The downside of being an ally of a Democratic President

It seems like now Senator Kerry is in a Catch 22 situation.


1. Defend a Democratic President/Administration and you will get some appreciation from Pro-Obama AA blogs, and ardent supporters aka "Obama Democrats," and seen as putting everyday Americans ahead of ego, and not undercutting the President, even if people still don't get this, and see that Obama is not the only pol in DC that "we" trust and has a backbone. You'll get trashed for doing this, but hey, you are defending "my/our President."


However, it comes at a price:


2. Anger the MA base, Liberals, Progressives, and get hated on with all kinds RW talking points with past/present negative stories brought up, labeled a "sellout corporatist," (or selling out the poor) or "bought off by corporations."

Knowing you are there to represent your constituents, but be loyal to the POTUS. What do you do?


That said, hope the Senator can tighten up his PR the next few years. Sounds like he is going to need it. It's sounds like he is walking a tightrope.

doesn't make it true.

just as the tea party is not about fiscal responsiblity even though they claim to be.

look closer and you see they don't care about progress at all. they aren't even informed about what is going on.

but after lurking back and fourth here and at another Pro-Obama, AA blog, the reactions are different. There, they totally dislike "Fauxgressives" (i.e. Feingold, Weiner, etc) and Democrats as a whole, especially since they badmouth "our/my" President every chance they get. "Obama Democrats" believe that Obama is the only pol they trust, (minus Biden, Pelosi) and others, "F!#k them!" But, if you defend Obama, you are appreciated for being a good sport with the POTUS, even if you aren't Obama.

Over here, agree they don't care about progress, but here Obama, is labeled all kinds of things and some posters (some longtime ones from MA) who are usually rational are turning on Kerry because he supports Obama by bringing up recycled RW points, stories of 04, IWR, wealth, etc).

Me is supposed to stay out of MA matters, but what Mass said in the other thread made me think that what he is doing for Obama isn't going to go over well with the MA base aka his constituents.

one example i will give is the attacks on Obama over those airport searches. but for blacks and latinos, especially the men, being racially profiled and dealing with these searches by people in power is a part of life.

but NOW that it might be some white people who get searched they are so upset and want to get rid of the first and only black president we have had.

black voters have always supported democrats in large numbers , usually white Democrats when it comes to presidency . even when they didn't change things as much as they would have liked. but now white "liberals" want to get rid of Obama so quickly.

when Kerry defends Obama it goes over well with black supporters of Obama because they see someone who is defending him the way they defended many white politicians. they see it as rare that someone would defend Obama. and this is true.

as for MA , white voters need to look at how they have hurt themselves with voting for Scott Brown.

I'm sad to think that there's a ring of truth here.
... or, to look at this through a more positive lens: white "liberals" (and, J17's quotes are apt here-- with people like Schumer, etc, I feel that this is about egos as much as "principles") have a lot to learn from the political wisdom of their AA brethren.
Politics and people are messy packages. To move things forward involves, most of the time, making the best of a less than ideal situation.
(And, dammit, O is criticized for being more testy with Dems than R's. Ah, the same goes for O's progressive critics. . . )The Republicans "filibuster" (what happened to making the filibusterers actually, like filibuster? they should at least have to put some physical effort into this..) of DADT is a travesty.

The Republicans, and the voters who elected them, are the real villains here. We should be focusing our energies into getting rid of as many of them as possible in 2012, not setting up a circular firing squad. It would be not just stupid, but criminal for Dems to try to take down Obama -- this most intelligent man, and the most liberal president we've had in my lifetime -- for REPUBLICAN misdeeds.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/opinion/12reed.html

concluding paragraphs. ..

got everything as soon as they wanted it. It is both ludicrous and insulting. Many activists have led a life that was financially a lot worse than our president as a child and a teenager, who was solidly middle-class and got to go to the best institutions (with scholarship, but it is still better than many). Enough is enough with this race war. And, while there is no doubt racism subsists, the major woes of the African American community are economical (certainly increased by years of discrimination). The only thing I believe in in the Marxist theory is "Workers of all country, unite". Frankly, making it and saying "Workers of all background, unite", rather than entertaining these artificial distinction. Can we move on. And frankly hearing once again the "latte limousine" democrat in this piece disturbs me. There must be other ways to defend Obama than race warfare.

