Buck Naked Politics

Note to Obama from a Supporter: Time to Dismount from the Flying Unicorn and Take Your Stand

Iby Damozel |  All righty, then.  We've seen that Obama can round up all the prettiest ponies and fly through space on the unicorn's back.  Time for his campaign to start thinking about something other than making pretty pictures and generating stirring rhetoric.

His speech in Berlin doesn't cut any ice with me---except from the 'Oooh, look!  Shiny!' standpoint--- because he hasn't got the means to make any of the things he talked about happen unless he wins the presidency.  The triumphal march abroad demonstrated that the rest of the world adores him, but people who care about this---I am one---already knew it.  It's important, but I didn't need a demo.

Veepstakes: Obama Campaign 'Floats' the Name of Ann Veneman [Sound of Bitter Laughter]

by Teh Nutroots | If it's a trial balloon, shoot it down.  I don't care what they did on The West Wing, YOU DON'T PICK A REPUBLICAN TO BE YOUR SUCCESSOR, and especially not that one.  I'm sorry for the all caps, but I actually am shouting.

According to The Politico, the Caroline Kennedy/Eric Holder led committee has 'floated' her name to members of Congress.  And they were 'surprised.'  Why?  'The low-profile Republican was close to food and agriculture industries but clashed with farm-state Democrats and environmentalists during her tenure, which lasted from 2001 to 2004.' (The Politico)

DNC Officials: Attention, Crybabies! We Grow Weary of Your Intransigence! Give Your Money to Obama Now!

by Damozel | First, this disclosure:  I was a Hillary supporter, and now I support Obama.  In my opinion, that's what all Democrats should do. For me, a McCain presidency ain't an option. I'm even going to donate money to Obama's campaign as soon as that debt of HRC's is retired.. I know for a fact he's going to need money.

But the name 'Democratic National Committee' is a hissing and a byword here in Florida and I am not even close to being over their shenanigans during the primaries.  So even though I agree in principle with the 'party officials' who wrote this letter, I would submit that Donald Fowler ('DNC member-at-large...who was one of Hillary's most prominent supporters') and 'Alice Germond, the Secretary of the DNC) struck just exactly the wrong note (see TPM). Lambert at Corrente has a different shorter version of their email. 

Obama & the Miffening* of Dem Insiders...

By Damozel | According to The Politico (via Alegre). relations between Obama and Capitol Hill are a leetle strained.  Apparently, some Dems aren't feeling so much Obamamania anymore.

The article describes them as 'miffed.'   

*Please don't email me.  I know it really isn't a word.  I just think it should be.

FISA: How They Voted and What it Means

by Damozel | This piece of legislation --- and what Congress has done to the fourth amendment---which protects the privacy of ordinary citizens from unreasonable invasion by the government ---  matters. 

Those who defended the telecoms for breaking federal law at the request of the Bush administration kept talking about the telecoms' subjection to  'the heavy hand of government.'  This was always spurious argument in the case of the telecoms, who had no more obligation than you or I to comply with an unlawful demand to break the law (none) and the same obligation as you or I would have to refuse to comply. And in fact, not all telecoms chose to go along with the demand.    

FISA, on the other hand, unleashes 'the heavy hand of government' on ordinary citizens.

An Eloquent Critic of the Obama Campaign

by Damozel | Among many bloggers who remain critical of Obama and the Obama campaign, one of those I find most powerful and persuasive is Anglachel, who writes both eloquently and intelligently about the divide in the Hillary campaign. 

Here are a couple of quotes from Anglachel's posts, though it's only fair to say that they aren't reducible down to extracts; they are intricately thought through and unified --- the blogging equivalent of origami --- and pulling out a piece here and there isn't really illustrative.

Oh, Grow Up (Yet Another Obama Supporter Thinks Maybe He's Been Had)

by Damozel |More punditry over Obama's perceived tack toward the center.  As I've said before, I never get tired of saying 'I told you so' to people whose support for Obama was all for non-policy-based reasons.  He was charismatic, he energized the young, he made a thrill run up Chris Matthews' leg, he's the first black candidate ever with a shot at the presidency....All those things were true; what isn't true is that he ever committed (barring one or two hot issues, such as FISA and NAFTA) to a truly progressive agenda except when following the lead of one of the other candidates as a matter of strategy.

Melissa McEwen & Maureen McCluskey: The Left's Campaign Against Hillary Clinton

by Damozel | The Guardian has an excellent two-part piece by Melissa McEwen and Maureen McCluskey, in which they track the ways in which Clinton's opponents recycled all the old anti-Hillary slurs formerly flung at her by the right.  Led by certain members of the Church of Lord Kos, supporters of Obama dug up out of the back garden the whole slop jar of gratuitous and frequently sexist insults. 

