gentlemen would be a bigger plus if I thought that they were chastened by their intimate flirtations with right wing politics having turned out less well than they thought.

Until that time...

"Sadly, Not!"

I didn't take it that far, but it does seem that the Barack Obama contingent really does seem to embrace the 'let's all be friends and pretend that Republicans will be nice once we traipse into D.C.' philosophy.

Barack Obama: B.O.: An uncomfortable truth that nobody wants to point out for fear of offending someone they like.

Or: B.O.: The Bend Over Candidacy!

Bill Nelson of Florida jumps on board. That'll seal the deal for me!

BTW, Mr. Senator Nelson of Florida is having a Townhall meeting in my very town on Tuesday. Any suggestions?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/12/...

They can't even fight back against Hilary campaign tricks. The Obama campaigners just roll over and pee themselves. What is the unity pony going to bring when the GOP election machine rolls into Obama-town to bring the pain? Reach across the table?

What happened to giving Republicans hell? Maybe if either Edwards or Hillary could start talking about how awful the Republican candidates are, they could get a lift out of it.

McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a hundred years. He also snorts like a geek when he makes jokes about Mitt. I thought she missed a big chance when Charlie Gibson asked her a question based on the idea that the surge is working and Bush was right and you were wrong. Why doesn't one of them ask back, "Does anyone think the surge is going to result in an end to this war before George Bush leaves office, or is the next president going to have to solve this six year problem that is eating up 350 bn bucks a year?" Isn't ending the war change?

although it is primary season, and so intraparty bashing is to be expected, any candidate who wants to get a boost should be bashing republicans, and bush, as hard as they can.

there are so few differences between the 'big three,' and as for that whole 'the voters want change' line, what better way to set them up to see you as the agent? "i'll end the war that bush started." "I'll end the tax cuts that bush gave the rich." "I'll restore the Constitution that bush republicans destroyed," etc.

no need to piss off the Pony Pity Patties at all. well, i guess that would piss off some of them, but that's the rub innit? just what do these "democratic" unity pony riders really want? because you can't have "change" and "unity" at the same time.

It is possible to ride this unity pony show too far (talking to lambert, here.) Sure, Obama may be naive, he may be pandering to the Beltway Uber-Elite, he may be tacking too far to "center" or "right" or whatever you want to call it, BUT-

If he is elected it will still likely mean a sea-change in how the US gov't operates. And there is the question of unknowables like how will he respond after getting roughed up by the powers-that-be? Maybe I'll be disappointed but I suspect his natural bias will be to re-group around the principles--progressive principles--that got him into politics in the first place.

Example: I have not yet read David Cay Johnston's new book, 'Free Lunch', but I've heard two radio interviews with Johnston in recent days. The book sounds like a devastating expose of the rigging of public policy by corporate powers to enrich the wealthy at the expense of the middle class & poor. It is extremely difficult for me to imagine Obama, when engaged in a factual discussion of the facts laid out in Johnston's book, agreeing that this isn't an egregious breach of public faith by government.

When the rubber meets the road, that is when debate turns to the world of facts, I find it unlikely that Obama will consider the desire of the rich to be uber-rich as on a par with the desire of the middle class to see an increase in economic security.

a couple of angry and Shrill bloggers, trust me.

understand that obama is one of many, many Unity Pony Riders and the only reason he gets the coverage here is because he's the center of Unity discussions so frequently right now. but we've been anti-Unity bloggers (although phrased differently by different writers in different posts) for a long, long time.

Just to recap the major dangers of "unity"

-it excuses republican criminals. just like when we failed to flush them out with nixon, they came back in the bush administration bolder and meaner, Unity politicians fail to realize that criminals in government must be punished. and let's be clear, the Bush adminstration is going to set records for overall criminality in office. if we can lock up black men for life for selling a dime bag three times, we damn sure better be willing to do what it takes to jail those who are traitors to the Consitituion. which says something about what to do with traitors, iirc.