I am not saying that the historical context here is not correct and that black men (or women) have not been subject to discrimination for years, but why does this person preach moving things on by Obama being careful not to offend white people. Did MLK succeed by avoiding offending the racists? It makes no sense to me, and, if it does, it is offensive.

Even worse, the myth of the "latte limousine" democrat is attached to Obama by its enemies (including a few crazies on the left). There are racists in our society. There are some in the right. There are some among centrist democrats, and there are some on the left as well. They will not be placated because our president will avoid rocking the boat. RACISM is not the domain of progressives only. The Ben Nelson's of the world are no less racist than a Bernie Sanders, who would be very surprised to learn that he got everything the minute he asked for it

The second point is that I am not sure whether the author is correct about Obama not wanting to rock the boat for the reason he advances. From the beginning (2004), I thought Obama was like that, a pragmatic who is trying to get people to work together. It is the way he sees things done (why should I not take him at his word), and I respect him enough to think he is sincere. If he is not and he does that because white men could feel offended, what image does that make of him? How is it not just as offensive as the "corporate sellout" some progressives have adopted.

A black man who protests will be seen as a angry black man and because of that, current African American leaders should avoid to show anger(or even energy, engagement, because I dont see too many people asking to Obama to be angry, but to show some passion -- BTW, our own governor seems to do very well on the side of showing passion. It may be that we are in MA, but MA is not a place without racism and prejudism).

As I said in a thread where this was posted, I dont pretend to understand what it is to be a black man in America or either, and as somebody born in France, some of the historical references may escape me, but, as a white woman, I've heard for many years that you cannot be a successful woman and have a love life that is successful. This is the closest example I can imagine that is relevant here. In French, there is an expression for that "mal baisee", (not sure the exact translation in English, but, if I say that "mal" is "poorly" and baisee in this case is "fucked" you will get the feeling. By this rhetoric and applying the same hundred of years of prejudice, this is exactly the type of prejudice women in my lifetime have had to fight against. Thanksfully, MLK or the leaders of the feminist movement did not spend to much time wondering what the white man would think, or we still would be where we were in the 1950s and 1960s.

It may just be one of these things you cannot talk in American, or you will be called crazy (single payer or at least a decent universal healthcare, an affordable higher education, a different foreign policy, ...). We are letting the right framing the debate and this article is another example.

BTW, Obama is already dismissed as an angry black man by the racists the writer is referring to. That he be deferential to white men is not going to change that. The uppity negro meme is well present. But it is not the progressives that are responsible from it. It is the RW and moderate democrats.

If the writer wants to be upset about something, let him be upset about the school situation in the Boston area, where, in order to provide young African Americans with the success they are entitled to, children are still "bused" to upper middle class suburbs, having to get up at 5 am and not getting home before 5 pm. This is something to be upset by, and I would guess Boston is not the only city in American like that.

I dont want to offend anybody here, but this new line of defense just upsets me. Let us be upset with some of Obama's policy. Let those who disagree try to primary him (hopefully finding somebody better than Ed O'Reilly) if they want. I have no doubt that a decent primary challenge is not what would hurt Obama. What may, however, is what the OP and others should be worried about, the economic suffering of the middleclass and many millions of poor people who do not vote because they dont think they have anything to win whoever wins this election.

I also don't think it's all about race (except from certain elements of the far right), and I know that the Dem party, even its prominent members in Congress, are by no means all "latte liberals. And I also have been frustrated by the first two years of the Obama administration, most of all by the very, very unwanted extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy.
But I do think that the writers I posted did have a point worth thinking about. . there was a kernel of truth there, as there is also truth in your comments.That's why I like this JK forum-- that different dimensions of the truth can come out because we can actually discuss them instead of yelling.

