| Senator Obama has been trying to have it both ways too often as of late, and he's damaging his ability to call out John McCain on his litany of flip flops. I don't see how Obama can run against "politics as usual" while taking part in them.
The Obama campaign's strategy has short - sighted to a point that it could cause real problems in the long - term. You can't call union - fueled 527s "special interest groups" (when they work for others) without undermining a key part of the Democratic coalition. If you suddenly change your mind when one goes to work for you, you play into the anti - union attacks from the right.
It's also diffiuclt to see how Obama can decry the "politics of fear" while failing to dealing with the biggest flaws in the new FISA legislation. I'm beginning to wonder if other flips are around the corner.
Lately, some of us who discuss where this could lead are called "purists" by a handful of very Obama - centric bloggers. If being frustrated when Democrats needlessly cave, or fundamentally undercut their own message makes me a "purist" in their view, it says a lot more about them than it says about me.
Besides being wrong on substance, I don't think Senator Obam's position on FISA is smart politics. I'm sure the conventional wisdom is that it was a needed move to the center, but that comes from the Very Serious Pundits Who Are Usually Wrong. When people believe that a candidate is special... different from all the rest, the disenchantment is going to be understandably more severe when the candidate dissapoints. Telecom immunity is an issue that has the ability to generate a serious backlash. A powerful coalition of engaged Democrats (almost all of whom hate the idea of telecom immunity), Independents, and Ron Paul - type Republicans could have been called upon to fight it. A lot of voters are tired of having the fear card played to justify erosions of their civil liberties that, contrary to how they are sold, don't help keep the country safe.
Telecom immunity could have become a rallying point, and a wide range of people could have been compelled to become more involved in the Obama campaign. Doing so would require Obama's strategists to have the nerve to question conventional wisdom, and judging by past behavior, that may be too much to ask.
David Axelrod is fond of saying that "even the most hardened Democrats are tired of all of the bickering." Does standing up to an extremely unpopular president qualify as "bickering"? I can give half - baked, short - sighted and counterproductive advice too. Does anybody want to pay me a ton of money for it?
It's true that many voters are rightfully suspicious of the motivations of politicians, and they don't see how politicians fighting benifits them. But the issue landscape heavily favors us, and if we communicated what we're all about, we're we are, and we need to go, it won't be all that hard connect the dots and justify the back and forth.
That isn't going to happen if Robert Gibbs keeps encouraging people to believe in the magical, "post - partisan" Hope Unicorn. On the day of the Iowa caucus, Gibbs was on MSNBC saying that the Dean 04' and Edwards 08' campaigns were "about anger" while Senator Obama's campaign was "about hope." Gibbs and other Obama surrogates have echoed these sentiments since then.
What is this, Sesame Street? If Obama gets elected, will Snufalufagus be his press secretary? You can't have sustained optimism with out a clear plan to make things better. Without it, this kind of happy talk inevitably breads resentment.
Establishment - types who say that the approach the grassroots advocates for to deal with the entrenched interests is naive seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding what we're talking about. We never said that a Democratic president can go to DC and just tell everyone how it was going to be. Our central point is that a Democratic president will need to come from a position of strength, confront right - wing talking points head on, and make our case to the American people. They'll need to push hard to get the most progressive result, and make concessions on big issues after the fight, not before it.
The Republicans and their K Street overlords rammed their agenda down our throat for a long time, and we think they're going to want to play nicey nice all of a sudden?
The difference between us and them is that we would pursue good policy that would beneift the entire country. And while 80% of Americans thing the conservative Republican agenda has put us on the wrong track, a mainstream progressive Democratic agenda would be generally popular, and get results.
The damage that the system as it is has done to average Americans can not be forgotten or swept under the rug. If we elect a bold Democrat who doesn't cower at the thought of being called names by the GOP, we can bring about the change that is needed. Instead we have "general election mode" Obama, who seems hellbent on continuing our party's failed tradition of beginning every debate by ceding the central point. And all of this in an attempt to earn much - overrated credibility as a "bipartisan" leader.
In DC today, "bipartisanship" enjoys mythical status. But the difference between the value sets, goals, and priorities of the two parties is far too significant for a fight over the big issues to be avoided. Partisanship is not the problem. The problem is that the American people don't have a government that works for them. We value friendship, but we don't send Democrats to Congress to get all buddy buddy with the very people who have put our country through hell.
Health care, the environment, veterans care, and education should not be partisan issues. Democrats, Independents, and Republicans are all affected by them. The GOP has taken a far - right position on these issues that is seriously out of step with the country. If we highlighted the vital contrasts instead of running from them, public opinion and public pressure would be with us.
Julian Bond said it best. When one party is shameless, the other cannot afford to be spineless.
Our nominees have tried the "please don't hit me" approach in the past, and it doesn't work. The conserative message machine is going to call Democrats running for office "liberal" no matter what positions they take. They need to get over it. It's a worn - out trick that can be dealt with. When we project weakness, it makes it easy for Republicans to paint us as weak. This perception bleeds over to issues like national security. As we saw in 2004, voters respect politicians who stands up for their beliefs. Considering the broad support for our core values, this is a no - brainer.
If we thought our nominee was going to be a pushover, we wouldn't have been so energized during the primary season. Senator Obamas words brought all kinds of people to their feet, becaue those people believed them. We've seen time and time how words can inspire. But if they turn out to be empty campaign rhetoric, they make people more callous.
Whatever happened to "the fierce urgency of now?" Whatever happened to "there is such a thing as being too late, and that time is almost here?"Those were beautiful, inspiring words. But where they... just words?
I want to be excited about voting for Senator Obama, but the moral and political imperative demands that he use his immense talent to stand up for core Democratic values and win the election. He can't do this if he is obscured in a mealy - mouted, everything to everyone stance.
After the 2006 election, Paul Krugman wrote about Democratic politicians being dragged by their base into taking highly popular positions. We shouldn't have to rely on the Krugman Effect anymore. Electing Senator Obama is important, but so is why we are electing him. We support candidates because they represent our values. We don't ignore our values because we support a certain candidate.
I'll vote for Senator Obama, and I'll do everything I can do to make sure others do the same, but at this point I'm not sure whether I'll vote for him with my head held high, or while holding my nose. This election is not about Senator Obama, and we shouldn't hesitate to hold his feet to the fire.
It's 2008. take a look around you. If Democrats don't take a stand now, when will we? |
