my personal vanity to your intellectual pride.
You must subjugate and denounce and reject.
Stoller is one of the most astute analysts out there with Bowers a close second.
Our own Booman is the most insightful.
did I say anything about the quality of their analyses?
That’s what I’ve been talking about for the past year. The drama in the liberal blogosphere surrounding Obama was and is stupid. I pointed out several times at DK that the only reason these people were pouting about Obama was because he didn’t kiss their asses.
Stoller and Bowers especially, but I’ll include Armstrong in there too. To my knoweledge, Obama didn’t post a diary on their blogs. He did it on DK. Everyone over there acted like the morons they are and then they wondered why he never bothered posting again. Same with Pelosi. Why waste your time trying to talk to self-important brats? I wouldn’t. I don’t.
I do think that, just like with certain black leaders, Obama didn’t kiss the ring, so instead of coming on board and helping, they attack because they feel ignored.
that at least I was blind to the Clintons. We are partisans. Thus we like partisanship. The Clintons personify partisanship. What we were blinded to, however, is that the fact the Clintons are only partisans for themselves, not for the entire Democratic Party. They do what is best for their advancement, not our advancement.
I was blind to that until the unfolding of this campaign, showing the Clintons’ true narcissism as compared to the 50 state strategy at work in a national campaign.
I know it’s just because you don’t listen to me after you have one beer in you.
Are you implying that he listens to you before that first beer? π
But, for me, this has always been a contest between the DLC and the netroots/grassroots, with Obama and Edwards on one side and Clinton on the other.
Exactly. Doing the same thing (win 10 states and hope the 11th takes you over the top) and expecting a different result is insanity.
It’s also lazy. Fact is, it takes work to organize a state. I just want to scream when the Billary types dismiss Obama’s wins as “but those are red states.” So I’ll say this until I am blue in the face: If we never try to organize in red states, they will always BE red states.
Sitting on their nicely paid posteriors and pontificating on CNN is not going to turn a red state purple or blue. Don’t be mad at Obama for out-working everyone else. Tough. Cough it up as the price of arrogant entitlement.
Obama gets it. Dean 2.0 + Constitutional law professor + “We, not me” leadership + keen intellect + sound judgment = a presidential candidate I can fully, wholeheartedly support.
Billary has had their chance. I am so sick of the royal Bush/Clinton/Bush thing. Just give it up.
That is a huge part of it for me. Hillary’s campaign is all about Hillary. Even the Jack Nicholson ad, supposedly a balance to the star-studded “Yes we can” ads was about the celebrity of Jack Nicholson, as opposed to people joining together and being inspired.
My husband is fond of saying (of voting), “We’re not hiring a boss, we’re hiring an employee.” Maybe the Obama movement is saying “We’re hiring a partner”…
The alternative to hope (A few thoughts in advance of Tuesday’s primary contests)
Speaking of Nicholson–didn’t his video include the line from A Few Good Men, “There’s nothing on this earth sexier than a woman you have to salute in the morning!”?
I mean, seriously? This from a supporter? Have at it.
I thought the line was, “There’s nothing like getting a B.J. from a superior officer.”
You know, we used to know every line to that movie, because that was the only movie we could afford. Lord have mercy, how broke were we…
Anyway, I’m not sure if that line was in the scene, but it was clearly the implication. It strikes me as odd that someone would put together a supporter video using lines from their work–stranger still that someone would think to use that line.
You know, especially since she’s making a feminist statement and all. Ugh.
I’ve been a fan of Stoller’s writing for awhile, but he never seemed to get the Dean 1.0 thing. I can remember several comments of his where he expressed distrust of Dean, like he has also expressed distrust of Edwards and Obama at various times. I think his negativity about Dean arose from his connections to the Clark movement, and he was fairly negative about Hillary until Clark endorsed her. Then he became more divided, more even-handed in his criticism of her. Now he excepts the notion that the media is being more difficult in their treatment of her than of Obama. Perhaps they are, but I think losing has a lot to do with that. If she had won Iowa or swept the field on Super Tuesday, we would be seeing much different media coverage now. Then she exposed another opening in Iowa, and so on and so on. As Bowers pointed out, now she is like the merely-a-flesh-wound knight from Holy Grail. She has little chance of winning the nomination and yet she charges on. If the roles were reversed, would Obama be getting positive coverage now?
I don’t understand why Jerome Armstrong has flipped from gate crasher to Clinton doorman.
That’s even worse than just not being enthusiastic about Obama.
Money. But they have become more tolerant of late, or so it seems.
I used to think that he was an incredibly astute political analyst. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. It seems I started to read him at that time.
From my own experience as a newby to Northern Nevada, I can attest to the effectiveness of Dean’s 50-State Strategy. From the caucuses to the County Convention, most of the people I have talked with have been absolutely astounded at the power of numbers. These people are really energized, where they were previously demoralized as citizens. They were all “closet Democrats” in their day-to-day lives because they thought they were a tiny minority. But since we’ve had real DNC-funded organization in the county Democratic party, they have realized that we are a much larger constituency than anyone had previously thought.
After a motivational speech at the County Convention by the Full-Time DNC staffer who reports directly to Howard Dean and represents only our county, nearly everyone at the convention signed up to run a 25-person (minimum) social network of Democrats in their individual precincts. Prior to this year, Democrats had no network of support and felt they were all alone. Now it is the Republicans who are in a tailspin, without any support system in place, as they never had any competition before and kept their Democratic peers living “in the closet” and demoralized.
Now the county party is raising tons of money (from us little people, not business interests) and may become the majority again locally, among elected officials. We may not need this DNC welfare program much longer and you may find that Northern Nevada goes nearly totally blue over the next couple of elections, which would have been unthinkable a few years ago.
