everyday lives. He’ll be reaching out to us in ways we never knew were possible and it might make us a little uncomfortable. Just like all those 800 calls you block out, you’ll have to get a blocker for your presumptive nominee.

I love this job!

What are the other things?

contact list, but gave only his work number and work address. They found his unlisted cell phone number and contacted him on that.

Now, how did that happen? Through some digging through FaceBook or other networking sites? Wow.

conflict theory and skepticism of authority left the building long ago… actually, they jumped out of the window.

And they’re all (or mostly all) free sites. They’re not going to tell you anything that isn’t already public information:

ZabaSearch.com
Spock.com
Wink.com
Spokeo.com
ZoomInfo.com

And yes, people do sign up on Facebook or MySpace to search for people by name. There is a Facebook page for Barack Obama that has 835,359 supporters. I suppose that could be considered a gold mine.

… but it’s even more frightening the information they cheerfully sign away. Oh well, the NSA knows everything anyhow, so what could go wrong…

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

we may need to move there. This is scary as all hell. He’s moving to not only control money around his race, but around every other race as well. Is he going to go after non-profits next? We know he doesn’t like unions.

I know the blogger boyz see themselves as perhaps becoming richer than god as they ride herd over this develpment. Kos in the history books. But these are no uneducated young men. Do they really not realize how wrong this can go?

So Obama’s got a few IQ points on Bush. Smart fascists aren’t any more desirable than dumb ones and that’s what Obama’s lookin’ like to me.

I never read it, but from what I understand it’s about “empowering” people. I have only seen the high traffic “progressive” bloggers try to obtain power, not so much change the narrative. There big mistake was hitching everything on the Democratic party. If it was issue oriented, it would follow more the conservative think tank model of the 1950s-1980s. It was not, it was about winning. That’s why Obama has become so important to them.

Note all those Obama-skpetics he cites, including our beloved Lambert; good work everyone.

But what is with Matt Stoller; reading him is like dealing with a bi-polar friend, of which I have some experience.

One commentator, Sayitloud, calls Matt out on the switcharooing:

Well Matt (4.00 / 2)
I read your original post several times and you did cheer on Obama. You did it to the degree that you were wondering what the poor blogosphere was going to do in the future as you were being squeezed out. If you have a change of heart after reading the people you cited just say so. It’s OK to have a change of heart.

And Obama on the net being Google-like? Quite an overstatement.

As for 527’s. Big mistake on Obama’s part. He wants to allow the GOP to Swift Boat him with no ’like’ response on the part of friendly 527’s. Dumb, Dumb, Dumb.

Kerry’s biggest downfall was ’non-response’ - don’t we ever learn? If Obama thinks going nice is a winner in the general he is delusional.

But then what can he really do? He can’t counter attack the GOP who he has been courting. To do so would go against his post-partisanship theme so in essence he has painted himself in a corner. They will Swift Boat him and he can’t Swift Boat back. Talk about going to a gun fight with just a spoon!

All that may be academic anyway because he can’t control who gives to 527’s or anyone else. The special interests will spend to get their message out in Presidential elections no matter who is running. Obama can’t change the Constitution and free speech.

And no Matt this is not Obama’s party as you will learn if he is elected. Congress, neither Democrat of Republican, are going to give up their power centers. The Presidency does not have the power to do that in any way. If anything it is congress who controls the Presidency in many ways as it is they who write the bills and budgets.

And people like me who are long time true Progressives are not going to give up the fight as you were willing to do in your original post last week. We will NEVER ACCEPT post-partisanship and Obama’s brand of triangulation. Never.
by: SayItLoud @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:03:27 PM CDT

BTW, you should read the whole comment thread, fascinating stuff. If I have the time I’ll do a post on discussion. Anyone else who wants to, feel free.

I found myself much more in tune with the Obama-questioners, and once again, as in reading so many previous threads all over the blogisphere, turned off by too many of the Obama supporters.