-it keeps policy discussions focused on moderate solutions which don't work. for eight, painful years, we've watched leading dems accomdate, give in, compromise, tone it down...it makes me sick to think about how many times they've been willing to throw democratic constituents under the bus, all in the name of picking up a few more 'moderate centrists.' as people are fond of saying around here, if a voter wants republican values, they'll vote for the republican. although the voters came thru in 06, look at recent polls of congressional approval- i just read recently that they're polling lower than the IRS. and yet- the 110th has been one, big "Unity" session. think about that.

-on the same point, Unity policies don't solve our problems. Unity attitudes are what brought about the housing market crash, the continual train wreck that is the war/occupation of Iraq, and winning legislation like the BK bill. Unity policies include more tax cuts for the rich, and bombing Iran if they get too sassy. you can see where that sort of thinking has got us recently, do you want to have more of the same?

Finally, "unity" assumes something that is very, very false, that is, that there is a great big mushy middle of undecided, nonpartisan, kumbaya voters who are the key to every election. that's not true. people are partisan more than ever before, and we're only just now starting to see that in the SCLM. not because they want to talk about all these new people joining the partisan ranks and getting active in partisan causes (and populist/progressive ones at that). no, it's because the groundswell and desire for real change is overwhelming, and they can't explain it away with their other narratives anymore. Stick with the Unity message, and you are acting as if a tiny number of people in the Beltway are more important that millions of Americans who are strictly and firmly against the war, in favor of universal health care, against more tax cuts for the rich, etc. majorities, in many cases.

Unity Hatred isn't about Obama, it's about making sure we don't get stuck with a continuation of the last eight years, albeit the kinder, gentler version. none of the dem candidates are perfect in this respect, but Obama is the worst of the big three, and he keeps reminding us of that. if he'd change his tune, so would we.

and let me be sassy with you and say that putting fact in bold isn't the same as offering up actual bold facts and actions. obama speaks prettily enough, but again- where's the beef? give me a recent, concrete and progressive policy statement he's made. i'm all ears.

... better than I could have! I think I'll take the day off...

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

you got to dance with the Pony what brung ya. How on earth do you govern as a progressive if you didn’t run as one? Yes, corporate owners are rigging public policy at the expense of the poor. Bingo! But when those same corporate owners, working(tacitly perhaps, but still working) through their enablers like Broder and Brooks, help get you elected, hard to imagine they’ll just sit back and allow you to pick them to pieces once they realize they’ve been so cleverly hoodwinked.

Live by the Pony, die by the Pony.

Nice response, chicago dyke.

It will probably be easier to get Mr. Senator Bill Nelson of Florida to tell us what Senator Obama's position on the matter is before he divulges his very own position!

I thought I might ask him about habeus corpus, too. Like when it might be returned to us.

What is Senator Obama's plan to restore Constitutional government?

To be fair, IIRC Obama gave excellent answers on Charlie Savage's interview on this topic. But nobody's going to remember that. I want the talking point as of today since (a) that's what people will remember and (b) if they don't have a talking point, that means they don't really think the issue is important.

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

Well, thank you, CD, for the detailed response. We're--I think--discussing shades of emphasis here, and basically, I'm in agreement with Krugman's critique of Obama. I'm reacting to what seems to me an excessive emphasis on the Unity thing at this blog. (Analogy: I paint a beautiful picture, I fall in love with it, I can't stop talking about it...)

So, I think you're oftentimes painting with too broad a brush, making inferences about what Obama might do in office based upon a sprawling aggregation of ideas and factoids that, to you, represent this idea of "Unity" politics.

I certainly agree that the current administration is essentially criminal in nature. I'm not sure that prosecuting them is either possible or desirable. Certainly, it would pose a risk of provoking a severe backlash from "red America." And I can imagine a course of action that, while perhaps falling short of what progressives like you and I would prefer, would still be effective in my view, at discouraging similar mischief in the future. I'm thinking along the lines of South Africa's Truth & Reconciliation Commission (?)

Obama is probably not going to seek criminal indictments against Bush and his cronies. But is it inconceivable that he would seek a public accounting?

