Isn't Harold Ford at the wrong convention? (4.00 / 4)

 .  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 17:30:55 PM CDT

Oh, he'll be at the other one too, that's where he'll feel more comfortable ... (0.00 / 0)

Joe Leiberman's going to be there

---

by: Susan H @ Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 18:22:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Was this ever in doubt? (4.00 / 5)

my guess is that next year it's going to look like an utter trainwreck

If Obama wins, the far right will become increasingly more marginalized, first generally, and then within the GOP (the GOP cannot long survive unless it sends them packing, or at least off to the hinterlands, for the next few years, and likely longer). The dominant, centrist-corporate wing of the Democratic party will find common cause with the dominant, centrist-corporate wing of the Republican party to try to pass one bad bill after another, and both will try to marginalize and defeat the true mainstream left, i.e. liberals and progressives.

Oh, wait, that's what going on right now. So what exactly are we so excited about?

Oh, right, Obama's not McCain. Which of course he's not. So instead of a far-right neocon psychocrat, we'll have a center-right establishment technocrat. I.e. another Clinton, but presumably more disciplined and organized, with a somewhat less right-leaning nutjob corrupt congress, and a reinvigorated progressive movement to counter it. Better than the past 8 years, for sure, and perhaps even the previous 8. It's a start, I suppose.

Hope springs eternal...

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

---

by: kovie @ Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 17:31:53 PM CDT

Right. (4.00 / 1)

If we win this election, things will be

1. far from perfect, but
   
2. better than they have been in several decades
   

I think we all understand the score on that, and we'll take it.

---

by: pualo @ Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 18:05:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And don't forget... (4.00 / 1)

3. Finally within our ability again to make better, which we must and hopefully will.

You take what you can get and make the most of it, always pushing forward. Obama isn't Wellstone or FDR, but neither is he McCain or Bush.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

---

by: kovie @ Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 18:29:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

the economic royalists who propped up Bush (0.00 / 0)

anticipate that the corporate state, which grew so exponentially under Bush, will attain its mature form under Obama.

Since Bush's authoritarian corporatism aroused so much opposition and made it impossible for the Republicans to get elected, the economic royalists will change tactics. Instead of using brute force and bullying to get their way, they will use soothing, hopeful nostrums and reasonable-sounding calls for "moderation" and "bipartisanship"--a Disneyfied version of the same old stuff. And they expect Obama to be the ideal spokesman for this new corporatism, selling their programs to the public under the guise of "reform".

The FISA capitulation was characteristic of this paradigm. The Democrats, having been liberally greased with lobbyist money, passed a bill full of corporate giveaways, and Obama was called upon to use his rhetorical skills and charisma to soothe public apprehension and persuade the voters to go along with it.

So the economic royalists anticipate a profitable eight years under Obama, until a Republican comes along who can deliver better for them.

There is one problem with their rosy scenario: the fundamental structural problems this country faces surpass those we faced just before the Great Depression. Economic collapse, food and water shortages, military overreach, environmental damage, gutted infrastructure, and the broken rule of law.

If the worst happens and we are plunged into a second Great Depression, Obama will have two choices.

Once choice is to try to respond creatively with a program of thoroughgoing reform. That way requires the utmost insight, courage, and political cunning, and is fraught with political dangers, but is absolutely necessary for the survival of the nation.

The other choice is to make minor modifications to the plutocratic agenda of the economic royalists. Which is easy and comfortable, and poses no risk of upsetting the establishment apple cart, but is totally unsustainable.

If he chooses the latter, he will tear the Democrats apart. The rift between the progressive wing and the corporate wing will split wide open as it becomes obvious that a sizable portion of the party is only interested in making big business richer. And if things are so bad that people are starving in the streets, people will very quickly become fed up with the Democrats.

If this happens--and it is a distinct possibility--then we will either have to find alternative leaders who are creative and responsive and courageous, or lose Congress and the presidency to the Republicans, which would mean the end of America.

