by Damozel | My colleague Deb Cupples and I worried from the get-go that Obama wasn't particularly progressive and we were, let us say, uneasy with what we considered to be his often misleading rhetoric along the primary trail and the advisers with whom he surrounded himself. As she discusses here, he certainly doesn't seem too bothered about the wishes of the progressive wing of the Democratic party.
D. Cupples covered his endorsement of a conservative white Dem over a liberal African-American Dem in Georgia. She also discussed the disastrous FISA Bill. on which Obama has notably failed to take a stand.
I was expecting this to happen, only not this fast. All I know to do is to keep repeating, 'He's better than McCain better than McCain better than McCain.'
I trust Obama will issue a statement in opposition to the FISA debacle... I mean, I hope he will. Wasn't he quite vocal in opposing telecom immunity? I assume we'll hear tomorrow. As Taylor Marsh says, 'We simply have no Congress. It's there to check and balance the executive. It's not happening. They've made themselves irrelevant.'
Not that this is new since Bush took office, but we were led to believe that the midterm elections put Dems back in the drivers' seat. Sadly, it appears none of them can drive. As for the Barrow endorsement, that ship has sailed.Glen Greenwald is scathing, both about the Barrow endorsement and the FISA bill.
Before anyone starts arguing that Hillary wouldn't have done any differently, I shall simply quote Lambert at Corrente. 'We can’t know if Hillary would have done better, or not. Certainly she showed no great interest in this issue. But she’s not the presumptive nominee of the Party. Obama is. It’s his call.'
Time to check the temperature on the net.
At TPM, Greg Sargent writes re: the Barrow endorsement:
The problem here is that the Netroots are backing a primary challenger to Barrow, State Senator Regina Thomas, and Obama's ad is a blow to their efforts... (TPM)
Obama's spokesperson explained that Obama is backing Barrow, a supporter of the war in Iraq, in acknowledgment of the changes he's made in his district. Oh, fair enough. Marshall explains:
There are multiple reasons why Obama would do this. For example, he might be trying to send a message to certain House Dems that he can help them even in conservative districts, which could keep them from refusing to endorse him -- something that would give the GOP ammo in the Presidential race. (TPM)
Oh, no doubt that's the reason. But however Sargent rationalizes it, this decision isn't one that's likely to soothe the Barrow-loathing Netroots.
Matt Stoller at Open Left is pretty severe on Obama. He points out that anyone who took a look at Obama's advisers must have noticed that they are a pretty conservative crew (see BN-Politics here and here), so 'this isn't a shocker.' On the other hand...
Barrow is one of the most reactionary members of Congress, and he's facing a progressive primary challenger in Regina Thomas...
As Obama consolidates his power within the party, note who he is bringing with him in terms of economic policy and foreign policy, and note who he is protecting politically.
It is up to us to create a progressive check on Obama, and we might just have our first opportunity. (emphasis added)
At The Sideshow, Avedon Carol asks, 'Where's Obama?' 'So, what's Obama doing? He's keeping his mouth shut about FISA, but backing a Bush Dem who's working hand-in-glove with Steny Hoyer and the Republicans.'
At Corrente, Lambert ---a Hillary supporter --- says tersely: 'On FISA, silence means consent.'
Obama promised capital-C Change. Too many people didn't pay any attention to the small print. I thought he made it clear --- and certainly anyone who looked at his circle of advisers would have noticed --- that the sort of Change he was talking about wasn't by any means a progressive uprising against the right wing principles Bush established, but a bipartisan reach-across-the-aisles-all-working-together centrism aimed at everyone working together. It's who he is.
As Digby says here, that approach won't sit well with progressives and possibly not with the majority of Democratic voters.
[W]e are watching a sell-out of epic proportions happen right before our eyes and people are angry.
We hear a lot about how people want change in Washington. It's assumed by the Village media to mean that everybody is just desperate to stop fighting and get along --- comity, compromise and good feeling between good friends....
But there is just as much reason to believe that the change voters want is actually an end to the back scratching and glad handing that characterizes the bipartisan symbiosis between the political and corporate world and the incumbent protection racket that makes it possible. Nothing illustrates that corruption better than this FISA fight....
With Obama's recent appointments of centrist and conservative people to his economic and foreign policy teams and his endorsements of such reactionary creeps as Barrow in the primary, it's probably a good idea for progressives to start pulling on our end of the rope a bit. I think it will help him, not hurt him. If people want change in our politics then seeing our gifted, young candidate stand up strong for the constitution against corruption and institutional torpor would be a breath of fresh air. I would love to see him do it.
So would I. But I am not holding my breath.
Taylor Marsh, --- one of the most powerful voices in support of Hillary during the primaries --- has now given her support, just as I have, to Obama. But Hillary supporters in general, not being swept off their feet by his charisma, tend to be more aware of the reality of Obama.
Sorry, but get a clue. Obama is not an ideologue. How many times did I write that over the course of the primary season? He's going to support an incumbent Democrat over anyone else, including a progressive opponent, because Obama believes a sure conservative Democrat in the House beats any conservative Republican, or a long shot.... Obama isn't going to put his weight behind an outsider or into progressive partisan politics. I know people don't like it, but Obama never telegraphed anything other.... He's going to back the guy that already has the power. That some are just waking up to this and bitching about what was foretold seems a bit, well,
cluelesslate to the party.
RELATED POSTINGS
Recipe-gate Part 2: A Teapot in a Tempest
Muslim Women Barred by Obama Campaign from Photograph
If you think this campaign button is funny...
"better than McCain"?!
That is the sound of a sickening thud alright. IF that is all you got for Obama - better to send a message to the DNC that we are not going to play their games anymore. We are not going to reward Obama or the DNC for cheating America out of the best candidate for the Presidency since I don't know when. We lost the brightest, most amazing woman to this crack smoking idiot from Chicago.
No stank you!
Posted by: danny | June 21, 2008 at 03:04 PM
"better than McCain"?!
That is the sound of a sickening thud alright. IF that is all you got for Obama - better to send a message to the DNC that we are not going to play their games anymore. We are not going to reward Obama or the DNC for cheating America out of the best candidate for the Presidency since I don't know when. We lost the brightest, most amazing woman to this crack smoking idiot from Chicago.
No stank you!
Posted by: danny | June 21, 2008 at 03:05 PM