Again, I am mostly in agreement with you folks. I'm trying to point to the hazard associated with talking too much to people who already agree with you. Ideas harden and take on a life of their own.

Peace.

You will see that when one team has to give up the ball they almost always kick it as far as they possibly, humanly, fucking well can away from the goal line the are trying to defend.

There is a useful lesson here, as well as an excuse to drink beer. When you say

I certainly agree that the current administration is essentially criminal in nature. I’m not sure that prosecuting them is either possible or desirable.

..this is as if the football team, instead of kicking shit out of the ball downfield, just calmly hands it to the other QB right at the 4th down line.

Good lord, man, if you don't like sports analogies think of any form of negotiation, conflict or dispute you prefer. You don't start out the process of rooting out events that were "criminal in nature" by talking about T&R Commissions, you talk about torches, bonfires, the Bastille and guillotines.

THEN maybe later on down the road you can--after you win of course, because people will flock to the promise of actual action a lot harder than they will to the rattle of pearls being clutched--then you can hint perhaps that as a magnanimous gesture, IF you can hold back the ravening hordes that are demanding the miscreants be ripped limb from limb on live TV with PPV, then perhaps something less than the death penalty can be put on the table. IF full confessions are forthcoming asap.

See? We can talk about matters without ever mentioning the "p" word. Really. :)

first off, we didn't invent "Unity." it was a name given to the creators of the push to run bloomberg and some democrat on a third party ticket for the 08 elections. have you heard of it in this context? i'm betting no, and right there you make an important point (outside the beltway, the idea of a "unified" /liberal republican/conservative dem ticket is a joke, less than a joke, and totally unknown). even if you did know what Unity 08 was all about, i just can't agree with a couple of points you've made.

let me put it this way: how much better off would this country be today, if dick cheney had gone to jail back in the day, when he was part of the nixon/ford team? just stop and ponder that, ok? that's one example of what happens when you let criminals get off scott free. there are many, many others. and somehow, republicans are at their fiercest when prosecuting democrats. ahem, you do remember the clinton years, right? he has said that he would've been far, far more progressive, but he was too busy fending off republican legal attacks. think about that for a minute. now imagine how we could slow down the republican party if they had to constantly go on the legal offensive.

and then there's that whole thing about treason. you seem like someone who perhaps isn't aware of the many, many treasonous activities in today's republican party. i don't have time to list them now, but i'll get back to it soon. we've listed them here on corrente many times. don't you think treason is in a class by itself? or is it less important than a blowjob in the WH?

as for red state backlash- that's really not a worry, they're busy tearing themselves apart arguing over why Ron Paul and Hucksterbee, and not the establishment choices, should lead the party. at the populist level, Little People republicans in red states are just as pissed as we are. they just articulate it differently. turn off the teevee and go chat up some of your fundie neighbors. it sounds to me like you've fallen for a few falsehoods about nonexistent majorities and political theories that only hold traction in the beltway.

"unity" is a dangerous concept and we just can't afford it right now.

however, i'll grant you this much: if the only option is a T&RC, i'll take it. but the biggest criminals still need to go to jail.

millions dead, wounded, and refugee iraqis demand nothing less. or do you think lying a nation into war is just small potatoes?

we play rough here, but we really do welcome all views. if we sass you a little or lambert forget to take his anti-cranky pills, please don't take it personally. everyone is treated with equal incivility and shrillness here.

thanks for reading. please comment again, and skip over the unity posts when you're tired of them.

... unity pussy. But maybe I should be changing my approach?

Long, long ago, deep in the heart of Oborg territory over at Big Orange, I wrote that Unity meant not holding criminals accountable, and was vociferously abused for my pains -- they really came in human waves -- because I didn't understand what Obama "really meant." Now it appears that I called my shot:

I certainly agree that the current administration is essentially criminal in nature. I’m not sure that prosecuting them is either possible or desirable.

Why am I never cynical enough?