---

by: limpidglass @ Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 03:13:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wow. Get some rest. (0.00 / 0)

John McCain doesn't care about Vets.

---

by: MC @ Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 17:42:03 PM CDT

Ford - Blinded by the Flash (4.00 / 3)

Harold Ford then came out, and I ended up standing in front of his SUV and taking flash picture after flash picture just to make it a little less pleasant for these kinds of conservative bribocrats to attend this convention.

I'm still chuckling over the mental picture I've constructed of corporate Harold's pupils constricting at the Stoller created glare! lol!

Which reminded me of what you've done so well in the past. Any chance you are heading to St. Paul? I keep waiting for you to post a fund-ask to pay for something to make the Republican convention a little more enlightening for America.

Perhaps a tour of the twin-cities in the kiss-mobile to embarrass Lieberman? A hug-mobile to publicize the sycophantic picture of McCain bent over with both arms around Bush's middle while Bush holds a triumphant arm aloft? A billboard campaign? Something else?

It's time for McCain's image to be taken down several pegs. We could all send money to Obama but I think we'd get 10-times the bang for the buck if BlogPac or some other creative group would come up with a plan we could chip-in for to drive some negatives for McCain during their convention.

The Republicans have had their fun trying to drive a wedge between Clinton and Obama supporters during the Democratic Convention. I think we need to return the favor and cause a little rain to fall on their parade.

McCain Favors Super Rich

---

by: Curt Matlock @ Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 17:44:13 PM CDT

No illusions! (0.00 / 0)

Kovie has hit the nail on the head!

One thing that we can be certain is that Wall Street and K Street will have all the access, representation, staffers and ultimately legislation and executive orders they want.

The plutocracy will still be in charge no matter Obama or McCain. The big difference will be is that with McInsane we are going to have a hothead with the "go switch" in his hand.

---

by: ab initio @ Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 17:47:33 PM CDT

Its a place to gather (0.00 / 0)

Its a place to gather, face to face.  Nothing wrong with that.  I'm sure there are many people worth meeting there (I know a few myself).

---

by: Allen @ Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 18:01:20 PM CDT

This Is Sort Of What I Was Talking About Back in December (4.00 / 5)

In diaries such as "Populism & Progressivism-Pt1: Obama As Classic Progressive", where I drew a lot on Jack Balkin's "Populism and Progressivism as Constitutional Categories".

More, and more I'm thinking that this election is going to be much more similar to 1896, which was a realigning election, all right, but not a particularly successful one in terms of coming up with political solutions, compared to 1932.  In 1896, the populists were defeated and marginalized as the "politics of the past", with the "progressive" label being appropriated rather indiscriminately by virtually everyone else.

By 1917, we had a Democratic progressive, Woodrow Wilson, who won re-election on the slogan, "He Kept Us Out Of War," leading us into war, and establishing the first truly systematic repression of political speech (far more extensive than anything the Federalists ever dreamed of--or thought necessary), much less organizing, in response to which the ACLU was eventually formed.  One fricken disaster followed another during this era, and it's not like global warming is going to wait another 36 years for us to have another shot at another 1932.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 18:04:53 PM CDT

No ponies for you Paul (0.00 / 0)

Finish your dinner and go straight to your room. And you don't get to listen to The Speech That Will Change Everything on Thursday.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

---

by: kovie @ Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 18:32:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The different cultures that make up the democratic party (4.00 / 2)

My general belief is that, while the Obama world is not the Bush world, we're not allies.

Not precisely.  You don't come from the same cultural background.  

Clinton, Edwards, Obama all represented a cultural background and Obama won because he was simply the best at winning a political campaign.

My opinion is that Dean brought the edwards crowd to the forefront and Obama will bring the Obama crowd.  People more like Al Giordano.  

