Thu, 06/26/2008 - 2:54pm — shystee
Thank you Glennzilla:
It isn't that difficult to keep the following two thoughts in one's head at the same time -- though it seems to be for many people:
(1) What Barack Obama is doing on Issue X is wrong, indefensible and worthy of extreme criticism;
(2) I support Barack Obama for President because he's a better choice than John McCain.
Why is this so hard for so many in the progressive blogosphere and progressives in general?
Discuss...
»
- shystee's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Actually, there's a third point...
which is my point, and I do have one:
(3)If you want to be able to shove the Overton Window
left in an Obama administration, the time to start preparing is now.
(If I actually answer your question "Why" I'll probably get in more trouble than I already am. And besides, I'd like to hear what others have to say.)
[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
A little late
the time to shift the window was during the primary. Obama lied his tail off during the primary WRT Iraq, Iran, taxes, NAFTA, etc. with the knowing symphony of progressive adulation. Is it any surprise that he now thinks he can do what he wants and we'll sing him praise, albeit tepidly? Hell, he said it himself and flaunted it mockingly. And he was largely correct, even if we are going along tepidly rather than enthusiastically.
Perhaps a new term will go down for the ages: "tepid support". It's a lot like "bipartisan".
You can't negotiate after you've publicly capitulated. You can't seriously be surprised that he's now trying to push the limits as far as possible after you gave him the A-OK. Are you?
He knew he had us hostage...
... when the GOP nominee was clearly not, say, Ron Paul or Bloomberg, or anyone else who might offer anything acceptable on some fronts.
He knows it, we know it. The rest is kabuki.
The only question is, if in his desperate race to the bottom of capitulation, is he going to (or has he already) hit a point where there literally isn't a dime's worth of difference or worse.
"Us"? and PUMA is the opposite of kabuki
It is the refusal to be held hostage. The point of PUMA is as much about the party that let this happen and actually participated in this.
Go Global!
I'm sorry
What was the question again?
-----------------------------
Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites
-----------------------------
I'm not such a bad guy once you get to know me.
There is no question really, it's rhetorical
It's just a way of saying that Obama can sell out and suck as bad as he wants, since he'll always suck less than McCain, you should vote for him and quit bitching.
It's part of a cycle: every once in a while, one of the Mighty and Mysterious Corrente Senior Fellows comes out of the cave - where it fled from the Awful Unwashed Newbies - to teach us all a lesson in logic and Good Blogging... /snark
Go Global!
what FrenchDoc said--
there's no straw that can ever break the camel's back because apparently at least he isn't officially a member of the GOP or something--not that you can tell a difference.
I understand
I just disagree with his second point.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
Alas
it's becoming harder and harder to disagree with you on that second point.
Obama's bar is low and he's not even meeting that (for me). His entire campaign has centered around blurring the distinction between liberal and conservative failures, between good government and bad government policy. On some micro issues, Obama may be better (given his proclivity to change positions at the drop of a venue change, I'm not entirely convinced), but on the more macro level, I see him as the worse alternative.
Well...
... I've been trying, with varying results, to help summarize the downsides (are there upsides?) of both candidates:
http://www.correntewire.com/obama_object...
http://www.correntewire.com/what_it_takes
http://www.correntewire.com/post_electio...
http://www.correntewire.com/just_askin
I think these are constructive endeavors (even if my morality and loyalties continue to be assailed by some Hillary and Obama supporters alike as I pursue them). I wish I had the time to do more than try to jumpstart the discussions and also make an effort to get the PUMA concerns heard in the Obama camp, but I'm bloggin' on fumes right now.
PUMAs have raised valid concerns about whether there is a point at which supporting Obama no-matter-what becomes (or has become) untenable. Directly or indirectly, Glenn has led us toward that water even if he's not considering drinking it, with his justifiable concern about some Dems' seemingly bottomless capitulation to Obama's seemingly bottomless capitulation.