In a complete 180-degree turn, the same members of the left who had once defended Clinton against the attacks of the right wing - the trumped-up scandals and dug-up dirt that led to endless hours and millions upon millions of dollars wasted in fruitless investigations of the Clintons, their business dealings, their friends, not to mention the peculiar features of Bill's twig and berries - adopted the frames of those attacks as their own. Everything old was new again. Call it political retro chic..... By April, the blogfather Kos himself was agreeing that Clinton wasn't even to be considered a Democrat anymore. (The Guardian, part 1)

Building a Better Conservatism

by Damozel | Conservative columnist Steven Greenhut writes:

Syndicated columnist Bob Novak, writing about the surprising number of conservatives who are backing Democrat Barack Obama rather than Republican John McCain for the presidency, captured their widespread sentiment when he quoted one "Obamacon" with impeccable GOP credentials: "The Republican Party is a dead rotting carcass with a few decrepit old leaders stumbling around like zombies in a horror version of 'Weekend at Bernie,' handcuffed to a corpse." These Obama supporters hold no illusions about Obama's liberalism, but they are so angry at the GOP, Novak writes, that they seek a "therapeutic electoral bloodbath."... [I]n a two-party system, when one party screws up royally, the voters reward the other party.' (OC Register; emphasis added)

It's actually quite affirming that some conservatives have decided to rebel against what the Bush administration and its abettors and enablers and are prepared, in the best traditions of democracy, to 'throw the rascals out.'

Obama Clarifies his Position on Late Term Abortions

by Damozel | Obama has clarified his supposed opposition to allowing a woman to have a late term abortion in circumstances when the pregnancy causes the mother mental distress. (The Swamp)  He does not think mere 'mental distress' is a reason to permit such an exception.

According to Linda Douglass, the Obama campaign's senior spokesperson, the senator from Illinois was making a distinction in the magazine interview between medically diagnosed mental illness and the kind of mental distress that an unwanted pregnancy causes many a pregnant mother.  (The Swamp)

He does think such an exception should be permitted in circumstances in which there is medically diagnosed mental illness -- a position that still doesn't really please either side of the abortion argument. (The Swamp) 

Spitefulness Towards Obama: Some Reflections

by Damozel | John Cole is baffled by the intransigence of  Dems, including many recent Obama supporters, who have bashed Obama's every move since the nomination. 

The continued intransigence of left-wing bloggers and liberal Democratic interest groups that make up part of the Democratic voting block remains completely and totally mystifying to me. The utter unwillingness to allow Obama any latitude in framing his positions on issues so that they are more palatable to independent voters, demanding that he adhere to strict and rigid positions with no room for movement or nuance, appears to me to be an unwitting sabotage of a candidate who has always been a center-left pragmatist. Any slight deviation from orthodoxy, real or perceived...is met with derision, assaults on his integrity, and charges of flip-flopping. .

Condi is Proud; Presidents Are Not Welcome at Big Summer Party Parties; Disney Flouts the NRA; A Governor Takes a Wife; and a Conservative Icon Moves On

by Damozel | Secretary Rice is proud ---PROUD, I TELL YOU! --- that the US invaded Iraq and, presumably, that she did her little all to assist. (Read more...)  Arianna Huffington remarks on Rice's remarks at CNN (here)

Meanwhile, some GOP members think it might be best for everyone if Bush just doesn't go to the GOP Convention. 

Damn, that's just sad.  As The New York Times so poignantly puts it:

WSJ Compares Obama to Bush; Hillary Supporters Are Still Holding Out; What John McCain Didn't Learn from Vietnam

by Damozel | Is it really Obama who is running for Bush's third term? the Wall Street Journal sternly inquires. First Republicans called him the most liberal Senator ever --- which was never true --- and now they are trying to have it the other way.   It turns out that Obama is deviously taking all McCain's positions before he can get round to it --- or something.    Check out The Wall Street Journal if you want to laugh. Via Steve Benen at Crooks and Liars.

Given John McCain’s record, and rhetoric, Republicans are clearly worried about how voters are going to react to the argument that McCain offers the nation “Bush’s third term.”

In fact, conservatives are so worried about it, the misguided ideologues at the Wall Street Journal editorial page have decided to make a novel argument: it’s Barack Obama, not McCain, who’s actually “running for … Bush’s third term.”