The primary cultural differences are

Edwards
:Big on unions, oriented more towards men
:Big on class warfare

Clinton
:More about doing anything to get ahead as that was seen to be necessary to win in a mans world
:Big on child care, and oriented more towards older women

Obama
: More about bringing people together culturally
: Big on consensus issues and details.  More about implementing a policy well (IE the we can believe in) part

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com

---

by: TerraFF @ Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 18:07:16 PM CDT

Look, we know this. (0.00 / 0)

Obama isn't what we would want him to be. But he appears sane. And it would be good to have a sane president.

---

by: Castine @ Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 18:21:03 PM CDT

where in the post did you see anything that said that it wouldn't? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: dr anonymous @ Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 18:26:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

lack of energy (4.00 / 4)

my guess is that next year it's going to look like an utter trainwreck

God I sure hope so.  I'm scared to death we'll be stuck in this Armageddon for four more years.  A nice, simple trainwreck will be quite the relief.

My general belief is that, while the Obama world is not the Bush world, we're not allies

Of course we are allies, we just aren't the same country.

I may have a long wish list, but a nice, competently run government is so much better than the past 8 years of pure destruction.

For some reason, today I'm the most pessimistic about this election I've been since Kerry lost four years ago.  I really can't find any energy to worry that an Obama presidency may be less than perfect.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 18:31:46 PM CDT

get yourself together man (4.00 / 3)

remember the overton window, etc.  we change the country and the elite consensus moves with it.  that's the way every progressive achievement from abolishing slavery, to women's suffrage to labor rights has been achieved in this country and its the exact way the next progressive victory will be won.  

this stuff takes time.  what you are sensing is that current institutional power structures don't include us.  they include harold ford and guys like him and lots of steak dinners with mediocre blonde girls who wish they were cute enough to be models but will settle for being paid to hang around rich and powerful men.  

the real thing to be worried about is losing track of what we value and what concrete steps we are taking to end the status quo in the medium and long term.  

---

by: 11luke @ Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 18:35:40 PM CDT

The fallacy of Zeno's Paradox explains your point perfectly (4.00 / 2)

Speaking of metaphors, that is. To get from the regressive here to the progressive there, lots of intermediary steps need to take place. Three of which are electing a Democrat as president, increasing Democratic majorities in congress--including a real one in the senate--and electing more progressives to congress. Then the real battles begin, between the center and left, as opposed to between the right and center.

The center has won--or will win, soon, if Obama wins and Dems have larger majorities. Then it will have to start dealing with the left, and hopefully striking deals with it more and more--which I think it will have to if it wants to make stuff happen w/o having to cut deals with the right, and/or if enough (smart) pressure is exerted on it by the left.

To expect things to stay exactly the same under Obama and larger Dem majorities is, I think, as unrealistic as to expect that they will markedly improve right away. But by electing Obama and more Dems, the conditions for effecting progressive change will be stronger, and the conditions for continuing regressive reaction will be weaker. We're talking about a more level playing field next year--if we win--not instant change. Which, I think, most of us get.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

---

by: kovie @ Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 20:21:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Harold Ford and Blonde Girls (0.00 / 0)

Wasn't that a GOP commercial that helped keep Ford out of the Senate?

When do we get to see those pics, Matt?

---

by: wanderindiana @ Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 21:44:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is an upper-class dominated nation (4.00 / 1)

The Democratic Party is one of two major political parties.  Both parties are dominated by the policy preferences, the economic infrastructure, and the policy advocacy networks of the U.S. upper classes.  The Republican Party is the more brutal, anti-working / anti-average person party.

The Democratic Party is not a grassroots organization, nor does is it governed democratically by its members.

I don't like that that's the reality, I think there are things we could do to change it, but it would be unprecedented and rather miraculous change at best.

Given that the Democratic Party wants to sell itself to the upper class / corporate class as the saner and more desirable of the two major pro-business parties, no one should be surprised that there is 2-way corporate reachout to be found.