Getting a little more precision about where we're at now, or where we expect to be at in an Obama or McCain presidency, could help define whether Obama has sinned to a point at which a no-vote, a McCain vote, or 3rd party vote is a sensible thing for a progressive to do.
A lot of bona fide concern about issues is being mistaken as emotion, but without careful and honest itemization of what the issues are and the net result of either candidate winning, our responses may be seen as more emotional than they are. And doesn't, I think, help in the leverage department, no matter how we're planning to play it.
100% raw evil vs. 70%
Can't find the comment I want to respond to... but the argument is the well-known one that the Republicans represent 100% raw evil (a rather unexceptionable proposition) and that the Democrats represent only 70% evil (though the great Arthur Silber, though I'm too lazy to find the link, puts the difference at 100% vs. 98%).
OK, agreeing that's true, surely it's critical to make sure that the Dems don't move from 70% evil to, say, 90%? (I don't think they have the experience to be 100% evil. Yet.)
And surely it's true that with an influx of Blue Dogs, the percentage of evil is going to increase, not decrease?
Er, can anyone recommend a strategy to avoid or at least prepare for this?
NOTE Odd, isn't it, how the "They're both the same' discussion keeps resurfacing in different ways. I have to say that, although I still see differences between the two parties, it's crystal clear that they're both 100% Village
, and that this is a real problem.
[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
the strategy is to not give your
unconditional support to any candidate simply because they have a D next to their name--and to support progressive primary challengers to all sitting Officials who are too conservative or suck.
As for 100% evil vs. 70%, Obama is raising that 70% daily, and by November will have positions indistinguishable from McCain (who is not 100% evil, btw), i'm betting.
Yes, and, but...
... since I don't have the ability to lie well enough to claim to vote strategically for McCain, who represents a party of torturers and sex/power abusers, which, so far as I can tell, is what "leverage" boils down to, my definition of "conditional" is a little different from yours.
If PUMA the grassroots movement turns into a 21st Centry NWP, or a Human Rights Party, well, that's a different kettle of fish. But although I'd be more than happy if that happened, it hasn't, and I don't see that happening this cycle. Prove me wrong!
[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
The point was not to lie
but to wait and see. After all, is really that impossible logically that Obama might do something that crossed the line for you?
Or at least to be quiet in solidarity with those who are trying to extract leverage because public admissions such as yours and VL does damage the cause of those who still want to fight for the Democratic party.
Go Global!
Well, I got the wrong message, then
Certainly the "I'll vote for McCain" element was pretty strong on a lot of threads on a lot of sites. I'm reacting against that, and I don't think silence is the appropriate response to it. That said, my "tepid" is indeed "very."
On another note, this sounds interesting.
You know, in a lot of ways this whole discussion mirrors the Shut The Fuck
Up permathread from the Obama supporters.
In both cases, the answer isn't either silence in solidarity (on the one hand) or singing in chorus (on the other) but posting and evidence and reasoning.
[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Well, Riverdaughter's attitude
has always been "friends don't let friends vote republican". As far as I know, she has not budged from that.
The issue then becomes when you or VL post something negative about Obama, the immediate question is "what's the point? you're gonna vote for him anyway." I think you might as well get used to that cuz you're gonna get it a lot.
Apart from speaking the truth (a worthwhile goal in itself, to be sure), what do you try to accomplish with posts critical of Obama? Beyond "he sucks but, heh, he sucks 2% less than McCain, so, I'll tepidly vote for him" (as if tepidity made any difference... just like holding one's nose does not).
Again, is there nothing he can do that would change your mind? At what fraction of percentage point of difference with McCain do you throw the towel?
And, of course, the point was not to tell you to shut (I wouldn't do that) but to question the wisdom of publicizing your vote. It's kinda giving Obama permission to sell out as much as he pleases, since he's got your vote anyway. That certainly does nothing to shove the Overton window to the left, that's for sure.
