progressive involvement

Puppies and Lincoln

Creative commentary from Chicagoland.

Bloom off the rose?

Last week, in "Anxiety in the Church of High Liberalism," I noted a few areas where Sen. Obama's actions and words had to have given the left-liberal blogosphere a case of the jitters.  This week, focusing mainly on Sen. Obama's position on FISA, Politico and HuffPost noted the same thing. 

The HuffPost article mentioned that Obama's relationship with the so-called "netroots" hadn't always been as adoring as it was at the end of the campaign.  Late last year, and in early January, John Edwards was the favorite of many, which, considering that Edwards was campaigning on the idea that he was the most progressive of the major candidates, is not all that surprising. 

With Edwards out, the blogosphere went for Obama in a big way, which was mystifying to me since, given the choice between Obama and Clinton, she seemed more devoted to progressive positions than he.

As a former aide to Sen. Hillary Clinton told The Huffington Post, had the New York Democrat not had her own problems with the crowd, her campaign would have been a far more natural home for the progressive netroots.

"I don't understand why a group like MoveOn backs Obama," said the aide. "Hillary is the one who will build up the Democratic infrastructure. She's the one promising to fight the ideological battles. He's the one who is talking about moving beyond partisanship. And they love him for it."

The Politico article went a bit further than HuffPost, saying flatly, "the honeymoon has ended" because of FISA, and noting that "the online activists feel jilted and betrayed and have taken to questioning his progressive credentials."  One prominent blogger, Atrios, even gave Obama its “Wanker of the Day” award.  Jane Hamsher of firedoglake, said that many considered Obama "a progressive hero, and I think they were disappointed.  You can feel a real shift in the zeitgeist online.”

Markos Moulitsas of dailykos, in quite a come-down from his earlier Obama burbles, gave this less-than-ringing endorsement, “Let’s be honest, it is either Obama or John McCain. So we really don’t have much of a choice.”

Incredible Blog For The Cultural Literate

The Sheila Variations is a blog I just stumbled upon and have found myself wallowing in a depth of commentary on clutural literacy. I'm sure I haven't done this blog justice as Sheila's input appears infinite - and IMHO, extremely worthwhile as compared to useless information and drivel. Post on, Sheila! You get my highest regard, and it appears future readership for some time to come.

Sudden concern about women voters

Frank Rich wondered yesterday if there was any truth to the fairly widespread rumor that a sizeable contingent of women voters were so ticked off about Hillary's treatment during the campaign that they would opt for McCain.  He adopted the familiar trope that, yes, there was a lot of sexism in the campaign, which was just awful--awful, I tell you--but quickly reassured himself that it wasn't a "determinative factor" in the campaign.

McCain is apparently making an effort for the womens' vote.  He has gone out of his way to praise Hillary in recent days, and recently had a meeting with a few of her supporters, one of whom, as it turns out, is a descendent of Thomas Jefferson and of the faction that denies Jefferson had any black children.  This led Matt Yglesias to say that Hillary's racist supporters--those "who don't like black people"--might go for McCain, but otherwise progressive women have no place to go other than Obama.

There are signs that Obama is making an effort to reach out to Clinton voters.  In this Sam Stein piece, he mentions Obama meeting with a group of Hillary-supporting legislators:

Last Wednesday, an event was organized at the house of Obama-backing Rep. Rosa DeLauro with the purpose of bridging the gulf that many Clinton supporters felt had emerged during the course of the Democratic primary. Approximately 30 female lawmakers were in attendance, according to a source who was there, in addition to Anita Dunn, a high-ranking Obama adviser. No official from the Clinton campaign showed up, but several of her top-ranking surrogates did.

That's all to the good, and I hope the Obama campaign keeps it up.  One thing that some folks seem to assume, and others say right out loud, is that Hillary-supporting women "really have no place else to go" except Obama.  That is not a good tack.  Never tell somebody they have nowhere else to go.

The freakshow that is American politics, chapter 634

Paula Jones and Gennifer--with a "G"--Flowers have a website.  Genniferandpaula.com is called "two chicks chatting," at which you can buy, at $1.99 a pop, snippets of conversations about things I can't imagine anyone would want to know about.

