CorrenteWire DESTROYS Obama -- says he has it "EXACTLY BACKWARDS" -- it's NOT time to "reach out"...

...it's time FIGHT BACK.

CorrenteWire: The country can’t afford to wait for Obama to discover that his strategy of conciliation has failed.

Obama stump speech strategy of conciliation considered harmful
http://www.correntewire.com/obama_stump_speech_strategy_of_conciliation_considered_harmful

Some quotes from this amazing post:

Obama presents himself as a change agent, but weakens the forces that bring about change. You can’t win a mandate with a content-free platform, and conflict-free is content-free....

{The fact} that movement conservatives and Villagers like ... William Kristol, ... David Brooks, Broderella, and Andrew Sullivan are all good with Obama isn’t even mentioned in passing by Obama’s fan base....

Obama presents himself as post-partisan, but partisan politics are needed. ...

Obama wants to "reach out," but that strategy has already been tried. Obama says he wants to "reach out" to Republicans. But Reid and Pelosi "reached out" to Republicans, and that strategy was a miserable failure.

Tearing down the Conservative Movement is exactly the kind of politics that’s needed to lift the country up!...

So why on earth would Obama think that "tearing down" the Conservative Movement and "lifting this country up" are opposites? They’re the same!... And we need the kind of politics that treats them that way. When the Swift Boat guys smeared Kerry, Kerry should have "torn them down." Beating Bush in 2004 sure would have “lifted up” the country! Back in the McCarthy era, Margaret Chase Smith "tore down" Joe McCarthy with her Declaration of Conscience, and that sure "lifted up" the country! Sam Ervin "tore down" Richard Nixon and got him impeached. That lifted up the country too...

If an election is held in 2008, and if an Democrat is elected, and is allowed to take office, and that Democrat is Obama, the Conservative Movement, and its billionaire funders, are not going to change their playbook. Why would they change what has worked out well for them? They will go right back and run the same plays that they ran when the last Democrat was elected....

Progressive policies — this election, health insurance, above all — will be vehemently opposed by the Conservative Movement and the winger billionaires because progressive policies are not in their economic interests. In fact, they’ve been working for 30 years against progressive policies, and have been well paid to do so. They won’t change. Why would they? So, there’s going to be a food fight. Don’t we need the kind of politics that’s going to win the fight, rather than deplore it?...

So at best, Obama is feeding us highflown, but vacuous rhetoric. At worst, he’ll let the Conservative Movement operatives who drive the Bush administration get away clean, after committing criminal and impeachable offenses with impunity and no accountability of any kind. That’s not the kind of politics we need to achieve a permanent progressive majority....

So much of the advocacy for Obama highlights his attractive personality, his personal history, his rhetorical skills, and his negotiation skills.... {But} we don’t need the kind of politics that’s about a single, charismatic figure. We need a mandate for progressive change. But when Obama focuses on "the big table," and "negotiation," and "reaching out," and the whole kumbaya thing, he weakens ... the very activists and social entrepreneurs that we need to build progressive institutions....

Universal health care is not going to come because Obama sits the players down around the big table and they suddenly, magically, "see the light" because of his mad negotiation skillz as an honest broker; it’s not in their interest to see what we see, and so they won’t. Universal health care MAY happen because of heat; if enough people can put heat on the corporations, and on their elected representatives, to make it happen. Confrontation increases voter turnout, and that can only be good for our side. And confrontation is heat, not light. Obama has it exactly backward....

And here I have to say that this passage {from Obama's stump speech} --

"...there’s no shortage of anger and bluster..."

-- grotesquely trivializes the experience of any aware citizen under Bush’s rule.

Is it wrong to be “angry” that the Bush administration has turned us into a nation of torturers? Is it wrong to be “angry” that the Republicans took us to war under false pretenses? Is it “bluster” to say that Cheney’s claim to be the Fourth Branch of government is absurd? Is it “bluster” to demand our Fourth Amendment rights back?

And who might these angry blusterers be? ... Could the angry blusterers be ... Progressives? Harshing the mellow with their demands for accountability and the restoration of Constitutional government?

Do we really need the kind of politics that tells us to lay back and enjoy it?

The country can’t afford to wait for Obama to discover that his strategy of conciliation has failed.

========

Read the whole article by Corrente, it's really amazing.
http://www.correntewire.com/obama_stump_speech_strategy_of_conciliation_considered_harmful

As Krugman said in his piece criticizing Obama: "Anyone who thinks that the next president can achieve real change without bitter confrontation is living in a fantasy world."

========

And if you're in the mood for more in that same vein, read Digby today also.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/bipartisan-zombies-by-digby-it-was.html

She hit one out of the park today.

And many of the fascinating comments to her post point out that Obama and Hillary would ruin things by trying to "reach out" and "compromise" -- while Edwards is the one who would do what actually needs to done -- which is FIGHT BACK.

I am damned sick of everyone fighting everywhere. If anything can be gained by making allies out of the rethugs, I'm all for it.

Are you saying that your distaste for "fighting" outweighs your distaste for illegal torture and spying and wars and the looting of our country?