Go Global!
"what’s the point?"
The point is to be honest and to highlight important things that few are highlighting. To make it harder for Obama to keep selling us out, without selling myself out by pretending that I'm not planning to vote Dem in November.
The option is John Fucking McCain. Obama has us over a barrel on that, but if the day comes when I can't take any more of his shit, I'll recalibrate my plans.
Sorry that's not some people's idea of leverage. I don't like dishonesty in other people, and I don't like dishonesty in myself.
how are you making it harder?
how are you stopping any of his daily and extensive selling-out?
why not get off that barrel until you actually go vote in Nov?
saying "my vote is worth something and i demand this and this" is not in any way dishonesty--you guys need to stop that.
It's dishonesty to purport to care about issues but to still support a candidate who's wrong on them.
De Tocqueville
People prefer a simple lie to a complex truth. As true as ever. If not more so.
to make it harder for Obama to sell out
Fair enough... how does proclaiming publicly that you'll vote for him accomplish that in any way?
Go Global!
Remember when we used to laugh and joke about Bush
being able to eat babies on national television, before the citizens of this country would rise up against his crimes?
Well. Imagine a straw-baby. If Obama ate it, on national television, *then* would you withdraw your intention to vote for him?
The inverse of the question many been asking PUMA partisans on this blog: What would it take for you not to vote for Obama? Past selling out the Constitution, gutting nuclear plant regulations, opening the spigot of private financing with anyone with sense enough to money launder, slandering and staining several Democrat politicos' careers, what would it take?
That's a good and fair question
"What would it take for you not to vote for Obama?"
It's such an open-ended hypothetical, I don't honestly know. I guess like pornography, you know it when you see it. I continue to look at the campaign with my critical faculties in place, and no question that Obama's actions continue to chip away at the certainty that he's a better choice.
Can I conceive of a point where I'd prefer a no vote, a third-party vote, or a McCain vote over voting for Obama? Yes I can.
But after eight years of Bush, and McCain with his hands positively soaked in the same pool of blood, it's a very tough bar. If Obama were against a relatively benign Republican, especially a genuine good guy like Lincoln Chafee, I'd already be there. But Mr. Bomb-Bomb-Iran is tough competition in a race to the bottom.
Mr. Bomb Bomb Iran
This has been the issue most bothering me. Not that it matters my vote won't help Obama regardless if he wins or loses, and I think a low popular vote might knock some sense into the DNC.
As far as Iran goes, I think Israel will launch an attack on them before the November elections, so it really won't matter whose in office.
As much as McCain wants to warmonger, the reality of the state of our armed forces is going to put a damper on any plans he has.
I think it is better for our country and the party to weather "4 more years" than to put Obama in charge.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
it's not lies, &
it's not about saying you'll vote McCain--it's about the necessary and essential pre-conditions for supporting or opposing all candidates. It's about what you demand in return for all votes and/or support for someone.
It's about not preemptively pledging to vote for a sucky candidate simply because they have a D--Especially when they truly don't stand with you on important issues, and have no record of achievement, and can't be trusted in any way to do the things you want done and that the country needs done.
also--we'll lose Congress
if we get the White House and we actually have more leverage and support for key issues there---as opposed to no support from Obama--we would not be able to push Obama to do anything once in office--presidents are never responsive the way Congress has to be (even if it doesn't always work).
No president is ever subject to pressure from normal people or even contactable the way Congress is---they're all in bubbles and we never get a say.
Feh
Go set your straw people on fire elsewhere, amberglow. I'm going to water the garden.
[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
it's not strawpeople--
it's about your vote having real meaning and purpose, and about how and why you give support or not.
The Dems don't have the cojones
to be 100% evil!
Whatever
I reserve the right to criticize the fuck out of him right up until I pull the lever and vomit like I just drank 2 liters of ayahuasca. If people don't understand this mindset then they haven't been paying attention.