I’ll have more to say about the relationship of outside groups, grassroots movements and electoral politics in a coming post.

I’d also like everyone to know that I intend to respond to the more of the comments left in response to my own “outburst” yesterday; I couldn’t at the time due to previous commitments that took me away from my computer.

German democracy is beginning to look pretty good to me, compared with ours. Not a criticism, Lambert, I don’t know what other full-proof way to signal “the rise of fascism” issue, though it does seem a bit unfair to the Germans, now that we’re in a different century. Actually, with Berlusconi back on the scene, Italy appears closer to fascism than any other western European democracy, at least electorally; the Italians were never really cut out for fascism, as Eddie Izzard has noted - it’s all those vespas and “chiao”s, slow scooters, slow food, and being surrounded by endless beauty, urban and rural, don’t hurt.

Never surrender?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

He’ll have his own coalition, his own infrastructure which his dog stoller calls ’aggressive and hypercompetent’ (how does he know that it’s hyper capable?) and he will eliminate all other groups associated with the party (NARAL?).

General Obama is marching with his troupes to the Democratic capital and plans on taking the government over.

Corollary: we must guarantee Obama’s defeat to save the party and may be the country. A bush/Obama dynasty will be a catastrophe.

“And no Matt this is not Obama’s party as you will learn if he is elected. Congress, neither Democrat of Republican, are going to give up their power centers. The Presidency does not have the power to do that in any way. If anything it is congress who controls the Presidency in many ways as it is they who write the bills and budgets.”

Um, isn’t that exactly what’s been going on the last 8 years?

————————————————————————
“A true friend stabs you from the front” -Oscar Wilde

… and not identified with one party. And we have so very little excuse for it, compared with, oh, millions of war dead, hyper-inflation, and the collape of an empire (hmmm….).

It isn’t like the generations of Conservative dominance haven’t damaged us.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

I’m a racist, so they won’t tell me.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

I am heartbroken. What happened to the principles that made us what we are?

Did the ENTIRE PARTY just never have any?

I find it comforting that so far they have been unable to get Clinton to leave the race. I feel sorta like the guy who wrote “Star Spangled Banner” - I am going to hide my eyes while KY and OR vote and then I am going to ask, Is she still standing?

How insightful, Lambert. Of course, Obama consolidating power in the Democratic party is exactly like the Nazi’s “establish[ing] a system of totalitarian control over the individual, and tight coordination over all aspects of society and commerce”. What is it with Corrente Senior Fellows and their penchant for comparing the Obama campaign with Nazis? It belittles the true horrors of the Nazis. You should be ashamed of yourself, you fucking hack.

Under the bus along with your heart [mine, too].

Thank you for commenting, dmd76. Your comment is very important to us. Please do not hesitate to comment again.

————————————————————————
“A true friend stabs you from the front” -Oscar Wilde

Fuck off, myiq. Maybe your family hasn’t lost anyone to goddamn, motherfucking fascists. Mine has (in two wars (Spanish Civil and WWII)). To see supposed progressives flippantly insinuate that the Democratic candidate they don’t support is maybe, sort of like the Nazis is a slap in the face to those who actually suffered and died at the hands those barbaric swine.

Thank you for commenting, dmd76. Your comment is very important to us. Please do not hesitate to comment again.

————————————————————————
“A true friend stabs you from the front” -Oscar Wilde

What a pack of cowards! This post has been up for four hours and not one person (before this “troll”) has had the integrity to challenge Lambert on his ridiculous claim. The best myiq can come up with is parroting Lambert’s stupid passive-aggressive “Thank you for commenting”. Deep thinkers all!

No one intends to lessen your lose. What Obama is doing is scary; I used the term Putsch which is associated with fascist movement and military take overs. I tried to stay away from Nazi association, but you cannot ignore the similarity, though somewhat stretched.