NOTE And to repeat what Xan said, why take criminal prosecution "off the table" at all? As I wrote here, "When you've got them by the balls, the heart and head soon follow." I don't mind a Truth and Reconciliation Commission as an outcome (in fact I've advocated for it on this blog) but I don't see how you can get to that point without a prolonged and public ball-squeezing and, if necessary, busting. Sometimes the fun thing to do is also the right thing to do. Eh?

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

Heavens to Mergatroid! Where to begin?

First of all, I AM watching football! (Rootin' fer the G'ints!)

Second of all, even though I'm new here (found you on Krugman's link) and you don't know me from a crack in the wall, I consider you my pals because I think our politics are virtually indistinguishable. (I really loved the post of lambert's that PK linked.)

Third of all, and now I'm drawing a line in the sand, 'Kay? There is a risk associated with partisanship, and in this case I'm talking about the effect of insular communities of like-minded people reinforcing each other, and to some difficult to measure extent, alienating themselves from the larger community.

Fourth of all, the first casualty of the sort of partisanship I'm talking about is perspective. Remember, we're comparing the Democratic contenders for the nomination. There are three with a realistic chance. IMO, all three are qualified, all three would be a dramatic improvement over the current outlaw administration. I would prefer Edwards. But it wouldn't be a disaster if Hillary or Obama got the nomination. Maybe you disagree.

So, when I defend the prospect of an Obama nomination it is not because he's my first choice. He isn't. And when I defend the utility of letting go of the hope of criminal prosecution it is for several reasons. One, because a more moderate candidate like Obama probably doesn't go that route. Two, going that route might prove incendiary for the nation. I don't know, but it could. And three, if you look at the broad scope of history, I believe, the greatest progress comes from large-scale moments of mercy and restraint. I'm thinking of classical Greece here. Political amnesty was essential to allowing Greek democracy to recover from right-wing coups (Critias etc.)

Indeed, the prospect of flushing out the truth can be greatly facilitated by immunity. What I want is for the entire scope of Bush criminality to be exposed for the nation to see. Getting into the details is going to be easier, the culpable will be less energetic to destroy evidence, if they believe they will face mercy. I'm thinking here about the US attorneys, about Gov. Siegleman in Alabama, about torture, about wire-tapping and so on. To me it is vastly more valuable that the truth come out rather than the guilty go to jail. Both would be nice, but I'll take the former over the latter.

how much better off would this country be today, if dick cheney had gone to jail back in the day, when he was part of the nixon/ford team?

With all respect, CD, gone to jail for what?

“unity” is a dangerous concept and we just can’t afford it right now.

You realize that sounds kind of funny, don't you? I mean, is there any concept that isn't dangerous when embraced by zealots?

or do you think lying a nation into war is just small potatoes?

Certainly not!! :^)

why take criminal prosecution “off the table” at all?

I wasn't taking it off the table! I was saying it is not a disaster if somebody like Obama does take it off the table. There's a difference there, please note.

I watched this episode of the BBC The Century of the Self (Episode 4)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

You really need to see this in the context of what OFB are latching on to. It explains the psychology applied to consumerism and the shift in politics to using the same approaches to send a message of what people want. Obviously, it talks about Thatcher and Reagan, but you can extrapolate to the Unity Pony Party.

Seriously, watch this show.

I wasn’t taking [criminal prosecution] off the table! I was saying it is not a disaster if somebody like Obama does take it off the table.

In what sense is it not a disaster? In the sense we can hold hands? In the sense that the next president inherits unprecedented powers? Or just that "somebody like Obama" can get away with spineless cowardly selling out of America, and that is ok.

jingoism and soft-sell that the right has used so skillfully, and possibly a large part of why Obama makes me and many others uneasy – it sound like them precisely because it sounds like them.

Buying Obama is like buying any other pretty new widget that you absolutely have to have because everyone says it’s way cool and you know it will make everything in your life much better because, well, it just will. Huh, black man selling brain-crack to whitey.

i really, truly mean that.

um, i got up at 4am today, and my life is, well, sort of really stressful and hard just now, so i can't do justice in this response, having tapped out most of my blogging energy today already.

lemme see if i can hit the major points.