---

by: El Cid @ Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 20:01:05 PM CDT

It's never going to change.. (4.00 / 1)

Until you invest in a truly separate infrastructure.  Reform from within the party using its own apparatus is simply not going to happen--there are too many entrenched interests.  The only real hope is the formation of a separate infrastructure of donors, think tanks and candidates, a party within a party, if you will, that eventually gain enough steam to take over.  Institutions like MoveOn and the blogosphere have begun the process, but things are still far too disorganized at this point.

---

by: planefinder @ Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 20:08:17 PM CDT

the blogosphere (4.00 / 1)

Really agree with what you're saying here with the exception of the blogosphere.

You won't see any sentiments like Matt's at any of the larger, oranger sites -- quite the opposite, in fact. The Lefty Blogosphere has been, in large part, co-opted by the existing power structure so as to be marginalized in terms of agenda and maximized in terms of foot soldiering.

In other words, it's broken. FISA was the straw that broke its back, and the general election, as Matt surmises, will lead to an even greater trainwreck.

What's sad is that it is only in moments of great hope that end in defeat, where much hinges for blogging progressives on victory and necessarily ends crushingly, do guys like Matt who have the roots of power to change the status quo and form that alternative structure even dare to think about reform from without.

Enough already with the cheerleading and the "One Party One Dream" mentality. We hated the Rethugs for that mindset, and stealing it from them to use for ourselves just plain sucks.

Might as well move to China if that's the flag we all have to wave.

---

by: wanderindiana @ Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 21:42:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

snort! (0.00 / 0)

it's the food, and the hookers. and the blow. i think. that, and being on teevee. more than anything else, that is america's religion. "look at me! i'm famous!"

---

by: chicago dyke @ Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 20:21:01 PM CDT

Presumptuous claim re populism - feedback appreciated (0.00 / 0)

Matt, I'd appreciate your perspective on this one.  

I found your claim here pretty presumptuous:

"They believe in elite consensus governance, using terms such as 'civility' and imposing liberal-ish policy ideas from academics.   We believe in polarization and populism, and in fact our very power and capacity on the internet emerges from conflict and polarization."

I have to ask - what's this "we" business, dude?  Who are you electing to speak for?  

Weren't we just given a stern lecture by Chris about treating the Netroots as some sort of homogeneous lockstep cadre wrt policy issues?  It just so happens that (like many progressives and many folks in the Netroots) I have some huge reservations about this whole "populism" business.  

Chris was critiquing the concept of a 'Netroots Platform' - but I would apply his arguments to your claim implicit in stating that "we believe in" so-called "populism."

Let me try to articulate some of why this assumption makes me uncomfortable - but even if you don't find my case convincing, the broader point stands that you seemed to be speaking on behalf of the Netroots in embracing a principle that I think can be reasonably contested.  We're not talking about something like Net Neutrality here, where there is broad and consistent Netroots support.  

Here's the deal.  I recognize the importance of ongoing discussion about 'populist' policy approaches (esp. economic ones) and the strategic role they should play in reinvigorating American progressivism.  Open Left is undoubtedly fostering this discussion - you, Chris, and especially Paul and David have been hitting the topic from a variety of angles.  

But sometimes, we neglect the darker side of populism - and we definitely neglect discussion about the circumstances under which "elite... policy ideas from academics" might after all be damn well appropriate!  I want experts figuring out my science policy for example, not the Polity.

David has identified this 'dark side' in noting that the "Uprising" could go in a good, productive, progressive direction, or in a bad, regressive one.  

Perhaps I'm merely subconsciously performing my given role in the Play of Identity Politics, but I like policy ideas from academia!  I find populism very alarming when anti-intellectual vitriol starts to fly!  

Bottom line - I know you're tired as well as justifiably cranky for being surrounded up to your ears in corporate shills, Bush Dogs, and bloviating pundits out in Denver.  But if you were revisiting this post, would you stand by the remarks that raised my hackles?  I know they weren't your main point, and thought perhaps that I might persuade you to give it a second thought.  