Snobosphere just hated Hillary's speech

The next day, I would learn how badly the speech went over with pretty much everybody I know. My nephew, a person not much given to rage, was enraged. Bloggers whom I respect have been merciless—e.g., Jim Fallows (“This is a new low”), Andrew Sullivan (“classless, graceless, shameless, relentless”), Matt Yglesias (“utterly unconscionable”), Jonathan Chait (“incredible,” and not in a good way), and Ezra Klein (full text of his post: “I think Clinton may be willing to offer Obama the vice presidency”). At the Guardian, Michael Tomasky called it “the most abrasive, self-absorbed, selfish, delusional, emasculating and extortionate political speech I’ve heard in a long time.” And various friends of both sexes have used words derived from digestive difficulties: disgusting, sickening, nauseating.

That's Hendrik Hertzberg, a confessed Obamaphile, in the New Yorker--and that doesn't even count The Journalist Formerly Known as E.J. Dionne who said, "Hillary Clinton talked her way out of the vice presidency on Tuesday night."

Let's leave aside Hertzberg's taste in bloggers--these are some "whom I respect," he says, a list which includes Andrew Sullivan, the guy who squeezes his own butt on the Bill Maher show, and Yglesias and Klein who try to out-do each other in saying the same thing as Markos and Marshall.  And what are we to think of Tomasky, who unwittingly reveals his own anxieties when he calls Clinton's speech "emasculating"?

Hillary was charged and found guilty of a great crime:  Refusal to capitulate and insufficient obeisance.  Who does she think she is?   She should be singing:  '"Crown him, crown him, crown him King of Kings!"

People simply ignored the fact that this was primary day and she had squeeked through to another narrow 30 point victory, this time in the South Dakota primary.   

They regarded her mention of a popular vote victory with particular disdain.  You can see why.  These and other media critics were the same people who were once exercised over the possibility that superdelegates would "overturn the will of the people" and make Clinton the nominee, when, of course, what eventually happened was that the establishment weighed in for Obama and made him the nominee.  You can see, then, why Hillary's mention of a popular vote victory made them squirm.  Hypocrisy bites!

Flip-flopper

Markos in January:

What's more, Clinton was the only top-tier candidate to refuse the ultimate Iowa and New Hampshire pander by removing her name from the Michigan ballot. That makes her essentially the de facto winner since Edwards and Obama, caving to the cry babies in Iowa and New Hampshire, took their name off Michigan's ballot. Sure, the DNC has stripped Michigan of its delegates, but that won't last through the convention. The last thing Democrats can afford is to alienate swing states like Michigan and Florida by refusing to seat their delegates.

Markos today:

Remember, Clinton supported the Michigan and Florida sanctions when she thought she'd coast to the nomination. And her main advisor, Harold Ickes, actually voted for those sanctions as a member of the DNC committee that levied them...

People were freaking out over the RFK stuff, but really, the most infuriating part of this campaign is Clinton's lack of intellectual honesty. The shifting rationales. The constantly moving goal posts. The disrespect for rules and the intelligence of the public. Its rank dishonesty and purposefully flawed readings of history.

ht:  BTD

Somebody put Tabasco Sauce in his oatmeal

John Aravosis at americablog.com:

IT'S NOT CLOSE. YOU FREAKING LOST THE NOMINATION, WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?

Good God. What is wrong with her? The Clintons and their campaign staff don't give a damn that they are now hurting our electoral chances in the fall against McCain and against the Republicans in Congress.

Yeah, like the McCain campaign would have never thought about experience, or national security, or working class voters unless Hillary told him.  He's old, sure, but he's not stupid.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

We're a "seed of the new progressive blogosphere."  Reclusive Leftist has a list.

To my knowledge, Markos has yet to apologize to the Clinton campaign

Nor Josh Marshall, nor Huffington Post.  The lefty blogosphere began as a lively alternative to the clueless national mainstream media, but, sadly, much of it has been turned into mere propaganda.

Washington Post:

Clinton Told True Tale of Woe, Says Kin

By Anne E. Kornblut

The aunt of a young pregnant woman who died after a hospital told her she needed to pay $100 up front for care said in an interview on Monday that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has been telling the story accurately on the campaign trail -- following claims by a different Ohio hospital that it did not turn the patient away.

h/t: www.talkleft.com