…what do Obama and his supporters need to do today to get you into this car?

One answer is pretty simple: don’t be jerks about it. That and more progressive policy positions.

The worst possible downside to the thousands of hours we have all spent paying attention to this campaign is that democratic voters who supported the losing nominee will be so pissed off that they won’t show up to vote in November.

All it takes is a few percentage points in a few battleground states to lose this thing. Half of Americans don’t vote and a lot of them just because they’re too pissed off about something or other.

Another question:

why are you doing this?

Lambert and Vastleft can defend themselves. My impression of their reasons follows.

The good reasons:

- a skeptical, non-conformist, reality-based reaction to the cultish, pack behavior exhibited by the A-list bloggers and their comment sections.

- a pissed-off reaction to the assholish tactics and arguments employed by Obama supporters on and off the blogs.

- an analysis of proposed policies and advisors that don’t seem very progressive.

The bad ones:

- once you become an advocate for one side in this debate, or any debate, you ignore evidence that makes your side look bad and exaggerate evidence that makes your side look good.

- using the weapons honed by fighting the Right Wing during the Bush Years: rhetoric, invective, ridicule, parody against other progressives/liberals or whatever you want to call them.

These last two are shared by pretty much everyone in the blogosphere.

As HTML Mencken says, ‘both candidates are corporate whores.’ That’s just the facts.

Indeed. I agree entirely.

Which is why I have done my best to stay out of the pie-fight. My reply to anyone who asks is “they both suck”:

- Clinton represents old-school Democrat campaigning style, promising overly specific policies that will never be implemented.

- Obama represents a new style, promising abstractions he can’t be held accountable for.

I don’t think a Unity ticket will ever happen, but what is much more important is for the supporter networks and campaign operations to come together. The power of social networks fails only when the networks are broken.

Speaking as someone who voted for Darth Nader in 2000 and 2004, GWB has proven there is a big difference between D and GOP, regardless of how fucked up both parties are.

And I will bet serious money that I make better ribs than McCrazy. Ana Marie, call me!

Even the candidate that has embraced the Unity Pony (the absolute fabrication that the problem with Washington is excessive partisanship) doesn’t get a pass:

Mr. Obama’s call for postpartisanship looks unconvincing, when he is unable to point to a single important instance in his Senate career when he demonstrated bipartisanship.

But also the candidate whose family has been attacked relentlessly for the past 15 years:

Clinton had seeded doubts about her own character long before this campaign began through her record as a polarizing figure, her secrecy and her obvious prevarications.

But I know one thing with absolute certainty. The media flurry kicked up by Mr. Obama’s gaffe powerfully confirms an argument I actually did make: That as they return again to the culture war, what the soldiers on all sides are doing is talking about class without actually addressing the economic basis of the subject.

In this whole breathless debate, few have talked about the causes of the decline of the US middle class, and what should be done about it.

Read the whole thing, it has a great punch line.

Also, Kathy G. looks at the significance of a populist intellectual’s column appearing in Rupert Murdoch’s paper.

Juan Cole breaks most of them down very succinctly, referring also to Frank Rich in today’s NYT (more on that later):

1. The Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and the Da’wa Party, which back Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, are closer to Iran than the Sadr Movement.

2. It was al-Maliki’s parliamentary coalition that sought the cease fire by asking their Iranian patrons to broker it.

3. The main motivation for the attack on Sadrist neighborhoods in Basra was to ensure that ISCI wins the elections in that key oil province in October.

[paragraph broken into bullet points by me]

Note how Prof. Cole uses the word “closer” in the first talking point. From what I’ve been reading, it looks like Iran has close relationships with both al-Sadr AND al-Maliki’s government. The difference is that al-Sadr, a Shiite, is more of an Iraqi nationalist while the ISCI was formed in Iran and doesn’t seem to mind Iran’s influence in Iraqi affairs going forward.

In the meantime, Iran is working with both sides to further their strategic interests. It would definitely not have been in Iran’s interest to have the US military-backed Iraqi government forces take control of Basra, right on their border.

But the press and the Bushies are going to ignore Iran’s ties to al-Maliki and present al-Sadr as the sole proxy for Iran. This way they can argue both against a troop drawdown and for continued hostilities towards Iran.

For more on that second talking point, see this McClatchy article that contains actual reporting as opposed to regurgitating defense department press releases:

The backdrop to Sadr’s dramatic statement was a secret trip Friday by Iraqi lawmakers to Qom, Iran’s holy city and headquarters for the Iranian clergy who run the country.