You’re not the only person with a lose in WWII. I lost a brother when he was murdered by the Nazis; he was 11 months old. My reaction was different than yours, when Obama started to support and encourage the Clinton hate, I know where he is going.

Thank you for commenting, dmd76. Your comment is very important to us. Please do not hesitate to comment again.

————————————————————————
“A true friend stabs you from the front” -Oscar Wilde

Listen to the guy and either respond to it contextually or ignore him. Don’t send him a form letter.

Name calling is nice, but if you disagree that Obama’s consolidation of power is counter to democratic principles then explain why. If consolidating the party apparatus under the Obama movement is good for the party, explain why.

But you aren’t going to do that because your intent isn’t to engage in meaningful discussion, it’s to hijack the thread because it’s critical of Obama. This is what you always do. That’s what makes you a troll. Not that you support Obama or disagree, but because you have no interest in discussing the subject of the thread.

I know from experience that the former is a complete waste of time.

————————————————————————
“A true friend stabs you from the front” -Oscar Wilde

The tools Obama’s using were developed by grassroots progressive activists, after all, and the power to bypass the Democratic Party whenever necessary should have been a goal of the progressive movement from the beginning.

The progressives develop the tools, and the reactionaries steal ’em. Happens every time…

…for the rest of us

Much as hanging up is the perfect response to robo-calls by telemarketers. If they are not calling me to actually have a discussion, but only to foist their sales pitch on me, I hang up. (Actually I have caller ID, which would be a handy invention for the blogosphere: self-identifying trolls, to whom we could pay attention if hideously bored).

And I agree, this is a very weird power centralizing thing, reminding me of the politicizing of the attorneys general by the Republicans. Big-brother type intrusiveness is just what we don’t want.

Nazi germany is the wrong analogy.

Stalin’s USSR is far more apt. The eagerness with which individuals and groups are willing to debase themselves in the hope of maintaining some of their influence is astonishing — Obama throws pro-choice advocates under the bus, NARAL endorses Obama; Obama trashes Unions for supporting Edwards, the United Steelworkers endorse Obama; Obama spends weeks dissing the interests of the working class, John Edwards endorses Obama.

Except, Koshembos, asking Dem donors to not give money to 527s is absolutely nothing like a fascist or totalitarian takeover. I encourage you to follow the link to Wikipedia’s entry on Gleischaltung. Tell me, what has Obama done that remotely compares to the Nazi “system of totalitarian control over the individual, and tight coordination over all aspects of society and commerce”?

As for encouraging Clinton hate, I’d love to see some concrete examples. I read each of the ninety examples of misogyny against Sen. Clinton listed at here (it’s referenced in the sticky post today). Out of the 90, there are 3 that are attributed to Obama’s campaign. #26, Jesse Jackson, Jr. said HRC cried “about her appearance”. #55, Obama said something to the effect of [HRC’s claws came out]. #19, which is the worst of all in my opinion, Obama has not denounced the sexism directed at HRC. Every other example is some idiot in the media, mainly Chris Matthews, Maureen Dowd, Andrew Sullivan. You’ll find no argument with me, they are a bunch of sexist pigs and an embarassment to their trade, but it is unjust to lay the blame for their idiocy at Obama’s feet.

To see supposed progressives flippantly insinuate that the Democratic candidate they don’t support is maybe, sort of like the Nazis KKK is a slap in the face to those who actually suffered and died at the hands those barbaric swine.

Do you SEE what I did there?

Are we done?

Tip your waitresses.

yeah willyjsimmons, I see what you did. I was pointing to an actual comparison of Obama and the Nazis made by Lambert, and you responded by pointing to a comparison of HRC(I’m assuming) and the KKK made by absolutely no one in this thread (certainly not me). I think that’s called a straw man. In your mind, I’m sure, that excuses comparing a Democratic candidate to the Nazis.