But I still believe
And I will rise up with fists!!
But I still believe
And I will rise up with fists!!
Shystee opens the WORM-can
Well-posed, point of the spear kind of question that will hopefully get a good airing here, much needed.
Cognitive dissonance is the term, and a grand device it is for progressive activism. It is also, as we are seeing daily in many places like the Middle East and the Democratic Party and what claims to be but no longer qualifies as a progressive blogosphere, a terrible tool when it is misunderstood and allowed to have free reign.
A brief dissertation is here, much more available here.
I have other demands right now, but I will be back. Well done, shystee; well done.
"wrong, indefensible and worthy of extreme criticism;"
--what about when it's every single issue that comes up? Everyday there's a new one lately, and new position on something ...
just today--guns-- "...The Obama campaign distanced itself Thursday from a statement made last year to the Chicago Tribune that "Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional." Spokesman Bill Burton said that the statement "was not worded as well as it could have been" and that Obama believes that generally the Constitution "doesn't prevent local and state governments from enacting their own gun laws." ..."
"the statement "was not worded as well as it could have been" " -- WTF
?
Why is Bill Burton such a h8r!?
How dare he criticize the greatest orator since Jesus!
Burton is the official WORM for Obama--
spinning every single statement/relationship/pledge/policy/vote/position/etc that Obama has ever had.
& "better choice" is not true if
someone supported Obama because of his rhetoric -- especially if they supported him for the "unity" and "bipartisan" bs-- McCain has a long record of getting bipartisan things passed, and Obama never ever ever has.
And Obama is showing daily that he has absolutely no principles or agenda beyond getting elected--none at all.
Today the Supremes struck down part of one of those laws on campaign finance -- the Millionaires Amendment
I Guess We All Owe Lieberman An Apology Then?
For all the grief directed towards him?
Are we going there?
it just shows they're peas in a pod
----a GOP pod-- and that the mentor stuff really was true.
Pyrric victory
At what point do the sacrifices supposedly required to win the general election nullify the gains of winning the general election?
Another way of asking that question
What's the marginal utility of the last Republican voter?
FISA? Guns? What next?
[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
related-"withdrawing endorsement"
Hayden at American Street--
Withdrawing my endorsement of Barack Obama-"
He’s made his position clear, and now, so will I. ..."
What Kevin Hayden said:
Say what you will about my beliefs before the FISA vote, now Obama's actions have justified my faith in him: A miniscule faith, growing smaller by the week. I was content to see him as flawed but capable of listening and changing and seeing the value of pushing the Overton Window
toward his base's concerns. No more.
Because of the compromises he has already demonstrated to be comfortable with, he will be unable to purge even one GOP partisan senior official during the administration changeover, even though the tradition is for appointed employees to submit their resignations. Bet you the goal of drowning the Government will accelerate through officials defiantly not resigning, because they know his promise to be non-partisan won't allow him to enforce the tradition.
Kevin is pretty much were I am
Very tepidly...
As far as expending any effort? I've consistently said I won't. Maybe I need to qualify my tepidity even more.
[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
But his pullback lended drama to the stance.
You and I were skeptical of Obama from the first triumphs of marketing over substantive message. Hayden's clearing his eyes, and asking what that marketing hid from him.
It's like the child rapist and murderer in a Jack Chick comic book -- he gets to heaven with a deathbed conversion, while the heathen Catholics who never took Jesus Christ as their personal Protestant savior would burn in hell.
In the comic book, you understand.
And Hayden's a clean-cut sort of guy, who'd never truck with the murderers, etc.
I have no inside track concerning heaven or hell, cause if I did, Addington would be a nice spit of BBQ by now....
vote for the young black dude instead of the old white dude!
arguably a progressive value. voting for the lesser of two evils? eh, not so much.
it matters not whether you throw yourself [and your voters] over the cliff with grace and style and intent or just possibly misstep, the likely end is the same.
