“Progressives” for Ageism

It goes without saying that most of the major bloggers — Markos, Josh Marshall, Digby, and many others — were so blinded in their desire to sink Hillary that they allowed (and even engaged in) unrelenting sexism and race-baiting.

Their behavior during the campaign was so far from being progressive that I’ve concluded that they’re not actually progressives — at least not of the New Deal, progressive government heritage. Indeed, Markos proclaims himself a libertarian Democrat, meaning he’s well-off and politically correct.

Regarding the Silence of the Bloggers while the media performed a misogynistic bloodletting on Hillary, Big Tent Democrat writes:

[Digby] KNOWS why [media bias] was not covered by most of the Left bogs until the ABC debate - for the same reason the Media’s bias, sexism and misogyny was not covered by the blogs - because they loved it when it was against Hillary Clinton. The Left blogs failed in the primaries and it is time they owned up to it and why - when it was smears, sexism and silliness against Clinton, all was well. Look at Keith Olbermann for crissakes. Their complaints about McCain favoritism in the Media, to the extent it exists, now rings hollow. Their credibility had been shot long ago.

Now Digby is endorsing attacks on McCain. Does she want to go after his tax policies? How about Iraq? Is it his abortion stance? No, it’s not about policy. Here’s the plan she endorses:

Why not concentrate on character critiques that have some real grounding in reality? Just to give a few examples:

*
McCain is old and gets confused occasionally.
*

McCain is running an ugly, smear-based campaign.
*

McCain has a legendarily short fuse.
*

McCain is annoyingly self-righteous.
*

McCain’s straight talk has evaporated in the face of his need to win evangelical votes.

How to go after McCain and promote a progressive agenda? Ageism. He’s running a “smear-based campaign” (read: he’s racist). Nice coming from a group that allowed (and participated in) Obama’s race-baiting of the Clintons. And please don’t call McCain “annoyingly self-righteous,” while Obama lectures Americans to learn Spanish — a language he does not speak.

The “progressive” bloggers’ desire for power — not a progressive agenda — has turned them into modern day Bolsheviks. There is nothing progressive about race-baiting, sexism, and ageism. The sooner Obama is defeated and these cranks fade away, the better.

PUMAs need to start formulating a vision for a post-Obama Democratic Party, one which I hope is focused on providing opportunities for all Americans regardless of race, sex, or age.

Obama’s Two Faces and Forked Tongue, Pt 3: The U.S. is Evil?

Obama’s willingness to flip-flop has earned him the moniker Backtrack Obama. He betrayed progressives by voting for the FISA legislation; he promised to expand Bush’s faith-based initiatives; he equivocated on choice by saying that “mental distress” should not be a factor in abortion.

Obama’s newest flip flop was not over a matter of public policy important to progressives, but rather the United State’s historic role in confronting evil. During the debate at Saddleback, Rick Warren asked, “Does evil exist and, if it does, do we ignore it, do we negotiate with it, do we contain it, or do we defeat it?”

Anglachel on Obama

As always, Anglachel cuts through to the problem with Obamam:

The problem here is that Obama has never had answers and doesn’t give a shit about answers as this campaign is about nothing save gratifying his own ego. There is nothing greater for him than his self-interest. He doesn’t give a damn about Democratic policies as he has stated (again, this is his own formulation) that his supporters are “Obamacans”, not Democrats. His campaign has never been anything besides how wonderful he is and how awful you are if you don’t agree.

I know, I sound like a broken record, but this all gets back to the argument I’ve been making all year about having a philosophy of government and political power that sees a need to use the power of the state to secure and improve the lives of ordinary citizens. If you simply don’t believe that it is so, that public policy should be nothing more than artful structuring of choices (and not mandating that X shall be available for all, regardless), then policy as such loses its punch. One is as good as another, and all are mere bargaining chips in the hunt for bipartisan unity.

Read the whole post here.

The Denver Group’s TV Ad

Consider contributing to The Denver Group to get this ad on the air.

PUMAs Pimp Out David Schuster

Important New Blog

Dr. Lynette Long’s Caucus Fraud. Bookmark, add it to your blogroll.

Beck’s Modern Guilt

It’s different than anything else he has recorded. But that’s typical

of Beck, right? It’s taken me two weeks to get into it but suddenly, like most

great albums, its beats sink into your bones. I love the song Gamma Ray. Is

that surf guitar? It’s brilliant.

James Lee Burke Interview

Thursday 8/14 at 9pm ET. Bud’s guest tonight is renowned author James Lee Burke. Burke isn’t an explicitly political writer, but his novels deal with the important issues of race, class, inequality, and violence. Mr. Burke is the author of 27 books, including In The Electric Mist with Confederate Dead, soon to be released as a film starring Tommy Lee Jones. His latest novel is Swan Peak, featuring detective Dave Robicheaux. Please click hear to listen.

Obama Forgets the Forgotten Middle Class

During the opening night of the Olympics, John McCain broadcast the following ad, titled “Painful”:

I was struck by the high quality of the ad. It tweaks Obama’s celebrity status, and then unleashes a full-throttle class attack on Obama. “Life in the spotlight must be grand,” intones a woman’s voice, dropping her voice off for emphasis, “but for the rest of us times are tough. Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000.”