Appreciate your feedback on this - and thanks again for going and reporting on this Convention (so I don't have to).

---

by: Syrith @ Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 22:35:15 PM CDT

The Difficult Road Ahead (0.00 / 0)

There are very few bloggers, I feel, who acknowledge how difficult things will be for the progressive movement and the progressive blogosphere during a Democratic presidency.  Many of the divisions that typically cause the left to eat itself will reemerge.  We need more people to have their eyes open to the treacherous waters that lay before us, lest we find our progressive ambitions sunk in the maelstrom ahead.  

---

by: Klugstah @ Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 23:36:37 PM CDT

We're here to use the convention--to organize for progressive causes (4.00 / 2)

You missed a great HR 676/guaranteed healthcare event with John Conyers, California Nurses Association, and Progressive Democrats of America, for example.  Brought us one step closer...  

It's OUR convention too, even if corporate America is running around like they own the joint.  (as they own the joint?)

Join the California Nurses Association and National Nurses Organizing Committee in the fight for guaranteed healthcare on the single-payer model at www.GuaranteedHealthcare.org/blog

---

by: California Nurses Shum @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:43:36 AM CDT

I know why you're there. (0.00 / 0)

Keep fighting the good fight, even if all you have is flashbulbs.

---

by: ek hornbeck @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:01:44 AM CDT

Nice work, Matt! And a great photo to accompany the post! (4.00 / 2)

A couple of quick observations that others haven't yet made:

(1)  That sign in your photo says everything that needs to be said about the access to our party from people who shouldn't be allowed anywhere NEAR it.  "Clean Coal," for those of us living in Appalachia, is among the biggest lies on the planet.  It is the among the worst forms of corporate phonyism and has continues to devastate Appalachian economies.  

People here in Appalachia have their home foundations rocked from constant blasting approaching the level in a war zone.  In West Virginia alone, 3 million pounds of high explosives per DAY are used on our communities to get at that "clean" coal.  How "clean" could that possibly be?  I have seen my windows rattle and my children jump when the blasts go off.  My friends' homes are attacked by coal thugs because my friends have the unimaginable courage to stand up against these monsters.  Other friends, their families and loved ones have had their kidneys literally burned up by the poisons that mountain top removal pumps into their wells.  Our citizens are crushed to death by out-of-control sixty ton coal trucks on narrow two lane roads.  There are recordings of a mother bear and her cubs crying after being buried alive in a valley fill.

One wonders how many convention-goers have walked under that sign and, looking up, said to themselves "Wow!  Coal's clean now?  Hey, that's great!"  How clean could it possibly be?

While I am now, and always have been a Democrat, I and many like me here in WV are soured on our party because, just like the sign you photographed, the dirty, rotten, filthy, poisonous, cancerous lie of "clean coal" has infested Democratic politics.  My own Congressman, Nick Rahall actually SCREAMED at some community members who visited him at his office in D.C. to ask him, politely, to please think about them, as well as his corporate backers in the "Clean Coal" lobby.  He screamed at them.  And he's among the highest ranking, most tenured Democrats in the House.

Coal most assuredly ain't clean, neither now nor in the future.  

(2)  Harold Ford.  Harold comes, of course, from one of the most political families in America, and that family maintains an icy deathgrip on politics in Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee.  Most recently, one of Harold's proteges tried to oust incumbent Steve Cohen in the primary by engaging in some of the lowest race-baiting in recent memory.  First, the Fordites tried to link Steve to a statue of a confederate officer.  When that failed, they went even deeper into the gutter, offering flyers that said "Steve Cohen is a Jew.  Jews hate Christians."

I have no doubt that, like a poster above noted, Harold will feel MUCH more comfortable among his ilk at the Repiglickin National Conclave, whatever they're calling their little Nuremberg-On-The-Mississippi these days.

---

by: BobKincaid @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:20:09 AM CDT