1. please spend some time, when you have it, reading the backlogue of this blog. if you go to the top and hit on any of the writers' names (in red), you'll get a history of all posts ever put up here by each of us. start with lambert, he's our Big Gun. i know you'll like what you see.

2. please understand, we are part of the "vanguard." we're to the left of the left, more progressive than most progressives, often contrarian and willing to be unpopular even among other liberal bloggers, because we're arrogant/purists/true believers/pie in the sky radicals/fools/saints. to wit: very few writers here have any respect for the NYT anymore. with notable exceptions like PK, we call it "the old grey whore" for many, documented on this blog, reasons. just to help you understand us.

3. if you want to make a name for yourself here (not that it would mean anything) you should know that what 'gets respect' is linking. that is, backing up your assertions with "live links" to statements from candidates or pols or policy writers, supporting your assertions. not that there's anything wrong with expressing your own opinions, please do, we welcome and value that. but if you're going to make an argument about "why you should believe X about candidate Y" it's best if you show, as well as tell.

4. it's really important as well that you answer specific charges that are against/corrective/different than your own. to wit: i asked you to provide specific policy statements obama has made recently to support your conclusions about what he may do. i meant that, and it really helps when people can follow thru with links. if you don't know how to hyperlink, let me know and i'll explain. also, i asked you about your own understanding of the history of "unity" as a political term in our age. answer those questions and you'll gain respect here- even if the answer is "no, i don't know."

5. again, read the history of this blog (and our older site, www.corrente.blogspot.com, where we blogged before we moved here). you'll see that we are NOT in any way, snicker, "unified" in thought or writing. we disagree with each other, as well as our readers, all the frakkin time. heh, you don't want to see the private arguments that go on behind the scenes- you think we're mean here? feh.

the "echo chamber" critique is one frequently made by the SCLM of the blogosphere. sometimes, it's a valid one. but not here. really. i don't say that because i love my blogmates and readers and guest posters (although i do) but because we have had many, many private and public disagreements, all the time and on many issues. this is a group blog, and we're incredibly diverse. you may not know it, but our writers include blacks, whites, gays, latinos, jews, str8s, the mature, the young, the rich, the poor, the overly educated, the working class, the imprisoned...i'm very proud to say that you'll find few blogs more diverse than this one, in terms of senior writers. none of us give in to pressures like "well, i shouldn't say that because it will make [lambert or shystee or MJS] look bad." not ever.

6. have you read this book? perhaps you're old enough to say "i was there" for the nixon admin. i was just a child when it all went down, but i still remember my mom plastering one whole wall of our home with "guilty, guilty, GUILTY!!!" op eds during that time.

the point i'm making is that NO ONE in the nixon/ford admins was "clean." if only, if only dems of that age had had the guts to 'go all the way,' and expose the the totality of the criminality of that time. when they had momentum and moral values on their side. sigh. that is essentially why i'm asking for it now- we can't afford to let the Bad Guys get away with it this time. that time, it only cost us faith in democracy. this time, it's going to cost us that, and so.much.more.

i have a young nephew and two nieces. i don't think their world will be tolerable, if we don't stop this mess now.

7. as to my thoughts on unity and "how that sounds-" i did put the word in quotes. meaning, i don't mean it to mean what "unity" means in the dictionary, only how it is used by some today.

8. i believe you really need to look more closely at recent political behavior on the part of democrats in the age of bush. you say:

I’m thinking of classical Greece here. Political amnesty was essential to allowing Greek democracy to recover from right-wing coups (Critias etc.)

and i say, welcome, scholar! you're right at home here! i did my doctoral work in ancient semitic civilizations, i love it when people quote the classics!

that said, we don't live in an age that is like ancient times, not by a long shot. biggest difference: teevee. that's a long 'nuther post. my point is that one must understand how the game works today, and the not-level playing field of the SCLM, and how it has an impact on our society. i'm also saying that many, many people want what i want, but they never are given voice in the SCLM and so it's hard to rely on what is found there, when it comes to gauging "what the people want."

i do know this: what a majority of americans want (read: equals-not-sign) what is spewed by our "multi millionaire media" clique. i hope you take my meaning and know to whom and what i refer in that "mmm" bit.

anyway, i sincerely thank you for commenting, and showing some spine and pluck. that's really rare, and you have made this discussion vital, and useful, to both people who write here, and those who are new or returning readers. friends can disagree, and you're heading in the direction of being in that category of reader (the friendly kind).

also: please do some reading on "the overton window." it will help you understand the purpose of this blog. thanks again for playing.