The Times Of London Weighs in on Obama's So-called 'Pivoting'

by Damozel | The Times of London rather gleefully comments on Obama's perceived 'reversals,' on which I have just this moment commented at some length.  First, they sum up the positions which have so disappointed the party's progressive wing, and which are bound to disgust a large number of conservative Brits:

Last month he dropped his opposition to a Bill before Congress that would give telecoms companies immunity from prosecution for carrying out illegal wiretaps on potential terrorist suspects.

He told a cheering crowd of Israel's supporters of his fervent commitment to the security of the Jewish state and added, for good measure, that an “undivided” Jerusalem should be the nation's capital. He said that he likes free trade after all, and that his primary campaign pledge to dismantle the North American Free Trade Agreement was a case of “overheated rhetoric”.

Barack Obama, Who is He?

by Damozel | On this July 4, Barack Obama is drawing a lot of criticism from some who were previously anxious to support him. 

A New York Times editorial calls out Obama for his numerous failures to support the hopes of liberals that they finally had a champion worthy of the glory of their cause.  They aren't pleased with his most recent incarnation of the swing voter's Democrat.  And it's not just the so-called 'far left' that is reeling with shock.  In fact, even very moderate Democrats --- i.e., those who support a liberal agenda without necessarily wishing to see it implemented without some concession to the feelings of the opposition --- are shocked; shocked, I tell you!--- to learn too late what Obama is really about.  Once again, I can only shrug and say, 'Weren't you listening?'

In fact,  I don't think I'm ever going to get tired of saying, 'We told you so'  to his champions on the far left.  Another time, maybe they'll read the fine print.

A Review of the Freestyle Flip-Flopping of John McCain

by Damozel | This is a crucial post from Crooks and Liars for disillusioned Dems (like me) and for anyone, anywhere who has considered voting for McCain (unlike me).   It's extracted from Steve Benen's June 19 post at The Carpetbagger Report, which I linked at the time. But let's just review:

[B]ack in 1999, McCain was walking a tightrope by calling himself pro-life on a personal level while at the same time assuring pro-choice voters for pragmatic reasons that “in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade.”

Moving to the Center (Part 2); Dodd Bitter-Enders

by Damozel | I wrote at some length on this issue.  But you can skip the whole thing and just refer to Brad at Sadly, No!:

Candidates have traditionally moved toward the center after winning their primaries to attract more undecided voters. Except that that isn’t happening with John McCain, who has if anything gotten crazier in recent months....How does this happen? How has wingnuttery so poisoned our elections that both candidates are striving to show the rest of the country just how stupid and crazy they are? Don’t we need, to coin a phrase, a choice not an echo?.

Um...Gen. Wes Clark Challenges McCain's Military Credentials?

by Damozel |   Huh. Wouldn't it be better and more persuasive to focus on Obama's strengths, i.e., the fact he's right about Iraq and McCain is wrong?  I'm starting to think I would be an ace campaign strategist, if the problem with the following isn't apparent to Obama's advisers when it is so apparent to me. (Barack: Call me!)

Wes Clark is arguing that McCain's military credentials don't necessarily qualify him to be Commander-in-Chief.  I like Gen. Clark, but I think this was tactically a mistake.  According to Josh Kraushaar, this is what he said:

Clark said that McCain lacked the executive experience necessary to be president, calling him “untested and untried” on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”...

The Dread 'Move to the Center' & Obama's Campaign

by Damozel | Paul Krugman made the same point months ago as Greenwald does in this piece arguing that Obama's run rightward to meet McCain the so-called 'center' is in fact not the winning strategy his advisers must think.  Why is there an assumption that Americans want some sort of compromise between Bush and the principles expressed by the Democratic candidates?

With the Republicans still mechanically spouting policies consistent with Bush-era neoconservatism, what's needed to achieve balance again isn't compromise action, but corrective action.  What most Democrats I know want is a different choice.  Sadly, Obama lately seems intent on ensuring that there is no distinction between his policies and McCain's:

Chuck Hagel on McCain & Some Reflections About the Republican Party

by Damozel |  Hagel says he won't endorse McCain. (Bloomberg)   Not only that, but he'd consider serving as secretary of defense in an Obama administration (Bloomberg).  He emphasizes that he has policy differences with both candidates, but thinks his views align more with Obama's than McCain's (Bloomberg). He does plan to remain a registered Republican.   He hopes that the party can reincarnate itself in its earlier somewhat more pragmatic form. 

Hagel said his disagreement with the Bush administration and his view that the Republican Party ``has veered and shifted, and come loose of its moorings'' don't mean he has given up on the party.