but Anglachel is scary smart, so she might be on to something.

There definitely seems to be a line of fracture within the Democratic party. Did the elders anticipate that the unwashed masses were going to support HRC. Against that, Edwards would be useless with his focus on poverty and against lobbyists.

BO represented a charismatic unknown. And if they had been following his career, they’d know he would endorse and reject anyone and any group for his own advancement + bring in “better” voters.

With an efficient campaign (and the proper race baiting), full support of a media afflicted with terminal CDS and the dull support of the Dem establishment, they had their perfect candidate.

This time, the elders probably thought, they might be able to get rid of the Clintons, even if it meant going sexist full speed ahead.

It looks like it might work in the primary. My guess is there’s going to be hell to pay for that in November.

I think the “creative class” or liberal elitists (or whatever we call them) fundamentally don’t understand working class people. The Kennedy wing seems to long for the role of “savior” to the masses. The masses, on the other hand, don’t want a savior, just someone who will give them a fair shake. The creative class, it seems, longs to be the “savior” by taking on the mean, nasty corporation. Look at the rhetoric of Hillary vs that of Obama. The former is about giving people the tools to succeed, the latter is about taking on the “special interests”. Its the referee vs the messiah. The Hillary wing just want a damn honest ref, the Obama/Kennedy wing want to be the saviors. To maintain power, the O/K wing need to be perceived as saviors.

that BO (deliberately, I think) induced religious fervor in his supporters and strongly infused his campaign with religiosity while at the same time dismissing the religious attitudes of the working class (“clingate”)?

I can still remember the beating he took around the then-progressive blogs when he said the Democratic party was unfriendly and intolerant of religion (the same way Amy Sullivan is taken to the woodshed every time she wanders around the blogosphere… not that she doesn’t deserve it, mind you)… aaah the good old days.

At one time, I used to be arrogant and try to save the world. Then I realized that sometimes the people I’m trying to “help” were smarter and more competent than me.

This is interesting, but:

And if they had been following his career, they’d know he would endorse and reject anyone and any group for his own advancement + bring in “better” voters.

Examples? Links?

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

To accepts Angelachel model is to associate Obama with the old guard. In my view, a better approach is to view Obama as the foreign legion.

We have seen two facets of the vision he is putting forward: the first, through Donna Brazile, is building a new coalition for the party consisting of the young, urbanites and subordinates and of course African Americans. This is far from the old guard’s FDR coalition. The second is the new Obama infrastructure replacing the old guard’s one.

I don’t see it as a power struggle; I see as a coup d’tat.

I met Amy once and have a signed book from her. I think she’s just misunderstood. But that’s another story.

I don’t think Obama is about “better” voters, but the “cling to” comment, which was entirely off the cuff mind you, suggests that those “bitter” voters needed someone to show them the way.

Listen to Obama, really listen. When voters don’t vote for him, it’s not his fault, it’s that they misinterpret or don’t understand him. In other words, those voters need someone to do things for them. The “savior” mentality. It’s particularly strong in the younger generation. A lot of them do volunteer/community service. I don’t think there is a good enough discussion in History classes about the structural inequalities in the education system (there wasn’t when I went to high school in the mid-90s). Given that, its not hard to see how some may think that by helping a child learn to read they are being a savior, when in fact their parents could have done that if they weren’t working two jobs—or just deadbeats. Almost all of us has had someone help us learn to read; that its a college student volunteering means nothing.

I could elaborate, and probably should, but I have that damn dissertation to finish up.

and I think you and Anglachel are getting very close to explaining the whole thing. Some parts are still not making sense: is there a rift between the Clinton camp and much of the democratic party? If so, that would explain the Kerry/Kennedy/K street faction trying to push them out of the race. Also, how did Kennedy & Co. intend for their candidate to win knowing he had a very limited audience/following. Did they really think that the creative class and AAs would do the trick? I’m not sure this is making 100% sense.

I love this job!

Note lack of agency by those who have “been taught.”

Note also “they,” not “we.”

I learned how to be cynical — by which I mean realistic — all on my own, thank you very much!

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

elixir: I’m not sure this is making 100% sense.

The scariest way: Obama really believes he’s a chosen One. Then the seas will part, as GWB was allowed to expect, also.

All he has to do is lead, the rest of us will follow, and the rest will fall into place — with the future ever bright before us.

Ahhh, but reality steps forward and claims its due, and a leader with this character flaw has to lead harder, with threats and intimidation and whips and spurs and bombs and invasions and at last torture and genocide.

How often can any country’s citizenry get lucky enough to have a Deus ex machina rain down a modicum of hubris upon its leader in the form of a little blue dress, to change him into a really good man?