But I also think that these things are true (as an indication of where I'm coming from .)
1. As Frank Rich noted in his Dec 5 NYT column (Dec 4 online), as a Rorschach blot, Americans projected all our hopes on Obama in the 2008 election, and since his election, Americans have projected all our fears on him. (I don't always agree with Frank Rich on politics, but I think he got it right here)
2.. . but the causes for our current fear and frustration are many. Pres. Obama does bear a chunk of the blame, but so do Congressional Democrats (it's worth remembering that it was the Democrats in Congress who CHOSE to put off the vote on tax cuts until after the Nov election. Big mistake IMHO, though, as they say, hindsight is 20-20.And Congressional reps were feeling real pressure to get home and campaign for reelection rather than extend session too much into October, so their decision wasn't completely unjustified).
And, of course-- and I think that we need to keep remembering this -- the real villains are the Republicans, who created the economic mess and poisoned political atmosphere to start with.
And there is the media. And the economy (see: Republicans)
Also, I have to say, I blame the indifference, ignorance and short-sightedness of many American voters (and especially the NON-voters).. . what Ed Schulz aptly calls the "low-information voters". One can quibble with the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of Dem political strategy, or this or that aspect of Obama's achievements , messaging or lack thereof, etc. But I'm sorry: no one who is thinking even a little could possibly choose Rand Paul or Ron Paul or Sarah Palin or Jim de Mint or Eric Cantor or John Boehner as a reasonable alternative to even the most flawed of Dem candidates. American voters made DUMB choices in Nov 2010.
3. Most of all, I'm worried about the effects of Dem schism on the 2012 election. In 1968, unrest about Johnson, then liberal ambiguity about Humphrey, gave us NIXON. In 1976, dissatisfaction with Carter gave us, not Teddy Kennedy for president, but REAGAN.
With our country in such a dire state, we simply cannot afford to replay this scenario in 2012. We just CAN'T let it happen again. Not this time.
This Toles cartoon expresses my fears:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/tomtoles/2010/12/palin_comparison.html#more

but as it comes to how I see the situation.

I have been tempted to stop posting in these last few days because I don't think there is currently a place on DU for people who are not ready to enter one of the two camps: Obama fans AND Obama opponents. I am not an Obama opponent, but, as I see it, the tax deal is a bad thing and was poorly managed, both by Congress and by the White House. As somebody who struggles with what should be done on many of these issues (when is a compromise acceptable and when is it not), I resent both sides for their absolute positions: no, Obama is not perfect and I will disagree with him on some issues. That does not make me a racist. And, on the other sides, even if I may agree with somebody on issues, the fact that some politicians will take a position this person disagree with does not make the politician evil and corporate sellout (I resent that when it comes to Republicans, so I will definitively resent that when it comes to Democrats). It only means on this issue, he has taken a different position. Then you can make the sum of all his positions and decide whether you will support him or not.

politicasita, I agree with your assessment of where Kerry is (independently of where his personal feelings would lead him), but it is not about Kerry, it is not about Obama. It is about making the right decision for this country, and both sides are right in some respect and wrong in others, in my view.

I also resent that people who may disagree are lumped with these idiots on DU who repeat RW talking points. I know some wonderful lefties on GD who are thoughtful and believe. There are also a handful of perfect idiots, which I dont think make a majority of the lefties on DU, but a very vocal uberminority. I also know some perfect idiots in the Obama supporters side and a lot of great people. So, basically, is there a place on DU for people who are on the side of Krugman and Reich, largely agree with them, but are not ready to subscribe to the scorched earth policy a small fraction of DU is performing. Can we still sustain discussion about real poverty, for example, or about what it means to have a child out of wedlock, or is the discussion uniquely how X or Y (whether Feingold or Obama) is evil.

I have to say that for me, what makes it even more difficult is the disconnect between European and US politics. In Europe, I would be center left (probably between the Socialist and the Green Party, but this would make me in the mainstream. In the US, the same position makes me a fringe person, when my personality is essentially non confrontational.

But enough about self-centered posts.

I find most of the people who are "leaders" on the internet, supposedly representing that left pole, strike me as whiny priviliged white liberals. They are not a TRUE LEFT, which frankly, needs to come from the working class.

Now here is the thing. I would probably disagree with a Left Pole like that. But I want those voices in the mix. It would push the debate leftward, kind of like how the Libertarian Party and a lot of conversative groups push everything rightward. A lot of the liberal bloggers who were there since the beginning wanted this from the start. But frankly, I question their "street cred". They just don't speak to working people. Essentially, they come from Silicon Valley, if not geographically then in spirit. And it's not about how much money they have, it's about class. They come across TO ME (not Rush Limbaugh or what Joe Klein has to say) as snooty people who think they are smarter and better than everyone else. I don't like them, so you can imagine how little they will persuade others. With all his flaws, Michael Moore is more effective than the liberal blogosphere. He has SOME semblance of cred. They don't.