Wow. Just wow.

Your train of though drove off the tracks right around where you said "If anything can be gained by making allies out of the rethugs." That's precisely the kind of wishful thinking which Corrente's article soundly debunks -- citing HISTORY no less.

If anyone would profit by reading that article, you sure would. You're engaging in exactly the same kind of delusion Obama engages in. "IF" we can make allies of the rethugs... Hello?!? The very point of the article is that HISTORY SHOWS YOU CAN'T.

Seriously, give it a real read. And once you do, I'd be very curious if you'd come back here and actually address the point the article raised -- namely, the absolutely impossibility of the forlorn hope you devoutly wished for. HOW are we going to make allies of the rethugs?

As Atrios said:

Shorter Candidates

Obama: The system sucks, but I’m so awesome that it’ll melt away before me.

Edwards: The system sucks, and we’re gonna have to fight like hell to destroy it.

Clinton: The system sucks, and I know how to work within it more than anyone.



Sure, I find fighting SO distasteful, just like you. Only trouble is, there IS a fight going on right now. It's not going to go away by just wishing it away and it's not going to go away by being nice and it's not going to go away because our enemies suddenly "magically" become our "allies."

It's only going to go away if we recognize our strength (in our higher numbers, and in our higher ideals) and use it and FIGHT BACK.

:eyes: Yes, our strength will be in higher numbers which is where it will come from, and that will only happen if we get more Dems in Congress. That too might happen with so many rethugs retiring.
But don't tell me any one of these candidates are without 'ideals'. Not very democratic of you.

I also maintain we need to get rid of milquetoast Reid and perhaps get someone like Dodd as Senate majority leader, someone who seems to place a much higher value on the Constitution. If I could think of a way to get rid of Hoyer and Emanuel, that might help solve the House problem; I think Pelosi wouldn't be acting like such a tool if they weren't leading her around.

Once those factors are in place, you're nuts if you don't think we should try to work together. If we have a new cast of characters, what would the benefits be of 'fighting like hell' to destroy something that's new and untested?

Edwards' words are pretty, but the situation should be totally different when someone is finally elected, for all of them.

And you don't extend an olive branch to someone who's trying to rob the bank. First you stop them. Then you can think about being all nice and conciliatory -- AFTER YOU'VE STOPPED THEM. If you're conciliatory while they're being caught red-handed, they just keep on doin' what they're doin'. (See: Iran-Contra, Enron, Plame, war, spying, torture, detentions, signing statements -- all situations where we "worked together" by letting the criminals walk "working with" the other side, and they just keep on committing more crimes. Weird, isn't it?)

We can all "work together" as you fervently hope for -- ie, we can all agree that people who try to destroy our country belong in jail, and we can all "work together" to try to put them there. (Note that when I say "we can work together" I do NOT envisision the lying thugs whom I propose bringing to trial and putting in jail "working together" with us in our attempt to stop them. A minor difference with your approach. Just kind of a hunch I have.)

Your Overton Window is way too far to the right and you're framing this wrong. You need to stop framing this as being about jockeying for chairmanships in the House and Senate, and start framing this as being about law enforcement.

Our government and way of life are being destroyed, and will continue to be destroyed, because we didn't lock up the criminals after Iran-Contra, and we didn't lock them up after Enron, and we're not locking them up now after illegal unconsititutional war, spying, torture, detentions, signing statements.

Any candidate who is talking about "reconciliation" with these lying criminals should be a red flag to you.

You say "Edwards' words are pretty." I respectfully submit that his words are actually a bit on the ugly side (after all, he's the one who always gets accused of talking "class warfare") and that's a Good Thing because he's saying what needs to be said.

If anyone's words are "pretty" it's Obama's -- because he's unwilling to use the language of fighting, while we are in the middle of the worst fight our country has ever been in -- against an enemy within.

That's so far removed from reality it's baffling. The Democratic leadership have given into Bush on Iraq, warrant-less surveillance, SCHIP, censoring Moveon, and everything else that he wanted. I, for one, would love to see someone fighting. At least that would show that they cared, which is more than I get from most of my Party.

...Obama wants to "reach out," but that strategy has already been tried. Obama says he wants to "reach out" to Republicans. But Reid and Pelosi "reached out" to Republicans, and that strategy was a miserable failure...



We need to stop reaching out to the people who harm us.

and because there are only a handful in D.C. (Kucinich, Feingold, Sanders...) -- then they should reach out to us!

I'll hope that Thom Hartmann, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Naomi Klein, or Naomi Wolf are available to stand in as my proxy. :D

:hi:

What has everybody else done? Oh yeah. Nothing.

Like the Iraq War Resolution, which he co-sponsored.

...I guess you'd call that "doing nothing" too compared to the people who were going about their normal business of cooking dinner and taking out the garbage and studying their piano lessons.

How dare you say that "everyone else" has done "nothing". The article I posted is a very good example of someone trying to do something -- namely:

(1) informing the many uninformed people of the real nature of the crisis (we're up against a band of lying thugs who don't believe in compromise or cooperation or even government)

(2) calling for abandoning the failed strategy of appeasing and negotiating with criminals, and calling for a new strategy of fighting against them.