You are right BDBlue, I have no interest in discussing whether Obama is more like Hitler or Stalin. I can’t believe anyone else does either. If that makes me a troll, then so be it.

Yes, I am busy, so briefly:

Believe me, dmd76, I am fully capable of calling bullshit on a fascist movement and writing exactly that post using exactly those words. In fact, I did not write that post. If you want to study up, the books I would recommend for you would be the Richards Evans series on the Nazis. It’s got a tremendous, detailed and nuanced section on gleischaltung, as the Nazis consolidate stamp collectors, and so forth, under their own very special brand of Unity. Certainly a little reading will prove more useful to you than Wikipedia, wonderful though it is.

Is there an authoritarian tendency intrinsic to all humans, not just Obama’s faction in the party? I would argue yes — that is one reason the Framers were so concerned with multiple centers of power and checks and balances between them.

Should bullshit be called on all such tendencies? Again, I would argue yes, before it’s too late, and please note that I am by no means the only poster to be worried about Obama’s “consolidation” of power; check Stoller’s link, and the many other posts we’ve had here on this topic.

In fact, working on the general principle that stuck pig squeals, I’d say that your reaction is so over the top, and so defensive, that I must have really struck a nerve. (I suppose if I’d also mentioned a real trigger, like—put your coffee down—“Paul Krugman,” that would really have sent you round the twist.)

A useful result! Maybe you could take this up with your guy, and tell Him to back off?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

You’re seriously going to freak out over the use of an arguably politically incorrect word as the means of derailing a conversation about how Obama is remaking the Democratic party into the Obama party?

Gimme a break.

Yes.

NOTE His real problem with the frame isn’t that it’s wrong, but that it’s effective.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

And you know it. But again, you have no interest in answering my substantive questions about Obama’s actions and how they relate to democratic principles or the health of the democratic party. All you want to do is hijack a thread that’s critical of Obama. That’s why you’re a troll.

Or, you know, what lambert just said.

Thought not. Been thinking that.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

is that we spent the better part of eight years bemoaning the “unitary executive” under George Bush and now much of the Democratic party seems intent on doing the same damn thing.

While F. A. Hayek was completely wrong that any government regulation was a one-way trip to totalitarianism, he was correct that centralization of power is an invitation to abuse of that power.

The wise prince that is given dictatorial powers is ultimately replaced with a not-so-wise prince.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

————————————————————————
“A true friend stabs you from the front” -Oscar Wilde

We have labor, minorities, women, LGBT, environmental and other contituencies (with lots of overlap) that all have differing agendas and interests. Sometimes they in are conflict.

By “defunding” these interest groups, we disempower them. They become dependent on the leadership rather than the membership.

All hail Obama!

————————————————————————
“A true friend stabs you from the front” -Oscar Wilde

we spent the better part of eight years bemoaning the “unitary executive” under George Bush and now much of the Democratic party seems intent on doing the same damn thing.

Not to mention, being critical of those who would so willingly hand over control to Bush and the Republicans and stay quiet when our freedoms were being stripped away.

That’s what creeped me out the worst about the Bowers, dday and tristero posts last weekend — they seemed eager to embrace centralized power consolidated under one man.

My beef with the whole issue is that we spent the better part of eight years bemoaning the “unitary executive” under George Bush and now much of the Democratic party seems intent on doing the same damn thing.

The most scary part of the “unitary executive” was the part our Democratic Senators and Representatives played in this. I remember all the machinations going on - executive to legislative, legislative to legislative. Each time we reasonable folks were shaking our heads, surely, they’ll stand firm on this; surely, they’ll use the tools in the rule book to counter this; surely …; surely ….

So we really shouldn’t be surprised that this is happening. Instead of fighting the good fight, they said - Oh goody, we can do that too.

I’m wondering now about that meeting that Obama had in San Francisco with the big backers. Methinks they’re gaming the system, and we’re being played.

is that we spent the better part of eight years bemoaning the “unitary executive” under George Bush and now much of the Democratic party seems intent on doing the same damn thing.