There the Iraqi lawmakers held talks with Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Qods (Jerusalem) brigades of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and signed an agreement with Sadr, which formed the basis of his statement Sunday, members of parliament said.

Ali al Adeeb, a member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s Dawa party, and Hadi al Ameri, the head of the Badr Organization, the military wing of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, had two aims, lawmakers said: to ask Sadr to stand down his militia and to ask Iranian officials to stop supplying weapons to Shiite militants in Iraq.

But McCain is repeatedly on the teevee saying that “Sadr declared the cease-fire”.

Talking point number three is something you never hear about from the corporate media. The assault on Basra is spun as an effort of the legitimate Iraqi government to “crack down” on fundamentalist rebels and criminal gangs. While in reality, the US military is backing up the al-Maliki faction in their effort to resolve a political power struggle with al-Sadr by force of arms.

But all of the motivations have to do with something President Bush established as a benchmark in January 2007: upcoming provincial elections.

The Sadr Movement leaders themselves are convinced that the recent setting of a date for provincial elections, on Oct. 1, 2008, and al-Maliki’s desire to improve the government’s position in advance of the elections, precipitated the prime minister’s attack. It is widely thought that the Sadrists might sweep to power in the provinces in free and fair elections, since the electorate is deeply dissatisfied with the performance of the major incumbent party in the southern provinces, the Islamic Supreme Council of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim.

It all goes back to the conflicting goals of the Iraqi occupation that the Bushies conflated into the concept of “Freedom”: the idea that Democracy equals Security equals Territorial Integrity equals a Pro-American Iraqi Government. In fact all of these things are very different goals. Making them happen all at the same time is a neat trick. So far the US occupation has achieved none of them.

This brings us to talking point number four (again from Juan Cole’s post today:

4. So while it is not true, as Rich rightly says, that McCain wants to fight for 100 years, it is true that his analogy does imply several more years of hard fighting.
[emphasis by Prof. Cole]

Basically, John McCain is not advocating fighting a 100 year war, but he is advocating staying in Iraq for 100 years. McCain’s statement is framed by his comparison of Iraq to the Korean war. There would be about 10 years of hard fighting ahead of us in Iraq but after that there would be a stalemate and the US would hunker down for a century guarding the border.

Juan Cole goes on to demonstrate that the comparison is ridiculous. Who are the Communists in the Iraq situation? Where is the border where the US would be holding the line?

Anyway, I’m sure the wise men of the Washington Corporate Media will be explaining all these fine points in a way that informs and educates the American public, right?

Many argue otherwise. They say that if we want to end the war, we should simply pick a candidate who is not John McCain and help them win: We’ll sort out the details after the Republicans are evicted from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Some of the most prominent anti-war voices—from MoveOn.org to the magazine we write for, The Nation—have gone this route, throwing their weight behind the Obama campaign.

This is a serious strategic mistake. It is during a hotly contested campaign that anti-war forces have the power to actually sway U. S. policy. As soon as we pick sides, we relegate ourselves to mere cheerleaders.

It’s not just a mistake in this election, it’s always a mistake for citizens that want policies that benefit them.

Politicians are experts at getting you to work your ass off to get what they want (win elected office) while they neglect to fight for what you want (single payer health care, ending the war, etc.).

Once politicians get what they want, the things you want are “complicated” and “unrealistic”. As we saw after the 2006 elections, it’s not a very good bargain for us.

In the 2008 election cycle, rather than making the candidates earn their support by insisting on specific policy pledges, the blogosphere and other activist groups volunteered to become cheerleaders for one candidate or the other.

Cheerleaders are more willing to forgive their chosen politician’s failure to fully and specifically embrace necessary policies because cheerleaders have bought into the idea that the primary objective is “victory” and all other goals are secondary.

By doing this, activists have forfeited the only leverage they have: their vote and their ability to influence other citizens’ votes.

Players understand that the real contest is for leverage over politicians. The other team is composed of corporations and super-rich individuals. The prize is enacted, enforced US government policy.

Policy translates into dollars, life and death.

So which side can bring the most pain, pleasure, pressure to bear on a politician?

What can progressive activists do that will have more leverage than hundreds of millions of dollars in legalized bribes (also known as campaign contributions)?

Lambert says that “protests don’t work”. So far, blog posts haven’t either.