... should say "tasers" or "Michael Vicks" and see what kind of echoes there are.

Don't try this at home!

To what CD said I would add that one thing we do here is develop invective; rather like what the Conservative Movement in the Krugman article you came here from has been doing, but of course a lot more DIY and for free. And the only way to develop invective is to, er, invect. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with childish invective if it works.

Bottom line is that the Fellows are a very tough crowd--except for Leah, who is a sweetie, even if she doesn't post when she PROMISES to do so--but underneath it all, we're all lovable old cusses with hearts of gold or at least fool's gold. Except when we're not, of course.

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

i am very sweet, and very nice, and you're a fucking fuck for not fucking including me on your fucking list of "sweeties."

heh.

i hope you get the joke, mattski. i know lb does.

Stop. Diagram. Sentence.

Ack. I was once asked - as a bartender - to diagram the famous: Fuck you, you fucking fuck. I did, and did not earn one extra cent.

To that customer I say: Fuck you, you fucking fuck.

No extra participles, danglers, etc.

Again, thanks CD, for taking the time to blab with me. And, yes, I need help learning to link. I don't know how to do it efficiently (and if it matters, I'm a mac user.)

Since this thread is getting old I'm not sure if I should continue this conversation here. So I'll make a few quick remarks.

I looked at the Overton Window link. Have no problem with it, would only add that it is an abstraction, it has a utility, but it's important not to confuse it with an element in the real world. It isn't real.

Give you an idea of where I'm coming from: born 1958, was swept off my feet by Chomsky & Herman's 'Manufacturing Consent' when it was published in or around '88. So I understand the leftist critique of the media. But I've since come to see Chomsky as a genius whose mind has been addled by ideology. He's a man who can't see the forest of human nature for the trees of social injustice...

I'm proud to say that I.F. Stone has replaced Chomsky as my ideal for political/social critique. Izzy was a compassionate man who had a feeling for human nature and a manifest love of humanity.

I'm also an advocate of this pearl of Buddhist wisdom:

"Hatred is never appeased by hatred, it is only appeased by love"

it is just this:
<A HREF="      PASTE URL HERE    "> TEXT DESCRIPTION HERE </A>

For example:
<A HREF="http://www.correntewire.com/blog/lambert">Lambert is</A> a lamb-bear.

Lambert is a lamb-bear.

The thread did go meta. Thank you, intranets, for explaining how to do links, but that is way meta, I think anybody would admit.

Link newbies: Some word processors, i.e. loathesome Microsoft's bloated Word, will "help" you by converting straight quotes (as in the second example above) to curly quotes (as in the first example above.

Use straight quotes! (That's the HTML standard; curly quotes will and should confuse the browser).

NOTE The system will convert straight quotes to curly quotes and double dashes to em dashes all on its own, and it is smart enough to distinguish between straight quotes in HTML tags like A, and not make them curly.

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

Those are technically straight quotes, but the <code> I used up there renders them that way I guess. I blame your CSS.

Hey, you know I give you permission to delete a comment like that.

No reason to delete.

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

I fell in love with Izzy

I think that's my first link. Thanks for the tutorial!

It's actually important -- maybe not critically important, but good to know -- to understand how markup works. It's a DIY thing. Many corporations have the business model of sucking you into their software by controlling your data. But if you use data that conforms to international standards, like HTML, you control your own data, and they can't suck you in.

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

nice job, i'm reading the link now. feel free to link on some other posts, i think this one can now die an honorable death. welcome to the fold.