Well, there is a little difference between a candidate who had a strong organization and a president who has no checks on his power. But let’s not let that spoil the party.

I refer you to Senator Clinton’s “discussion” with Code Pink for a strong defense of the unitary presidency.

commentary without links.

What does Hillary have to do with what Obama is trying to do anyway?

————————————————————————
“A true friend stabs you from the front” -Oscar Wilde

Oh, for fuck’s sake. A post titled “Let’s Brush Up on Our German!” about Obama, the first word of which is “Gleischaltung”, and I’m being too politically correct? Lambert, words have specific meanings, and when you use words, you better be able to support your claims. If you wanted to write a post about Obama’s dangerous consolidation of power, you could have done it without invoking the Nazis. But you didn’t, did you? Hell, I agree with you that marginalizing 527s is not a terribly smart idea. But to go from that to ominous warnings of impending Nazi-like totalitarian control is offensive for all of the reasons that I’ve stated. It occurs to me that very few of you have actually ever lived under totalitarian regimes. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be so tolerant of such flip and inept comparisons. As for Krugman, he’s the best op-ed columnist the NYT has, by far; I just disagree with his choice for Dem presidential candidate. Finally, who you vote for is your business, I don’t really care and I have no interest in influencing you one way or another.

BDBlue, you are the one trying to derail the conversation. I’m responding to the words Lambert wrote, not the words I wish he had written. I’m not the one insinuating a Democratic candidate’s campaign is sort of like the Nazis.

And another thing, Lambert, comparing Obama (or Hillary or Edwards or even that fuckwad Bush) to the Nazis “strikes a nerve”. The reasons why should be self-evident.

… was another one of dmd76’s duds dropping to earth, and failing to explode. Read the last sentence.

“sort of”

My God. Isn’t your shift over yet, dmd76? Or are you back from break?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

You’re right Lambert, I was being too generous. There’s nothing in your original posts that qualified your comparison. No “sort of” about it, your post equates Obama’s techniques to that of the Nazis.

Were you aware, dmd76, that you can actually — and by “can,” I mean “have the technical capability to” actually reply on point?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Were you aware, dmd76, that you can actually — and by “can,” I mean “have the technical capability to”—actually reply on point?

And could you stop lying about what the post says? Read Darko, for pity’s sake. Or Stoller. There’s no equating here at all. Too, too, simple minded. Clever up.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Were you aware that you can edit your own post so that there’s no need to double post to just add a few sentences? Awesome, these internets.

It wasn’t worth writing two separate responses. That’s not a “double post”; it’s just being efficient. Now, about getting back on point?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

of the Republicans when it was suggested that the Bush was beginning to resemble a fascist government?

“ZOMG! How dare you say that! George Bush is NOTHING like a fascist!

Then we discover that our government is torturing people, running secret prison camps, prosecuting political opponents, “preemptively” invading other countries, and spying on American citizens without warrants.

Now the Democratic establishment is trying to force a nominee on us who wants to turn the Democratic party into the Obama party, and we’re getting that same reaction because we say “Hey, maybe this isn’t such a good idea.”

————————————————————————
“A true friend stabs you from the front” -Oscar Wilde

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

about Obama’s consolidation plan? No defense about how it isn’t really consolidating power and pushing other democratic groups out so that he and his movement can take control of the party. Good to know.

… and I hope you’ll answer me too (see my question at the bottom). I think certain aspects of Obama’s consolidation of power are excellent. Taking on a 50 state voter registration drive, for example. Other aspects seem pretty conventional. For example, using the donor database he’s built for fund raising, lobbying, etc. (pretty much what Dean did with DFA during his campaign, and Kerry during his). I find nothing objectionable there. As far as requesting that donors not give money to 527s, that I disagree with. I think that Democratic 527s have done a great deal of good and have pushed the party in the direction it needed to go to start recovering from the doldrums of 2000-2004. In my mind, they are the Dem’s answer to the Right’s vast network of patronage for the die-hards and up-and-comers. To limit the money that goes to these groups might have very bad consequences a few years down the line. There’s my take on Obama’s consolidation of power.