Contrast this ad with the lingering image of Obama in Europe, a trip which I think cost him dearly. Obama is trying to stretch his image into that of a statesman; he tried to fill the shoes of real presidents by going on the Euro-Disney tour of historic moments of American presidential history. But these staged events actually make Obama seem smaller, like the scared guy hiding behind a faux presidential seal:

I’ve been thinking about Obama’s missteps since he “secured” the nomination. I think Obama would have been wise to go somewhere he lost big, like West Virginia, leaving behind his entourage and asking working people about their concerns in the streets and cafes of small town America. Instead of puffing himself up to look presidential, Obama should bring himself to the door steps of poor whites in Appalachia, Latinos in Texas, the elderly in Florida. Bill Clinton published a book during the 1992 campaign called “Putting People First,” and his economic message struck a chord. Obama has promised Hope, but he has failed to articulate a compelling economic message. But I suspect that he and his advisers are already intoxicated on their perceived greatness.

Obama’s message is a post-modern, self-referential echo of how great Obama is, because Obama brings you hope and that’s what you’ve been waiting for, in addition to yourself (who you didn’t know you were waiting for). He won’t let you be complacent and he will remind you that you and he are merging into “The Ones we’ve all been waiting for”. And then a light will shine. Our tires will spontaneously inflate. And the earth will begin to heal.

Putting sarcasm aside, take a look at a Bill Clinton ad from 1992. People often complain that politics is all image and no substance. But here we have a candidate who is nearly all substance. He is working at his desk while the names of economists supporting his economic plan scroll across the screen. Obama fills the screen with himself and his adoring crowds, Bill Clinton (like Hillary Clinton) outlined solutions. Working Americans, I suggest, can see the difference.

My neighbor told me today that he’s voting for McCain. The only other time he’s voted Republican was for Nixon in 1972, an ominous warning for Democrats.

If Obama is losing Democrats like my neighbor — white ethnic, life-long Democrat, over 65 years old — he is in deep trouble. Back in April, Anglachel wrote that Obama’s inability to speak the language of the working class would cost the Democrats the election:

Should Obama be the nominee, he can kiss the general election goodbye … the Democratic Party leadership itself is going to be paying for its whole-hearted embrace of reductionist class politics. Some voters will defect to the Republicans, though I think that is going to be limited … I think you see a significant section of the working class simply turn away from participation, depressing turn out and costing the party electoral success. They will stay away until the party offers them candidates who talk to their material interests instead of to the leadership’s fantasy of being modern day Solons.

Obama’s inability to speak to the “forgotten middle class,” as Bill Clinton famously called them, is a primary source of his troubles. His campaign is still running to win the votes of college towns, but now great swaths of working America are starting to pay attention and the candidate speaking to the concerns of the working class, ironically enough, is the Republican nominee.

Why Obama Must Lose: One Progressive’s Opinion

The Just Say No Deal/PUMA movement is evidence of a deep rift in the Democratic Party, one I believe the polls are not reflecting. Contrary to what the neo-liberals may say, the movement is not comprised of bitter old women — although many are bitter, many are women, and some are perhaps old. Instead, this deepening divide is the classic split of any political organization during a power struggle. The Daley Machine gave way to McGovern; and Goldwater conservatism rebuked Rockefeller’s liberalism.

But this movement has a twist: Obama lacks legitimacy. The continuation of this rift is not about Hillary “losing.” Clintonistas, like myself, know that losing elections and having your heart broken is the inevitable risk of politics. Anglachel writes:

With John Edwards in the news these days, I have been reflecting on the theme of “Two Americas” and have applied a twist that more accurately reflects the two Americas within the Democratic Party - those whose bigotry and biases are excused because they are of the right class and those whose flaws are inexcusable, even when the flaws do not exist.

This “class” split in the Democratic Party is much more than an economic split. As Anglachel suggests, it is evidence of a values divide. These values are not the black-and-white split of abortion. Instead, this divide is a matter of emphasis. Obama talks about access to health care, but he doesn’t offer a universal plan. Obama criticized Hillary for her Iraq War vote, but he wasn’t in the senate to vote. Obama lectures Americans to learn Spanish–an irony not missed by many– a language he doesn’t speak.

But the differences of emphasis were not themselves the deal-breaker. The deal-breaker, I believe, was about Obama’s tactics in the campaign and the Democratic Party’s complete bias and vote-rigging for their chosen candidate. Donna Brazile’s embarrassing performance at the RBC was so transparent in its bias that she became the most visible Obama shill massaging rules for her candidate, all the while lecturing us on rules. Do they really think we’re that stupid?

Clintonistas, and now PUMAs, are revolted by four major issues. This is by no means an all-inclusive list, but includes the followings:

(1) The Democratic Nomination was Stolen

garyinchapelhill writes about Obama’s lack of legitimacy resulting from a stolen nomination:

Obama’s decision to return full voting status to delegates from Michigan and Florida does not make up for the fact that the RBC stole delegates from the uncommitted voters, as well as all write in votes, AND 4 of Hillary’s delegates. Until that travesty is corrected the votes of those delegates can not be considered legitimate.