Unfortunately, unlike Europe, we simply do not have that tradition anymore. The unions are weaker here and more special interests oriented. Whereas at least in Germany, the unions not only protect their own but all the white collar workers in companies as well. I have just noticed a lot less anti-union sentiment from Europeans than from Americans. Our view of unions is that they are at best only care about themselves and at worst are corrupt and run by the mafia. Reagan and friends did their job well, I guess, plus the unions shooting themselves in the foot. I still smart when I think of what they did with the excise tax in the health care bill.

the ridiculous distinction between blue and white collars, which probably made sense in the XIX century, but is just totally anachronistic. I say "populist" here because I think it is more the populist tradition that still has this distinction more than the left, but this idea is totally ridiculous.

depending on their range of skill sets, people can go back and forth between blue collar to white collar jobs several times in a (working) lifetime. I have family members who have done this. They are the same people, when they're wearing a hard hat as when they aren't. And working a blue collar job doesn't make them more "real" than anybody else.

And, yes, we are far past the point in American history where an elite group of intellectuals come up with ideas and rely on, say, Detroit to turn them into products. I think it hurts our county to delude ourselves in this way.

There is a growing population of people with graduate degrees living hand to mouth with temporary and part-time jobs. Education is no longer a guarantee of becoming part of the "elite."

None of the old rules apply. We need to find new ways of looking at issues and new terms. We also need to recognize complexity and dissonance and discomfort. There are no easy answers anywhere.

like Krugman and Reich - Not a leftwing version of News as entertainment.

In my case, I hope that they do some fixing up the compromise as written. It is hard to believe that they can't have a "keep whole" provision that insures that the people who get less from the tax holiday, that I have real mixed feelings on, than they would from Make Work Pay, get the difference. The Republicans tried to make fairness an issue when they claimed that "no one's taxes should go up". They are hypocrites if they meant everybody rich should not see their taxes go up.

There have been some good posts on various elements of the plans, that dealt with the impact they might have - some positive and some negative, the one thing that was true in the ones I saw was that the comments all deteriorated into flame wars.

the tax deal is just one issue they are using to do this. it could have been anything else. these people have been calling for someone to run against Obama long before this.

anyways, i'm not talking about anyone who may disagree with Obama on issues or strategy or anything else.

i'm talking about those certain ones who have been hateful and viscious for a long time now. most of them never supported him . the ones who get so outraged over any little thing because they want to be outraged, not because they really care about the issue. in fact many of these aren't informed about the issues.

when people make such a big thing and say things like "how dare he speak that way to me" i don't think they give a shit about the issues.

Some elements of both sides have been ridiculous. I dont know that I find people who call for a challenge to Obama are ridiculous (or racist) because they do so. Some are. Some are just sulking because Hillary Clinton did not win. And others are simply honest with where they stand. I also strongly believe that it is not the primary challenge that weakens the incumbent, it is because the incumbent is weak that he is challenged. This said, there is nothing wrong about having a real debate about what democrats stand for (not about how X is racist or Z is a corporate sellout because he disagrees with you, but why the policies proposed are wrong. I am not sure, however, that our system allows these debates to happen.

I am probably a little stymied up because of the remarkable speech by Sanders (too long, of course, but it was because there were not exactly a crowd of Dems ready to stand up for progressive principles). Kudos to Landrieu to be there. I often disagree with her and she made me cringe a few times in her speech, but at least she is fighting it I wished more senators had sided with him.

I wished they had done that weeks ago, as I see it. If Sanders's action allows dems to improve the deal even a little, all the power for him. In the mean time, he put the light on the very poor in this country, who mostly will not get anything from the tax deal, and that everybody ignore.