Now, do you think it is appropriate to describe what Obama is doing by using Nazi comparisons? Don’t you think it trivializes the death and suffering of millions? Do you think it is possible to talk about these things without alluding to learning German and Gleischaltung? Wouldn’t you be offended if, for example, Josh Marshall wrote about Hillary in her Führerbunker?

by claiming offense.

Lambert used a little hyperbole in his thesis to make the point that totalitarianism is bad.

You take that and turn it into a trivialization of World War II the Holocaust.

Where have we seen this before? How about Hillary’s statement that it took a President (Johnson) to make Dr. Kings dream into a reality?

That was twisted by the Obama campaign into a trivialization of King’s work.

————————————————————————
“A true friend stabs you from the front” -Oscar Wilde

to literally mean that Obama is a Nazi. So no, I don’t think it trivializes the holocaust because I don’t think it’s about that. What Bush did today in Israel by comparing democrats to Neville Chamberlain is trivializing the holocaust because he intended his remarks to be taken seriously. He literally meant Democrats = Nazi Appeasers. I took lambert’s reference as myiq2xu did to be a rhetorical device, used to make a point about the dangers of consolidated power. It’s similar, in my mind to Molly Ivins’ statement about Pat Buchanan’s 1992 convention speech - “it was probably better in the original German.” Buchanan, as awful as he is, is not Hitler or one of his henchmen. It was a deliberate overstatement to make a point.

Believe me, as much as I think Obama is a sexist asshole, I do not consider him a Nazi. His attempts to consolidate the party under his brand, however, makes me very uneasy. Because I am leery about consolidated power and one of those reasons why I’m leery is that societies where power gets consolidated, particularly around one individual, tend not to be as free. We’re already moving in that direction under Bush, to see the democratic party drift in that direction as well is very disturbing, IMO.

I agree with you on the 527 stuff. It’s politically stupid, IMO. Obama can’t negatively attack McCain like he needs to. So de-funding those means he will not have any effective means for countering McCain. He’ll be John Kerry all over again.

Obama’s apparently been consolidating power from the beginning. Pretty presumptuous for a freshman Senator and in context of everything else (the increasingly transparent attempt at an hostile takeover of the Democratic Party) very suspicious.

Will the real Obama puppeteers please stand up?

… I would have said that. One could say, for example, that the practice of injecting deportees with dangerous psychotropic drugs is reminiscent of Soviet psychology without saying Bush is Stalin.

In either case, the consolidation of power, and its manner, should be of concern. Or do we think that Republicans are the only people capable of evil? The Framers didn’t think so.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

The silence is deafening. Normally this respected group’s press releases get picked up by the mainstream media.

Said The Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, a practicing Baptist minister and President of the Interfaith Alliance:

“I am deeply disappointed that Senator Obama once again chose to distribute information about his religious beliefs in an attempt to score political points before a critical primary. The candidates for president are running for Commander-in-Chief, not Pastor-in-Chief, and the Constitution clearly prohibits using religious convictions as a qualification for public office. There are so many serious issues facing this country from the war to health care to the economy. Presidential candidates need to spend more time outlining their vision for this country and less time trumpeting their religious bona fides.”

http://www.tialliance.org/news/35-press-…

is the ennui it’s been met with by people being cut out of power and what appears to be the welcoming of a charismatic, authoritarian leader by some of the Blogger Boiz. Now, maybe if I hadn’t spent the last eight years watching us march towards totalitarianism because of these same things happening in the Republican party, I wouldn’t be so worried. But given that I want the democrats to fix this very problem, it’s disturbing to see them doing the same thing.