Mon, 02/02/2009 - 2:57pm — vastleft
...why president Obama, the most powerful man in the world, would want, even for a second, to pander to the modern Republican party, whose illusions - scratch that, make it "delusions" - have created planetwide misery and havoc on every front, looms as a larger and larger puzzle with every passing minute.
The puzzle, my good man, is why didn't progressives seem very concerned about this before the election, since he made it crystal clear that it was exactly what he was going to do.
This was like giving a plot spoiler for Leaving Las Vegas, whose protagonist announces at the beginning that he's come to the eponymous city "to drink myself to death."
That's not to say I'm not holding out any hope for the Hopemeister, just that his fundamental platform was utter denial of the political reality that made us all blog.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
»
- vastleft's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+
Front page
Comments
Tristero was particularly nasty about Clinton, too
as I recall and yet, she was to the left of Obama on every issue that I know of. She was then, she is now. But he was a sucker for the siren song of misogyny and he still doesn't realize what he did.
Would Clinton have been perfect? No, but she would have been a darn site better and better matters in times this dire.
"Someone needs to point out that elephants produce infinitely more shit than donkeys." Brad Mays
I don't recall Tristero bashing Clinton
I felt he got a little giddy with Obama apologism, but I'm unaware that he made a habit of playing the CDS card or that he basked in the misogyny.
I lost the Digbysblog habit for a spell during the primaries, because I felt they were pulling their punches on things that would end up mattering a lot to us later, but I like Tristero and most of what he writes .
Maybe it wasn't misogyny, I just remember a
serious disconnnect between reality and what he was writing. At some point, I just stopped going and haven't really been back. So, if I should apologize to Tristero, then I do.
I just went and cruised around from last year, but didn't find any of his posts on the primaries at all and I only have so much time to devote to this.
"Someone needs to point out that elephants produce infinitely more shit than donkeys." Brad Mays
Neither Tristero nor Digby, to the best of my knowledge
Were active in the nasty business during the primaries, so I do think an apology is in order.
Turned out I was looking through 2007.
Not 2008 and that's why I wasn't finding the posts. Now, I do apologize sincerely because tristero wasn't engaging in the bashing I thought he was. He was actually pretty solid on the issue of Clinton and the way the press was treating her and her campaign.
So, I don't know who pissed me off so much over there, but someone did - but now I know it wasn't Tristero.
"Someone needs to point out that elephants produce infinitely more shit than donkeys." Brad Mays
Well, you can't cash the check you wrote, then
When you call somebody a misogynist, and then can't back it up with a link, you need to retract -- and that's not the same as a non-apology apology. So please do so.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Then I retract the statement.
Very simple.
"Someone needs to point out that elephants produce infinitely more shit than donkeys." Brad Mays
Thanks
n/t
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
I don't recall any such thing
and if you write a check on misogyny, you'd better be able to cash it with a link.
But I'm with VL on pulling punches. None of this should surprise anyone.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
How dare progressives complain
about this now after all the bleating they did about how Obama's appeal to these very same W-enabling Republicans was a sign of Obama's superior "electability." They wore Republican support (even the "Democrat for a Day"-level of support) like a badge of honor, er... kewlness. As far as I'm concerned, "progressives" have earned themselves a big bucket of STFU
.
Fauxgressives complain,
actual progressives actually noticed at the time Obama's odd nostalgia for the Reagan years, etc etc, and thus were, as ever, prematurely correct. Yet disbelieved, like Cassandra. Sigh.
Reporter to Mahatma Gandhi: What do you think of Western Civilization?
Gandhi to reporter: I think it would be a good idea.
I don't know if I'd call everyone who succumbed or catered to
the truthiness a "fauxgressive."
I just wish they'd come clean with themselves and their readers about the corners they cut to put Obama beyond criticism when it might have counted for something.
As it was, he never had to do jackshit to win over progressives, so we are the least listened-to constituency in America.
falling in love with love
Everyone has done it, some time or another. It is the easiest thing, to fall in love with the idea of being in love, never taking a hard unbiased look at the object of affection until after the emotional investment has been made.