Reading all these threads posted in the last few days, I have come to realize that the debate the democrats in general (a few exceptions aside like Sanders) dont want to argue is the role of government in society. We are conceding the debate to the right. This tax package is largely tax cuts on both sides, something the right who wants to drown government in a glass of water can not disagree with, at a time when we need investments, help for the poor, .... The latest statements by Durbin about social security (somebody who is generally on the side of the poor as well) are frightening because it is clear he is not ready to even argue for lifting the cap. Dems who are pushing the catfood commission report as a starting point are already conceding the debate (and even the CAP report Yglesias was pushing a few days ago at some level is an attack on social security by pushing for reducing benefits). Private initiatives are replacing the government for services that are good, but not subjected to any accountability from the community. Here is one: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/12/11/remove_barriers_to_learning/
As far as I can see, excellent service, but why is this not a function of the government (federal, state, or local) to insure that? One of the reasons I dislike Clinton is "The era of big government is finished". The poor and in difficult time the middle class need government to help them keep afloat and go ahead. This should be a battle to fight, but if we are conceding it without a fight, without taking it to the public square, how is it fighting. This is what Sanders was doing, once again, and I would have seen more Democrats doing it ().

I wonder though if there is any strong position that would not be attacked by one group or another. There seems to be a huge level of inchoate anger on the Democratic side - possibly matching the similar anger of the Republican side. My guess is that it is based on frustration and the crash of expectations that always were too high. Three factors I can see are:

- Obama's eloquence meant he not only inspired people to trust him, but to think that he could achieve every goal that THEY wanted to happen. Obama in 2008 was like manna from heaven, always described as tasting like whatever you most wanted it to. He could do that in a campaign, but in governing he has to make choices. (I know I expected more change in foreign policy, but looking back, I see I imposed Kerry's strongly stated, clearly outlined views as what Obama's evanescent words really meant - which was obviously not the case.)

- The fact that it was so easy to believe from 2006 through 2009, that we were winning and in the process changing America overnight. We were guilty in not seeing that Obama winning to them, was like Bush winning in 2004 to us - a stunning blow that had them questioning what had happened to "their" country.

- The current media/internet etc culture favors demagogues. Their message is simple, because they don't care about facts, much less nuance. The impulse is to cheer the most outrageous attack on the "enemy" rather than to try to see their point of view and seek common ground. Look at the attention and support a frankly mediocre defeated Grayson gets. But, when each side has about half the country, this ever worsening polarization leads to hatred and anger, that ends up turning against almost everybody. It is the worst I have seen since early 2005 - again the result of a loss that hurt more because people came to believe that we really could pull this out. (Compared to 1984, where no one gave Mondale a chance.)

We are sensitive when it is Kerry, but there are few who actually speak out who don't become targets at some point. In Kerry's case, he clearly knew that his thoughtful statement on this would cause a firestorm against him. He could have very easily have told the Globe that he was still looking at the details of some of the completely new stimulation measures, but would vote for what helped people in MA and helped the economy. I think all of us would have had no problem with that - even though it said as little as all Brown statements and really meant nothing. But, it wouldn't be leadership.

With the media, joined by most of the angry left, challenging Obama as being able to lead, Kerry used his strong voice to speak of Obama's making a compromise as leadership. NOTHING could hurt Democratic chances to regain any power lost more than Obama being seen as very weak. (At the same time, I hope he is looking at various issues people have with the compromise details - there are little fixes for some problems (like the poor being the only ones who rates rise) and there needs to be an explicit statement that SS is treated as if the regular level of revenue was collected for it.) This was a patriotic action - and one he did not need to do.

But, a compromise when getting what he really wanted was impossible is exactly what I would expect him to try to do - the question is whether this compromise is a good one. Here or abroad, he truly does look for common ground. I suspect that part of it is that Kerry manages to put anger aside faster and more thoroughly than most people and he is more realistic thinking through the alternatives. Here, passing nothing does not really lead to the re-establishment of the Clinton rates for the foreseeable future, it leads to that for a few months, where the Democrats will be blamed for destroying the economy followed by the more Republican Congress passing a retroactive rollback with none of the stimulative things - in the process totally defeating Obama.

No thanks.

Just saying he is in a Catch 22 situation when it comes to MA and President Obama.

If you are a Democrat that defends Obama, you'll get lauded by the "Obamacrats" (indies that voted D or R, and had not voted Democratic in many years before Obama, but believe in pragmatism) as finally defending a Democratic President when many (Left, Right, Center, MSM) are against him. OTOH, there is sometimes a downside (i.e. the MA base, Liberals, etc.)