And Marc Rubin of The Denver Group considers Obama’s current flip flop on Florida and Michigan as a ploy to entice disgusted Democrats into the fold:

Florida and Michigan were one of the earliest examples of how dishonest, two faced underhanded and fraudulent Obama can be, when he claimed in speeches that he stood for “voices being heard” and “every vote must count”, and then clamped his hand over the mouths of almost 3 million voters in Florida and Michigan because he didn’t like what those voices were saying, which was a loud “go home”. And in all likelihood are still saying “go home and will continue to say it. Clinton beat him by landslide numbers in both states and this little act of political self preservation isn’t going to fool anyone. Anyone, even an Obama supporter can see it’s nothing more than another cynical political ploy to try and win back voters who were disgusted with him a long time ago because he needs them now.

(2) Obama Race-Baited the Clintons

Obama’s race speech was compared to Lincoln by his sycophants in the media. It was closer to Nixon’s infamous “Checkers” speech, a disingenuous, hateful piece of sophistry created to dove-tail with white liberal guilt. The conflation of Jeremiah Wright’s homicidal racism with Geraldine Ferraro’s simple observation was only the most glaring evidence of Obama’s tactics. Anglachel points out that Obama’s demonizing of low income whites was a basic political calculation:

working class voters are not the socio-economic slice of the “white” vote that votes Republican. They are the least likely portion of white voters to do so, which is part of what made the constant slamming of this group so infuriating during the primaries. This was the slice of the white demographic most likely to vote for Hillary, and that was the reason they were being singled out for shaming and insults.

And Alegre puts her finger on why PUMAs find Obama unacceptable:

I think I can speak for millions of Hillary’s 18 millions supporters when I say that Camp Obama stepped over a serious line when they tarred the Clintons as racists in the lead-up to the SC primary (and since). Those attacks were simply unforgivable and may be a big reason (among many!) why many of us won’t get on that unity pony of Howie’s.

(3) Obama Attacked Hillary from the Right

Attacking Hillary from the Right was not by itself a deal-breaker. But the fact that Obama went after Hillary on health care — after everything she had fought for in the 1990s — was a disgraceful appropriation of Right Wing tactics and talking points. As SusanUnPC writes:

The sad reality, of course, is that Obama has no fealty to commitments over issues. Issues are merely fodder to be used to grab what he seeks above all else: Victory…Now, every politician has to be focused on winning. But most politicians have some issues about which they genuinely care and are knowledgeable about. Obama doesn’t seem to hold any issues dear.

(4) The Democratic Party Rejects Racism, Embraces Sexism

Democratic Party leaders and Obama supporters stayed silent while egregious misogyny was leveled against Mrs. Clinton. As feminist blogger Violet Socks said to me, the silence from our “brothers” on the Left regarding this sexism has been one of the most disappointing political events in the annals of progressivism. So we must have an accounting, and a defeat. There are worse things than losing elections, and I believe we have just witnessed them during the primaries. Obama’s use of sexist stereotypes against Hillary gave cultural permission for the venom against Hillary. It was outside the realm of acceptable behavior for a Democratic politician, and must be vehemently rejected. Voting for Obama is condoning tactics which are anathema to why we are Democrats in the first place.

Lynette Long writes:

I am not Lolita. I will not crawl back into bed with a party that raped me. I will not stay in an abusive relationship because I have nowhere else to go. I will not be placated by a pat on the head or a worthless trinket. I will not spend the rest of my life waiting for tomorrow or listening to people tell me that today is better than yesterday.

Defeat is Good

Just as Barry Goldwater’s defeat by Johnson in 1964 was considered the end of the conservative movement, Obama’s victory is seen by the neo-liberals as a rejection of third-way progressivism. However, the PUMA movement is not an end but a beginning. It’s not the continuation of Bill Clinton’s moderate policies, but a movement of dedicated progressives who embraced Mrs. Clinton’s far more bold agenda, an agenda more analogues to FDR than Bill Clinton, and one which is much more progressive than Obama’s. Our nascent movement parallels the rise of the conservative movement:

All the pundits saw the size of Goldwater’s defeat. Almost none grasped the implications of the fact that the Goldwater campaign had twice as many volunteers as Johnson’s — or that while 66,000 people donated to the Kennedy and Nixon campaigns of 1960, over a million gave to Barry Goldwater in 1964. Among other things [it is an] account of how a rebellious and at first marginal political faction moved toward power reminds us of the dynamic character of politics and the dangers of static analysis

I am a Democrat because I believe in universal health care, because I despise racism, race-baiting, and sexism, and because I believe in the democratic process. On all these counts, our Party has failed us. We must rid our Party of race-baiting, sexism, and vote stealing, and return our Party to its glorious heritage of patriotism, equal opportunity, and care for the most vulnerable.

Thanks to Medusa for her help with this essay.