After enduring the seemingly unending string of abuses from BushCo, near to half the Democrats fell in love with Hillary and near to half of them fell in love with Obama. They did so not because either of them is so perfectly wonderful but because they say nice things and hadn't slapped anyone around - yet. None of the enamored saw their beloved for who they truly are; a generic human failing, to be sure, happens all the time.
Now, the morning after the morning after the drunken 3AM Vegas wedding, sobriety is coming face to face with morning breath and malpositioned toilet lids and drinking milk from the carton and who gets to hold the remote – not to mention the unsavory friends. The sex is still good, most of the time, but those little tics of behavior that were so charmingly piquant while courting are starting to rub sore spots in more than one place.
Meanwhile, in public and among friends, the brave face remains on. Love is still professed, while admitting that there are a few rough edges and expressing true bewilderment as to how he could keep acting this way even though he's been asked nicely not to, a thousand times. It takes a while to be able to admit that a mistake may have been made, because doing so means admitting that one's own ability to be smart and perceptive and clever has been over-rated - by one's self.
[I do maintain that if things had gone the other way, we'd be having the same set of problems with President HR Clinton, and the same discussions. There would be some differences on specifics, B & H are not carbon copies, but the overall feel of the thing would be strikingly similar. Those who fell in love with Clinton won't admit to her frailties, of course, but that's just because they haven't sobered up yet.]
You totally missed that discussion
here, where Clinton's fault were all discussed in fairly honest terms, by those of us whose complex feelings about Obama, continue to be painted as unrequited love by you.
We even agree that they are similiar. But it is truly offensive to have you CONTINUE to write off these feelings about Obama, as nothing more than a petty dislike, because it minimizes the true problems all liberals are beginning to see about Obama, which are the same problems people here at Corrente were pointing out from the beginning. But please, continue to write it off, while Obama appoints a Republican idiot totally opposed to the idea of regulation, to be in charge of regulating.
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
and now that I've read it
it seems to me that what I wrote here is in agreement with most of what was written there. So your point is what again? That I'm willing to see the self-delusions of generally decent people through a lens of understanding and forgiveness instead of repudiating them and calling them names? How awful of me, truly offensive.
Your analysis is, forgive me for bluntness, completely misplaced. I argue that those who blindly embraced Obama acted out of emotion rather than rational analysis; if you didn't do that, then I wasn't talking about you.
If on the other hand you are one of those who fell in love with Hillary, and many did, I do argue that she'd have been very nearly as Centrist Conservative as Obama although with perhaps a marginally different set of priorities. The same issues remain, regardless of who is President; both the challenges of governance and the other people involved in doing it. Clinton would be in the same position regarding enmity from Republicans and deal-making by the BlueDogs, and Progressive goals would still be treated as bargaining chips or left out of the conversation entirely.
Those who can't see that are, perhaps, still blinded by love. It happens.
There are some who are still straw-man builders
It happens.
You paint a picture of Hillary supporters typically being as love-blinded as Obama fans, and despite ample evidence to the contrary, you expect your point to stand.
not so, speaking of straw men
But I will assert that the number of people enthusiastically delusional over Hillary was - and remains - just as high as the number of people with delusional enthusiasm for Obama; they are just not the few people you selectively put forward.
If there is, as you say, "ample evidence to the contrary" for broader support of your position it continues to escape me. We won't be able to have the same sobering experience regarding Hillary, since she is not Chief Executive, but it is my opinion that if she were president the shifts of enthusiasm from those initially in admiration would be going through the same pattern of shock and remorse. Take a look sometime at the prayer circle she pals around with; that bunch makes Rick Warren look absolutely 2% less evil, maybe more, and they are all of them in positions that are more than just televangelist influential.
If you'll recall, I was a solid supporter of Hillary right to the end. I supported her because I thought she had a better chance of winning, not because I had higher hopes for her eventual ability or proclivities in office. Your assessment of her may well differ from mine, but so what? You're a bright guy but your powers of telepathy aren't any better than mine; you can't know any more than I do what is in Hillary's mind, or speculate with greater accuracy how she would have behaved as president.