Both tactics are working towards the same goal: changing mass public opinion to such an extent that politicians will have to act accordingly or face losing their next election. But this will not work if we give away our support and our vote - our only bargaining chips - without demanding anything in return.

The Harris report however seems to work really hard to downplay their own numbers. You can compare my post’s title to theirs.

But are people really reading these blogs? The answer is no, as over half of Americans (56%) say they never read blogs that discuss politics.

Only 22% read political blogs on a regular basis, but that is still a huge number. It’s a lot higher than I thought. With the same math above that works out to over 66 million people. It’s a massive audience for a non-broadcast, (largely) non-corporate medium.

Who would have known that investing in massive airtime for an annoying, screechy, conservative prick would not garner any kind of significant audience following?

The lefty bloggers could have told you, and they were right about the mortgage thing too. But they don’t wear fancy bow ties on the Teevee so nobody should pay attention to them.

Is the propaganda value of unbearably crappy right-wing pundits worth the expense of propping them up financially?

The assumption used to be that Real Americans had an innate thirst for racist, crypto-fascist, social darwinist mindfucking. Rush Limbpalls clones sprung up across the nation. It was a goldmine.

But that was when there were no other options in broadcast media. Now, with the internets, Air America and the obvious, massive failure of conservatism, things look to be changing.

There’s the recent demise of Melanie Morgan.

Citadel had a fourth quarter net loss of $848 million, or $3.24 per share, compared with a net loss of $1.1 million on a penny a share during the same quarter in 2006.

Who’s next?

UPDATE: news comes via Teh Editorz.

Rather, I think we’re seeing the evidence that the media has decided that Obama is now the presumptive nominee, and having built him up he must be taken down to make the way for St. John McCain

The strategy is pretty obvious if you look at the big picture over the last year rather than the daily details:

- Early 2007: Hillary is the presumptive nominee. Corporate media attacks Hillary. Result: Hillary’s challengers rise in the polls.

- Late 2007: Obama rises in the polls. Corporate media gives Obama positive (or non-confrontational) coverage. Result: Obama rises in the polls, Hillary declines.

- Early 2008: Now that, with the corporate media’s help, Obama has all but “taken out” Hillary, the media’s knives start to come out for Obama.

- Later 2008: Assuming Obama is the Dem nominee, coporate media trashes him relentlessly. Result: McCain presidency.

- Later 2008 (alternate scenario): Obama and Hillary continue to fight it out for the nomination. Corporate media trashes both of them relentlessly. Dem activists get disgusted with the infighting and drop out. Result: McCain presidency.

Never underestimate the power of a concerted corporate media narrative. They are deciding (as they always have) who is elected.

New Media (blogs and internets and such) only reach a tiny fraction of the audience reached by corporate media. Voters can only act on the information they receive.

Besides being a bonified Progressive, Matt also holds a JD from Stanford so he’s not exactly a lightweight, dude.

Via Jeralyn, he writes today examining Obama’s voting record and past speeches.

I remain impressed by the enthusiasm generated by Obama’s style and skill as an orator. But I remain more loyal to my values, and I’m glad to say that I want no part in the Obama craze sweeping our country.

Read the rest for some very specific, well reasoned points.

UPDATE:

Oh, and about the man who won that 2003 race, Gruesome Gavin Newsom, he is not a progressive, he’s a complete tool. He refuses to show up for public appearances (except if they’re fancy parties), totally sold out to every possible business interest, and allowed insane high-rise condo construction all over the city. Murders are up year after year, but they happen mostly in the small ghetto areas so he doesn’t do anything about them. The mentally ill and/or drug addicted homeless still line the sidewalks and don’t appear to be receiving much of Newsom’s vaunted “care not cash”.

The gay marriage thing? Far from a “bold move” it guaranteed his reelection last year by locking in the support of the LGBT community. He ran virtually unopposed in 2006, after winning his first election by a very small margin. After a couple months of massive media attention for Gavin, same-sex couples still can’t get married in SF.

Even so, Obama doesn’t want to be seen with Gruesome. From Matt’s article:

Why should we believe Obama has courage to bring about change? He wouldn’t have his picture taken with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom when visiting San Francisco for a fundraiser in his honor because Obama was scared voters might think he supports gay marriage (Newsom acknowledged this to Reuters on January 26, 2007 and former Mayor Willie Brown admitted to the San Francisco Chronicle on February 5, 2008 that Obama told him he wanted to avoid Newsom for that reason.)