:-P

Anglachel always has thought-provoking intuitive insights. From one of the commenters:

Lakelobos: “I can recognize hate when I see it. The best and the brightest are not unhinged, they are full of hate. They needed like they need oxygen.”

Nodding along here. I have been living outside the US for much of the last 5-10 years. Returning home regularly, but mostly in-and-out again, visits with my family.

Just my own experiences, but many people in other countries do see the hate first-and-foremost this season. They know little of US political history, North vs South etc, or of other players like Kennedy, Brazille etc, all they see is the violent hate-speech directed at Hillary, and by association, all women.

Give the mob a target for hate, then whip it up and reinforce it with 24/7 propaganda. Unity through a common target for hate. Other cultures have lived through such phenomena, and recognise it. Some worry that due to US cultural imperialism, the US will spread the hate, along with McDonalds and Starbucks chains.

The weird thing about Obama’s obsession with cynicism is how it conflicts with so much of his generational sales pitch. I’m a few years younger than Obama and a member of Gen X. My first memories of politics is when Spiro Agnew resigned and then Watergate. I did not grow up and become disillusioned with American politics. I was never illusioned to begin with. So of course I’m cynical. How could someone whose first memories of a U.S. President are of Richard Nixon, not be?

I’ve said this a gazillion times now, but it really is as though Obama learned his political history through Meet The Press. Every cliche and no original thinking at all.

he’s spewing—he’s more cynical than all his supporters by far, and knows he’s selling bs. The problem is that his bs actively hurts the party—and actively helps Republicans by painting both parties with the same brush.

For all of my life and yours and his, Republicans have been criminals and have hurt the country in devastating ways (with very small local exceptions only)—almost all moderate and Rockefeller Republicans who were in Congress are now gone.

I’m actually hearing he might pick Hagel for his veep—picking a Republican as running mate would drive even me past a breaking point—it would be beyond the pale.

Joke Line (2007)

Lanny Davis (!!) (2007 — this one looks more like random combinations, though)

TPM Reader blog (“That would be very good”)

Marc Ambinder (Granted, April 1, 2008)

So “it’s out there…”

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

To vote for a Republican for vice president. I had blissfully forgotten that smelly pile of unity.

that’s a line i will never ever cross.

No way, no how.

I’ll hold my nose for Democrats alone—not Republicans.

And if he picks a Republican for VP, there’s no hope at all for any of our courts—i couldn’t trust him to pick decent judges at all.

that’s a line i will never ever cross.

No way, no how.

I’ll hold my nose for Democrats alone—not Republicans.

And if he picks a Republican for VP, there’s no hope at all for any of our courts—i couldn’t trust him to pick decent judges at all.

lambert, can you fix?

I do feel strongly enough about it to post it 2x tho.

Hardball was all for it tonight.

which is why he might lose in November.

From the Black Agenda Report, one of the smartest critiques I’ve seen about why Democrats lose running to the center:

To preserve his support among whites which Obama won without challenging any of their fundamental beliefs about America, empire, Obama was forced to denounce his pastor’s words as “akin to hate speech” and disavow his church, and with it the prophetic tradition of Christianity and the Black Church in particular. But this, and joining a prosperity-Gospel mega-church will not be enough. From this point on, all Republicans have to do is prove to their base that Obama is not as conservative as he once appeared, which they will do by pointing to his pastor and the prophetic tradition of the Black Church in general. They can, in fact, point to any stirrings of black or grassroots outrage or militancy anywhere, which Obama will want to ignore anyway, and demand a ringing denunciation from Barack Obama. When Obama gets his way, he will be silent, sticking to content-free appeals to “unity”. And when Republicans prevail they will force him to denounce at every turn the grassroots activists he should be supporting.

This article ties it to Obama’s race, but it could apply to any democratic centrist. It goes back to the idea that voters will always choose a real Republican over a fake Republican every time.

And, as predicted, Obama is now throwing baby boomers, particularly war protesters, off the bus. This should continue as he seeks to prove over and over again to the SCLM that he’s not some left-wing radical. That he really is the centrist he claims to be.

you’re supposed to stake out positions that appeal to the base before you move right in the general, no? And the GOP (w/the media) always paints all Dems as radical liberal gay commies.

Hillary’s totally a centrist and drew clear lines closer to what the base demands (Edwards and the economy forced her to, in part, and Obama’s issue-free rhetoric as well)—we know where she’ll move from as she is forced to move right. (and much of her foreign and military positions are already hawkish)

We don’t know where Obama’s lines are, i don’t think. “Unity” and avoiding “partisan” “divisive” “fights” = preemptive capitulation. Will he be pushed—or willingly go as right as they demand?

anywhere near the base’s views on medical care, social security or the economy or the war (despite what posturing he’s done, to paper those views over).