If you look at the real basic goals that both MA and Obama have, they are in their purest essence compatible.

On the tax cuts, if everything was possible, Obama would, like the MA liberals, want the high bracket tax cut to end. But, even before the election, you already had Bayh and others calling for the extension - and not one Republican seeming less than 100% certain to oppose it - even Scott Brown, was decisive about this - it was the one thing where his answer was not that he was "reading the bill".

The difference is one of which is the least bad of several bad alternatives. On DU, the break is not just Obama/lefties, it is how you weight (deficit issues and winning on a Democratic goal of rolling back the taxes on the wealthiest) and (the hardship of large raises in taxes or loss of refundable credits to people already struggling and the extension for 13 months of UI, where it is possible it could have been included in a must pass bill, but there was risk it couldn't.)

A Democrat taking EITHER side can cite Democratic values to defend their choice.

I think it diminishes Kerry to suggest that he backed this just because Obama's name is on it. I think one thing Kerry has always been known for is an ability to find paths forward and solutions that really do have parts each side wants and parts that make each side uncomfortable. This was true on his climate change ideas and his foreign policy positions. It also is the type of solution that you get when you really do have divided government. Neither side has the power to get all they want.

That said - the details are not carved in stone and he is among the people trying to tweak it to add useful things. I wish he would address the pay roll holiday specifically and address how to prevent the poorest people being the only ones actually seeing their rates rise. I would guess he could do more good being in the group working on the proposal now than taking the easier position of speaking against a compromise.

excellent summary. I don't know much about the tax cuts (though I am taxpayer, shame on me. :)), so still learning the financial curves.

...old DUJK. :) On my way out now...will post later. :hi:

when Clinton was speaking.

it's people who complain about things like that whoi don't think really care about the issues. they do nothing to but away from real complaints.

it's just so freeper like. like when freepers were saying how Clinton smiled at some funeral, John Kerry waved and smiled to someone when Reagan died etc.

It is so disheartening to see Dem's fall for this BS too.

The other dems look weak as well, but he does too

why do some posters seem positive about Clinton even though he is defending the policy they attack Obama for ?

this is what i meant by my first response in this thread. i'ts not about issues only for a lot of these. yeah, there are some who attack any/all .

but there are a significant numbers who seem ok with Clinton doing the same but not Obama.

about Clinton as well.

I honestly don't think Sen. Kerry takes a hit here that is long-lasting. The people that don't like him because he's not Bernie Sanders still won't like him. The independants will like him because he is talking sense and is consistent in backing the President. JK will have short-term damage, but it is from the same-old, same-old. I don't like the compromise bill and wish it had gone differently, but it didn't and we have to deal with what is now, not what we had hoped to get.

The Congressional Democrats dropped the ball on the whole tax issue. They were busy doing other things, or not doing other things because they were successfully blocked by the Republicans. This whole thing came down to choking down a compromise bill that has bad things in it. Well, most bills that pass have choking elements in them. We take it and move on to the next battle.

I think Pres. Obama did the best he could. I don't think he had the stars aligned to take this fight on after health care and other things came up. It happens that way in politics sometimes. I think he got a lot done and was severely blocked on other things by a Republican minority that resents him and wants him stopped, at all costs. Republicans are acting like suicide bombers right now, willing to kill whatever gets in their way, even if it means killing their own to get what they want. This is an irrational act. It is a dedication to power at al costs. There are not many ways to fight off a scorched earth policy like this, you have to roll with it for a bit and divise a strategy for it over time. (The Republicans have burnt a lot of bridges. They see this as victory, but there are terrible things left in the wake of what they did and they have to live with that. It will not be easy for them going forward.)

I would rather be a Democrat going into next year and 2012 than a Republican. We do hold a better hand, it's just that the waters are still too choppy for people to see that right now. Give it time.

That makes sense.

Hope employment finds you soon Tay. Best wishes. :hi:

I agree with your concluding sentence. One thing this has done is put in stark perspective just what the republicans think worth sacrificing everything - national security, military funding, helping 911 workers, the economy - for -- and it is preserving the tax cuts of the top 2%.

This a week after the talk was of deficit commissions and how you address long term debt. How do they even hang on to the true conservatives.