Why is this so hard for so many in the progressive blogosphere and progressives in general?
First Black President
The last line of defense I have heard from Obama voters is, "Well, at least, we're voting for the first black president!" What they--usually rich, white liberals--fail to understand is that because he would be the first black president it's absolutely critical he be not just competent, but highly so. Think of it as the Jackie Robinson principle: you can't just be good but great to withstand the inevitable backlash and serve as a trailblazer who undermines racism and paves the path for blacks.
When you realize that we're in the midst of a global epic mess on multiple levels and it requires someone of almost heroic competence, courage, and vision, it makes nominating an unqualified, unprincipled, arrogant, dumbass empty suit all the more batshit insane. To have him be the first black president is just...beyond words.
Let's just put it this way: I thank God he's not Latino.
the jackie robinson principle
Let’s just put it this way: I thank God he’s not Latino.
yeah. every once in a great while i'm kinda glad hillary isn't likely to be the next president. chances are awfully good that the next president, no matter how qualified, how smart, how savvy, won't be able to extricate us from all the quagmires we're in. it would set women back 100 years if hillary were elected and she failed to be anything other than fdr, rfk, winston churchill, and the dalai lama combined.
I thought of that, too
I don't think women (and girls) would have been as harshly pushed back as you think with HRC at the helm (central to that: Clinton's competence); in fact, I believe many women likely would have become emboldened by Clinton to meet the backlash with defiance. However, I do realize that having a "first" clean up the toxic mess of Bush/Cheney poses one hell of a danger--especially for a woman (Misogyny continues to be far more acceptable than just about any other bigotry in "polite" society). I find her "losing" the way she did to be a certain and (likely) greater detriment than her being president.
Clinton passed the Robinson test, in my opinion. Even better, she likely would have taken advantage of this particular point in time to take our country down a
progressiveliberal path.A "first" always has to take incredible risk to forge forward. Since she also happened to be the best option we had, I was willing to take a chance.
she's an excellent 'first'
far and away the most competent, qualified, and fearless woman we've got. i voted for edwards in the primary, i'd have voted for hillary in the general. in a heartbeat. full speed ahead, and damn the misogyny!
it's that widespread societal acceptance of misogyny that has me so pessimistic about how far back a woman's failure, any woman, to right the bush/cheney wrongs could push us though.
Glenn's choices
1) What Barack Obama is doing on Issue X is wrong, indefensible and worthy of extreme criticism;
It's more than just what obama is doing. It is what the dnc and pelosi have done as well, and have not done.
(2) I support Barack Obama for President because he’s a better choice than John McCain.
I refuse to tolerate what howard dean, pelosi, the dnc and barry ballless have done. To do so seems to me just like obama failing us on so many fronts, like FISA. If we tolerate these actions, then we will always be saddled with them. Fuck
barry, dean, pelosi, and as far as I'm concerned the democratic party, until dean, pelosi and others are gone.
The option is John Fucking
The option is John Fucking McCain. Obama has us over a barrel on that, but if the day comes when I can’t take any more of his shit, I’ll recalibrate my plans.
Others have already reached that point. And this is difficult to understand why?
Personally, though I don't discuss my voting plans or even my votes after they happen, it makes little or no difference in the grand scheme of things whether I vote for Obama or not. Why? Because I live in New York. If he's going to need my vote in New York, then he's got bigger problems nationally than my one vote in New York can help him with.
Mostly, I vote for the downticket races, as well as on the many, many state third-party tickets. Often, they're the same candidates as the major parties, but under New York's public financing laws, third parties which get a certain percentage of the vote are eligible for public funding in future elections. So I usually pull the lever (and we actually *do* have levers, which I *always* screw up, year after year) for the Working Families Party candidate or similar. Even if they're simply running the Dem candidate. And even if I'd rather it be Working People Party, since I'm single and without children and thus the "Families" part is alienating to me personally.
ooh, bad post title.
Sorry about that.