Do you really think that pointing out the nature of a poorly understood crisis and suggesting a better strategy for handling it is doing "nothing"?

And do you see how business as usual (eg, your proposed, misguided metric of merely "passing legislation") fails to identify and understand the crisis and will ultimately fail to solve it?

And gather the parties together to fund the fire dept, implement training, manage the crews, etc. I also don't want someone yelling fire and then telling the company that manufactures fire equipment not to show up.

They say he will compromise on things he has never said anything about compromising on, and then they say how terrible that is.

You should look at his votes and look at his actual words and go by that.

You should also look at Edwards's Senate votes. He voted with the Republicans on important issues, and not just on isolated votes.

His conservative voting record was a patterm.

Obama-Coburn online pork tracker database, or even the variety of Kennedy-Hatch health care bills. It takes cooperation to get things done.

:thumbsup:

And just like every other piece "bipartisan" compromise legislation, it was designed to hurt the Democratic Party. We try to make legislation which will help the country, they try to make legislation which will help their Party. The just solution, according to our bipartisan fetishists, is legislation which helps the Republican Party while doing almost nothing to change the actual status quo. Republicans will vote for it, that must mean it's good!

nuclear proliferation bill, the anti-pork public database, etc.?

There were numerous articles written in the aftermath of the Feingold-McCain bill detailing how that bill was expected to hurt the Democrats more than Republicans. Simply put, at the time the bill was passed, the Democratic Party was more dependent on soft money than the Republican Party was. This soft money was the main target of the bill, and Democratic fundraising was adversely affected to a greater extent than the Republicans were. Fortunately, the Democratic Party has evolved a much more effective hard money raising apparatus since then, but at the time Republican strategists were delighted. Here are a few articles to refresh your memory.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200307/gitell
"Democrats knew that campaign-finance reform would cripple their fundraising ability—but they backed the idea anyway, largely on principle. Republicans knew that it would give their party an even bigger edge than it already had—but they staunchly opposed it, also largely on principle. The fate of McCain-Feingold ultimately rests with the Supreme Court. But principle has already cost the Democrats plenty"

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6746
"Under McCain-Feingold, however, the Republican National Committee is expected to spend five times more than its Democratic counterpart While the two parties' Congressional campaign committees have raised similar amounts, the Republicans' overall superiority in fund-raising gives them a distinct advantage. Ms. Farrell may win in spite of it, but other Democratic challengers who lose tight races will have a legitimate claim that McCain-Feingold contributed to their defeat."

As for the other bills you mentioned, I suppose they are fine, but relatively unimportant. The anti-pork bill will hurt incumbents and may even increase the efficiency of government, but it's hardly a bill which is designed to tackle an important conflict of interest. As far as the nuclear proliferation bill, I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with the bill you are referring to.

or even led when he was in the Senate?

It's a seniority system; the longer your in, the more say you get. That's why neither Obama nor Edwards have much in the way of accomplishments from their time in the Senate. Of course the question is not what has Obama/Edwards done, it's what they plan to do to change the system. Edwards promises to fight the Republicans on populist grounds in order to generate the political pressure necessary to change the rotten status quo. Obama seems to think that Republicans are good guys, but the Democrats are so mean to them that Republicans have been forced into opposing good legislation. I don't believe that this is the case, and I doubt the effectiveness of any strategy that relies on the better nature of the average Republican politician. This is bad strategy, and if elected Obama will find that out for himself.

done. Why couldn't Edwards or Obama?

Any current Obama supporter want to answer that question?

and pals around with king dumya and family. :crazy:

down' Richard Nixon and got him impeached." --Note: Learn your history before posting things like this.

I do admit my understanding of the details of Watergate aren't good... probably not as good as yours, since I have learned many things reading your posts on history, H2OMan!

but SOMEONE tore Nixon down, didn't they? Might not have been Sam Ervin, but somebody got the guy impeached and he resigned. Maybe you know who because I don't have the energy to cruise over to Wikipedia right now...

That was the general gist of what Corrent meant, I think -- even if he may have (as you claim) got the names of one of the actors wrong. Nixon broke the law and we brought the force of the law down on him. We fought back -- we didn't try to "work together" with Nixon, because back then (unlike now) we called a crook a crook instead of trying to "reach out" to them.

There is a very hard to find quote about Mane Polite (operation Clean Hands) from Billmon which I wish I had, where he basically argues that Berlusconi (way back when, on his FIRST time in power) got caught for being corrupt in Italy, and in Italy they tried to clean house and put Berlusconi in jail... but they failed to do so, so Berlusconi simply came back and had a second go at power.

Billmon compared this with Iran-Contra, pointing out that we didn't lock up the felons then, and a lot of them came back (eg, Poindexter).

I took his point to be about the importance of simple law enforcement.

was not impeached. He would have been.

Sam E was conservative. In many ways, he was far more conservative than Nixon.

...constant combat is not the way to make things better.