Yeah,
Hagel and Lugar as cabinet members (both with 0 NARAL ratings) is really progressive of Obama.
what were Knox and Stimson’s NARAL ratings? I forget.
While it’d be great to have through-and-through progressives in every position, that’s not realistic. If someone is going to be SecDef, I really don’t care about their position on social issues except for gay equality (as it pertains to the current ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy).
Me too. I would have no problem with a Republican as Secretary of Defense if they were a moderate Republican willing and interested in overturning DADT effectively, taking no excuses from anyone for not strongly enforcing enforcement of the new equality-in-service policy.
Are folks forgetting that B. Clinton had a republican in his cabinet.
More to the point…are they forgetting the deals he cut with them? I remember them well. Billary takes full advantage of folks’ short memories.
I don’t forget that he had Republicans around. But Bill ain’t Barack. Bill thought that the only way to get things done was to follow his big money supporters’ interests (which were Republican interests.) Barack don’t take much if any money from them. He’s got his own ideas. He’ll listen to Republicans, but if they don’t see eye to eye, they’re not gonna be a part of his administration. Not ALL republicans are evil. Most seem to be, yes, but I can remember when there were some pretty decent ones, like my parents. We need to help these “good Republicans” come out of the closet and defy their leadership, which is comprised of criminals.
Yeah, I have to agree here, as much as I dislike the idea of having Republicans of any kind in any position in the government. The views of the Secretary of Defense on issues outside of his or her portfolio don’t matter a whole lot.
On the other hand, women are a large part of the military, so the Secretary’s views on women are not wholly outside his or her portfolio. That said, cabinet members are answerable to the President, so one may assume that unless the President is pushing an misogynistic agenda, the Secretary of Defense probably won’t, either.
As I said, I don’t like the idea, but on the other hand, unless we can get Republicans to defect to the left, we’re going to be stuck in an evenly divided nation for a long, long time. If we can get Republicans used to actually working with us instead of simply viewing us as an implacable enemy, we might be able to change some of their minds. There will always be a certain proportion of whackjobs we can’t reach, but we can’t afford to close the door to reasonable people with whom we disagree.
Let’s hope that he gets it and is not otherwise motivated.
Obama backers call for Clinton to quit
Is Richardson a Obama backer?
No Kerry and Durbin are.
Richardson is on “the fence.” He says he likes it there. I think he doesn’t want to betray the Clintons but he thinks Obama will win and likes him.
I also think he’s angling to be Obama’s VP.
Or Secretary of State… something I’ve always thought he’d be really good at. He’s a natural-born negotiator.
In a discussion of why I was for Obama months ago, I came to this conclusion.
I wrote:
“Clinton and her advisers, Penn, McAuliffe etc. have been unrelenting opponents of the people who hold my views and my opinions. They see those who believe similarly to me as people to marginalize a speed bump in their path.
Where I disagree with Obama, he shows he wants to listen, respect, and convince me.
Is it any wonder I don’t support someone who seems me as an obstacle to be overcome rather than a potential ally to be persuaded?”
Amen!!
My multi-word response to this post is that for the past several months I’ve been wondering why people I had considered really insightful political minds like Kos and Bowers and Stoller and Armstrong (and Krugman!!) didn’t seem to be viewing the same political universe that I was seeing. What exactly did they NOT get about what Obama could do for the party? Why were they getting sidetracked on little stuff that didn’t matter? Why, when anybody tried to tell them that these were little things that didn’t matter in the big picture, were those people called “Obama-bots” who drank Kool-Aid and were blinded by hero worship?
For myself, I will say that I do not watch Obama give a speech and get all misty-eyed; he’s a bit too rhetorical and not quite substantial enough in his speeches for my taste. But I watch EVERYONE AROUND ME watching his speeches and getting all misty-eyed — and I say to myself: “Holy shit. This guy could change the country.”
And I thought I might be the only reader in Left Blogistan to see these things until about 6 weeks ago, when I started seeing diaries from teacherken and kid oakland on dKos, and when I found BooMan writing here, so eloquently, about exactly what I was thinking.
So BooMan, you’ve earned a spot on my regular bloglist for the indefinite future. (It’s the spot that used to be filled by MyDD.)
And as for the aforementioned insightful analysts:
I think Kos didn’t want to give his heart to anyone this season because he was really crushed by Dean’s ending, and he’s basically said as much. As this season has worn on he has come around more & more to seeing Obama’s potential, culminating in the major post today.
I give Bowers credit because, while he hasn’t been an assertive supporter of anyone, he has written on many occasions about his identification with Obama and his potential coalition, and been upfront and candid about areas about which he feels cross-pressured. I consider that a mature response to a complex situation.
Stoller, on the other hand, now strikes me as just utterly lacking in maturity. (See his post on Clinton/Obama today, which takes petulance to the level of incoherence; I have no idea what the hell he’s talking about.)
And Armstrong — the man never could write worth a damn, which I could forgive as long as he had interesting ideas. But he seems to have had it out for Obama from the start for reasons that I simply cannot fathom. The whole diary side of MyDD site has become this utterly unreal cesspool of bizarre anti-Obama-ism in which people come to worship at the Church of Rezko. Just weird, weird, weird and pathetic.
Booman and Steven D (front pager) are two of the best bloggers on the issues I’ve read anywhere. You came to the right place.
For what it’s worth, I love Chris Bowers. He’s a complete mensch. I just see things differently than he does.
“But, for me, this has always been a contest between the DLC and the netroots/grassroots, with Obama and Edwards on one side and Clinton on the other.”
Right, right, right you are.