I've given my opinion here, and it is just as likely to be valid as is yours.
My point being
Is your continued insistence that too many people are only looking at Obama through the lenses of Clinton's loss in the primary. I think it has become an easy catch all for you to explain behavior you disagree with.
Is it true? I don't know, since you've never supported those assertions. Are there some in the blogs who are irrational about the Obama hate? Perhaps, but none of those people post at Corrente on a regular basis, so I don't know why you keep harping on those of us who aren't irrational Obama haters.
And I find really weird the fact that you continue to bring up the primaries, on threads that have nothing to do with it. You tried to tie Caroline Kennedy's defeat to unrequited Clinton love. You've brought it up repeatedly. It seems like YOU are the one who needs to "get over" the primaries.
It also reeks of a little unintentional misogyny, since most of Clinton's more diehard supporters were women, those silly emotional women who are having a hard time letting go of Clinton.
And I am really irritated to see you try to paint the rabid online Obama fan base as equal to the support Clinton garnered. They are not equivalent. Were there repugnant racist accusations thrown at Obama by some disgruntled Clinton supporters? Yes, and they were wholeheartedly condemned by people at Corrente. And it still wasn't equal to the amount of unbridled woman hatred levelled at Clinton and her supporters.
What you said is in agreement with what was said. Which is why I don't understand why you keep going out of your way to paint people here as irrational about this(you aren't naming names, but why do you keep bringing it up if you aren't trying to imply something?), when if anything, Corrente and its residents, have demonstrated a cold and clear rationality about Obama, and Clinton.
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 must be misogyny, of course
Good thing that charge doesn't get thrown around falsely (only "a little" and "unintentional" so maybe I'm just half an ass) and without evidence; that would be just as bad as those awful Obamabots and their false racist charges, wouldn't it?
False charge: "your continued insistence that too many people are only looking at Obama through the lenses of Clinton's loss in the primary"
I didn't say anything of the sort here, didn't imply it, didn't intend it, didn't think it. Your unsubstantiated inferences are not my responsibility.
False charge: "why you keep harping on those of us who aren't irrational Obama haters"
Didn't say anything about Obama hate. Didn't say anything about hate at all. I did repeatedly talk about love and the pitfalls of being in love with a self-constructed image; perhaps those concepts, love and hate, are somehow conflated in your mind but they are not in mine nor are they in anything I've written.
False charge: "I find really weird the fact that you continue to bring up the primaries, on threads that have nothing to do with it."
VL asked this perfectly reasonable question in his post: "why didn't progressives seem very concerned about this before the election" with a link to a page with a compilation of articles written from early in the primary forward. If you don't want people to bring up the primaries, blame the guy who brought them into the discussion in the first place.
I offered an answer to VL's good question; I suspect that the Obama supporters who are just now coming to grips with who he actually is were in love with being in love. I also pointed out that I have observed the same phenomenon, with the same frequency, in Hillary supporters - without naming names in either group. That second assertion seems to have struck a nerve with some people - I'd say stuck pig squeals but that wouldn't uplift the discussion so I won't - while my broader conjectural assertion - being in love with love and its role in politics - goes unexamined.
Pity, that. Perhaps if I had kept to saying something critical of Obama supporters and STFU
about any criticism at all of any Hillary supporters I'd have been better off. Note to self: Must remember to keep tabs on and watch out for the throbbing toes of others.
False charge: "I don't understand why you keep going out of your way to paint people here as irrational about this"
I'm not painting people here as irrational, who ever "people" might be. Again, to be clear, I was talking about the blogosphere generally and no one specifically, a blogosphere that included plenty of people who wrote about Hillary as some sort of raging Progressive when clearly she isn't. It is you that keeps asserting a specificity for Corrente and those who write here, not me.
False charge: "(you aren't naming names, but why do you keep bringing it up if you aren't trying to imply something?)"
How about I mean what I say and say what I mean? Too simple for you? Need to see a double half-twist with a reverse jacknife in everything that gets written? Then you'll be seeing whatever you want to see, not what I actually write, and that will be your issue not mine.
Enlightening Informational Tidbit: "if anything, Corrente and its residents, have demonstrated a cold and clear rationality about Obama, and Clinton."
Always wondered where the Mighty Corrente Building is located, and now I know: downtown Lake Wobegon. Would somebody please pass the lutefisk?
First of all
I read everything you write here, so when I am writing about certain "tendencies" you display, I'm talking about all of your writing, not necessarily about one specific response. I wasn't only referring to the one post I'm responding to.
So when you say things like this:
I didn't say anything of the sort here, didn't imply it, didn't intend it, didn't think it.
or
Didn't say anything about Obama hate. Didn't say anything about hate at all.
It doesn't necessarily apply, because I'm not referring to only what you are saying here. That's why I brought up a previous thread, where you displayed the same things I'm seeing(which is an opinion, as you pointed out earlier, everyone can have one).
VL asked this perfectly reasonable question in his post: "why didn't progressives seem very concerned about this before the election"
I offered an answer to VL's good question; I suspect that the Obama supporters who are just now coming to grips with who he actually is were in love with being in love. I also pointed out that I have observed the same phenomenon, with the same frequency, in Hillary supporters - without naming names in either group.
You did offer a good answer. It would have been a great answer, IMO, if it weren't for the gratuitous and totally unnecessary Clinton reference. Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with this thread, until you brought it up. And the only reason to bring it up, is because it is still heavily upon your mind or you feel the behavior is equivalent. It maybe, but it wasn't here, so why bring it up?
And if certain people are suffering from unrequited Clinton love, are they relevant? Can their feelings over the primaries, do as much damage as the fauxgressives, if they can't get over their unrequited love of Obama, to unite as a coalition to make Obama do something? Cuz, I don't think the PUMA's have that kind of clout, so it seems really gratuitous to bring Clinton up in that context, since her political power evaporated when she accepted SOS(something not lost on Obama).
And as far as the accusation of woman hating, our society is soaked in it, as well as well as other forms of bigotry, and we should all be willing to reflect on our motives, unintentional behaviors and always be willing to examine our privilege.
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
waaaay too meta
I wrote a specific commentary on a specific question, in this thread. If you want to drag in your interpretation of how something I said elsewhere on some other topic is meaningful here, then it is incumbent on you to pull together at least a semblance of what I said elsewhere and show how it ties in here. You failed to do so.
You tried to blame me for the primaries being part of this discussion, but that doesn't work because VL himself brought in the primaries right at the beginning of his post. Not to mention the early-in-the-thread callout of the very decent tristero as a Clinton-basher during the primaries, a false accusation that I note did not bring down your wrath for dragging in tangential issues around the primary.
I do think it is relevent that the same phenomenon ocurred with Hillary supporters, because IMHO there has been far to much hostility and mockery and reputation-trashing of those who supported Obama. My point is that we are all human, with human failings and weaknesses, and from my own personal Progressive perspective it was and remains a mistake to diss those who too optimistically embraced Obama; people in love have stars in their eyes and do that sort of thing. It happened on both sides; your inability to see that is not my limitation.
And then this: "And as far as the accusation of woman hating, our society is soaked in it, as well as well as other forms of bigotry, and we should all be willing to reflect on our motives, unintentional behaviors and always be willing to examine our privilege."
Here's a political strategy hint for you. Coming after me as a witless misogynyst does nothing but tempt me to lose any and all interest in any remotely feminist argument you may then offer. If you're looking for any help with your causes, accusing me without basis of a tendency towards violence against and diminishment of women isn't the smartest tack to take. You won't attract many allies by issuing false accusations.
I asked you to check your privilege
I did not accuse of women hating, that was the whole point of calling it "unintentional". And if any such accusation, is enough to have you "stop" being my ally, then you weren't much of one in the first place, now were you.
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
Old enough to know better, young enough not to let that stop me:
I fell hard for the Edwards line, and stuck. But my man withdrew, and so I campaigned hard for Hillary, because she was to the left of Obama and looked easier to move left. So. Well. Here we are, nearly a year later (I went to the county Dem convention 29/3/08), and what do we have to show for it? Of all the Obama appointees, the biggest name NOT to flame out yet is...Hillary. Pushing leftward may come by default; Obama may run out of alternatives.
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18
You're missing some important differences, BIO
1. The really impassioned support for Hillary didn't appear until there was a widespread sense that she was:
a) Being mistreated
b) Distinguishing herself with personal strength and a renewed populism
The historical context matters. The enthusiasm for Hillary was in part a reaction to a belief she was the last-chance alternative to being bulldozed, and it simply never went as irrational as the messianic Obama version.
2. Her appeal was of a much more wonkish sort, not as high-flying as Obama's. Geek love can run hot, but we still believed she was an earthling, not someone who would magically fix America's lot by her mere election.
3. Sure, there are some who are blind to Hillary's failings, but not so much around here. As Lambert used to say, her limits were "priced right in." Obama's, OTOH were hidden costs. In fact, to a large extent we're agreeing that the differences are "marginal," something that certainly wouldn't have been said by disgruntled supporters if Hillary had squeaked in instead of the "transformative" Obama.
4. Have you heard me or Lambert blathering about how Hillary will be the best Secretary of State Evah? Here's what I wrote upon her confirmation:
Dripping with Kool-Aid, eh?
perhaps in the eye of the beholder, VL
Referencing above:
1) Perhaps our reading lists are different. I saw a lot of uncritical enthusiasm for Hillary from way before she even declared. The height of passion for her certainly increased once the campaign heated up, but it was IMHO well established far earlier in many people's minds. As to how much of it was irrational, we shall simply have to disagree; there is no arguing that point to a satisfactory conclusion.
2) You both understate the amount of uncritical adoration heaped upon Hillary and overstate the emotional aspect of enthusiasm for Obama. Your assertion supports your case, and is surely sincere, but I didn't see it that way during the campaign and I don't now. Surely I saw much written about how transformative Hillary's gender would be, just as much as was written about the transformational nature of Obama's race. For myself, I saw both of them as transformational, in ways that cannot yet be seen and in ways that perhaps neither of them intended or would embrace as fully as their adherents.
That both leading candidates of a major American political party were not white men is, of itself, transformational; that deed was done when Edwards folded, and the consequences - all good - cannot IMHO be overestimated. The attributes of the individuals themselves will not over the long run matter anywhere near as much as the fact of their emergence and eventual triumph over what had previously been overwhelming obstacles.
3) & 4) Did I say anything specific to Corrente or you or lambert? No, I did not. Somehow, what with your original post being about tristero, I thought we were going to be able to talk in general terms about the greater blogosphere and sundry inhabitants. C'mon, eh? If I have something specific to say about an individual, I name names. If what I wrote was an attack on lambert or you, I'd have worked your names into the text or cited specific posts as illustrative; I didn't do that because I was speaking in generalities. Fact is, though, certain people did drift into my mind - I'm only human - but you and lambert were not among them.
I didn't name names in large part because I wanted to avoid the who-said-what-when argument; that sure worked out well.
Well, hifalutin generalities don't tend to work out well
So far as I can tell, absent links, nobody here displayed the sort of behavior that so, um, concerns you. So why proffer the general observation at all? There are sites I don't frequent because I don't want to deal with adulation (in any form), and I'm sure you can think of some yourself. So why not go over there and straighten them out? Either that, or -- now here's an idea -- write about Tristero?
NOTE I almost missed the airbrushing of "near to half of them" fell in love with Hillary, and "near to half of them" fell in love with Obama. Any evidence for the idea that Hillary and Obama supporters went through the same thought process? No data, no nothing, I hear Frank Rich is out of a job.
And so, out. No more time to waste on distractions.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
No need to reply
Shame on me for coloring outside the lines. I'll toss and turn all night with remorse.
Yep, what you said
a + b.
If this be "emotional," which I assume will be the next riposte, then let us make the most of it.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi