304 Responses to How Progressives Can Move Obama to the Left

1. TheCallUp December 25th, 2009 at 2:11 pm «

   I love your line from the show:
   

   In steps Jane Hamsher, with a two-by-four. And she just clocked Rahm Emanuel across the head.

   PERFECT! HAH HAH!

   BTW, nice post, Cenk!
• romo2austin December 25th, 2009 at 2:17 pm «

  In steps Jane Hamsher, with a two-by-four. And she just clocked Rahm Emanuel across the head.

  No she didn’t. I’m sure Rahm barely batted an eye, and I doubt anyone but teabaggers will give two s**ts.
• ratfood December 25th, 2009 at 2:19 pm «

  Really wetting yourself now, aren’t you?

  Clean up needed on aisle 2!
• TheCallUp December 25th, 2009 at 2:25 pm «

  Heh heh … that’s hysterical.
• ratfood December 25th, 2009 at 2:29 pm «

  Like the rest of the dkos trolls romo is impervious to reason. Whack ‘em or ignore ‘em.
• Mauimom December 25th, 2009 at 3:55 pm «

  Please let’s stop feeding the troll. [Not you, ratfood; the troll you responded to.]

  He’s already hijacked several threads here. Go look on Jane’s above, and mostly what you’ll see is troll comments and repeated attempts by Pups to “talk some sense into him.”

  This is NOT the way it works, folks. We need to “talk among ourselves.” Troll is not adding anything to this discussion, is not attempting to understand, only wants to derail discussion here.

  So

  Don’t Feed the Troll(s)

  S

  C

  R

  O

  L

  L

  And BTW, when I asked for a list of the qualifications behind his “pronouncements” on what would happen in a criminal investigation/prosecution of Rahm, he headed for the showers.
• jackstraw December 26th, 2009 at 9:38 am «

  Sorry Mauimom, but the troll has a point. The notion that there is any such thing as a knock out blow in this fight is a bad mindset to get into. This is a campaign, not a single battle. Emanuel likely hasn’t batted an eye, as the troll put it. They won’t bat an eye until November 2010, when the base fails to show up and the Republicans take back Congress. Are we ready to go that far?

  For the record, I definitely am. This crappy healthcare bill creates a permanent health insurance industry monopoly that might well crowd out any real attempts at reform for the next five generations of Americans. Compared to that, a couple of years of Repubs in Congress seems harmless, especially if they actually manage to repeal the bill.

  But I recognize that I may be engaging in dangerously wishful thinking. Still, we gotta do something, and so far no-one has come up with a better idea.
• tinman1967 December 27th, 2009 at 10:14 am «

  You people can knock Romo but he (she) is actually correct. If Jane Hamsher asked Joseph Stalin to sign a joint letter asking for an investigation of Adolph Hitler, what do you think Uncle Joe would do? Of course he’d sign the letter.
  Get my drift?
• Hugh December 27th, 2009 at 10:17 am «

  Thank you for that wonderful example of Godwin’s law in action.
• ratfood December 27th, 2009 at 10:18 am «

  I will grant that you tend to drift… a lot.
• Teddy Partridge December 27th, 2009 at 12:10 pm «

  No.

  If Grover Norquist and Jane Hamsher agree that the earth is round, or the sky blue, would you disagree?

  It’s not about political personalities, it’s about political principles. Until people understand that, NO alliance to effect change will be acceptable if it is in any way outside the bounds of current thinking.
2. TheCallUp December 25th, 2009 at 2:22 pm «

   Cenk, you’ll have to excuse romo — he must be one of those Daily Kos sheep.

   BTW, Cenk I watch your show all the time, and show your clips on my blog’s rotating ‘video of the moment’. Excellent show, very informative, and so entertaining!
• Cenk Uygur December 25th, 2009 at 2:29 pm «

  Thanks! I really appreciate that. Keep spreading the good word.
• ratfood December 25th, 2009 at 2:37 pm «

  Thanks very much for what you are doing Mr. Uygur. FDL has been deluged with people from other blogs who are apoplectic at the notion that Jane could find some common ground with people from the other side of the political spectrum.

  Personally, I think it is an inspired move because (in addition to many other reasons) it makes it impossible for the Obama Administration to simply dismiss the challenge as “just more grumbling from the radical left.”
• jeffroby December 27th, 2009 at 5:53 pm «

  Jane is far from alone. See: http://www.docudharma.com/diary/18216/#271713 , the Jane Hamsher Front — Strike the Empire Back! at DocuDharma. There are a lot of people who know Jane is their ally. In my opinion, we can’t stop with defending Jane, we need to go after Bernanke, Summers and Geithner for starters.
• romo2austin December 25th, 2009 at 2:40 pm «

  The only people who will care about the “good word” are teabaggers like Jane Hamsher’s friends at Faux news and Americans for Tax Reform.
• ratfood December 25th, 2009 at 2:43 pm «

  Any response regarding your offer to serve as Rahm’s full-time fluffer?
• romo2austin December 25th, 2009 at 2:44 pm «

  the truth hurts, huh?
• ratfood December 25th, 2009 at 2:47 pm «

  You’ve been hanging around for days and haven’t told the truth yet. If you ever do I suspect it will be quite inadvertent but should that happen I will let you know.
• romo2austin December 25th, 2009 at 2:48 pm «

  So Jane doesn’t collude with ATF and Faux News? Now that is what we call delusional.
• ratfood December 25th, 2009 at 2:51 pm «

  Really gets your knickers in a twist, doesn’t it?

  Eventually even you will realize that Obama and Rahm are corporatist tools.
• romo2austin December 25th, 2009 at 2:57 pm «

  They have been a little more favorable to wall street than I would like them to be, although I agree that the bail outs were a necessary evil. Anyhow, you people are talking in hyperboles. There is not a secret cabal in the white house that is figuring out ways to transfer the working man’s hard earned money to wall street and the insurance companies.

  You people sound like paranoid conspiracy theorists. All you need now are aluminum foil helmets to keep the NSA’s radio waves out of your heads.
• TheCallUp December 25th, 2009 at 3:02 pm «

  They have been a little more favorable to wall street than I would like them to be, although I agree that the bail outs were a necessary evil. Anyhow, you people are talking in hyperboles. There is not a secret cabal in the white house that is figuring out ways to transfer the working man’s hard earned money to wall street and the insurance companies.

  The White House is trying to cement their grip on power by enriching the entrenched interests, so that those interests will not throw money at Republicans next time, but instead will keep the money coming their way.

  Nice try in setting up the ole ‘conspiracy/cabal’ straw man, and then club it with a stick.
• romo2austin December 25th, 2009 at 3:05 pm «

  Ok let me rephrase:

  They have been a little more favorable to wall street than I would like them to be, although I agree that the bail outs were a necessary evil. Anyhow, you people are talking in hyperboles. There is not a secret cabal in the white house that is figuring out ways to transfer the working man’s hard earned money to wall street and the insurance companies. Thus, increasing their campaign coffers in return.

  You people sound like paranoid conspiracy theorists. All you need now are aluminum foil helmets to keep the NSA’s radio waves out of your heads.
• TheCallUp December 25th, 2009 at 3:08 pm «

  You sound like someone who’s got his head buried in the sand.

  You’re the only one here creating hyperboles that lack substance. This is about the White House serving those with deep pockets for their own personal political gain. The transfer of wealth from the middle class is the side affect of their deal.
• romo2austin December 25th, 2009 at 3:11 pm «

  The transfer of wealth from the middle class is the side affect of their deal.

  Their super secret deal, right? Did they sign it in blood? LOL!
• Nathan Aschbacher December 26th, 2009 at 12:39 am «

  although I agree that the bail outs were a necessary evil.

  Why? Why not proper seizures and re-orgs? Why the known-failed Japan model instead of the known-successful Swede model?

  I won’t hold my breath for an answer, as you’ve literally never once responded to me, but the question needed to be asked.
• romo2austin December 26th, 2009 at 9:55 am «

  I would prefer that we permanently nationalize commercial banks, and all commercial bankers would be employees of the federal government. But that aint gonna happen and neither would have the Swedish model. The bail outs were the most politically feasible option at the time.
• Nathan Aschbacher December 26th, 2009 at 10:51 am «

  How so? We had to legislate against the pre-existent regulatory path. We had to intervene to prevent the FDIC from just doing its job. The concern was that letting the FDIC do its job would have been catastrophic, but we had three recent historical events to highlight that fallacy (Japan, Sweden, and the S&L crisis).

  You’re going to have to be a lot more specific, because your answer is a non-sequiter. It doesn’t even make sense considering the configuration of the existing regulatory agencies.
• romo2austin December 26th, 2009 at 2:35 pm «

  Not sure what you mean. Sweden put their banks into receivership. To put private banks into receivership you would need the support of Congress.
• transparait December 26th, 2009 at 2:55 pm «

  Dude, please. That’s the job of the FDIC. BTW, it’s always good to see your posts Nate.
• romo2austin December 26th, 2009 at 3:25 pm «

  I know, but Congress wouldn’t have allowed that to happen. That is the point I’m trying to make. It wasn’t politically feasible.
• romo2austin December 26th, 2009 at 3:34 pm «

  Plus I don’t think the FDIC even has enough in their funds to recapitalize those large financial institutions; in that case they would definitely need the federal government to get involved.
• Hugh December 26th, 2009 at 3:39 pm «

  Actually you are wrong. The FDIC has the authority and obligation to take Prompt Corrective Action (PCA). Bernanke has tried to push the line that there wasn’t authority to go after the parent holding companies but, in fact, this is exactly what they did do with regard to Citigroup and AIG. They just chose to do it in these cases in the most ineffective, corporate friendly manner possible.
• romo2austin December 26th, 2009 at 3:50 pm «

  Would the FDIC even have enough funds to recapitalize those institutions? I’m pretty sure they would need to ask the federal government for help.
• Hugh December 27th, 2009 at 8:19 am «

  The FDIC has already run into financing problems under the current regime. So yes, what’s your point? As for the TBTF, they would be a series of one-offs, just as Citi and AIG were. No one has said this wouldn’t be expensive. It will be, very. But it is better than depression or Japanification.
• romo2austin December 27th, 2009 at 8:37 am «

  Point is someone said we should have just let the FDIC do its job. Well it is not as simple as that. The federal government would need to get involved and their wouldn’t be the political will in Congress. Thus it wasn’t politically feasible. I agree doing what Sweden did was probably the ideal (actually the ideal for me would be to permanently nationalize commercial banks). However, that wasn’t an option with this government. There were two: bailout or no bailout. Bailout was the lesser of two evils.
• Hugh December 27th, 2009 at 8:54 am «

  The government is involved and in case you haven’t noticed trillions have gone to the banks already. This “not politically feasible” is laughable. You don’t seem to understand that PCA is not an option. It is a legal requirement.

  And you are mistaken about bailout/no bailout which seems to me a strawman anyway. Bailing out the banks didn’t fix anything. It just created some new bubbles which will burst down the road, and we will be in a worse situation then. You are so bound and determined to defend Obama at all costs and despite all evidence that you are the very essence of an Obamabot/Rahmocrat/troll.
• temptingfate December 27th, 2009 at 9:06 am «

  There are any number of economic sites that have argued that the bailouts have done nothing except kick the can down the road. More dangerously the bailouts have simply made the massive failed financial institutions larger, not removed the danger they represent to the economy as a whole and failed to actually bring the economy back up to speed. The only reason many of the too-large-to-bail banks and bank-like institutions exist today is because the Federal government, via the Treasury and the Fed, are buying their toxic assets and handing the losses to the taxpayers.

  No laws have been implemented that might avoid problems in the future. Glass-Steagall is off the books. Banks no longer are required to do anything but write a number on their assets that they feel most comfortable providing. All of the fraud from within the banks has lead to an effective blanket immunity for past indiscretions. People like William Black who actually took serious risks when it was not politically acceptable to fix the S&L crisis continue to be ignored and marginalized.

  There were solutions, including changing the role of regional banks while pursuing fraudsters, that much better alternatives to putting the burden of failure on the people that were the victims in the first place. Bush via Goldman Sachs alumni Paulson had no intention of protecting the economy and at the risk of harming Wall Street. Obama’s administration simply kept the process going while ramping up the free money to the crooks.

  The whole bailout versus not bailout completely misses the fact that there are never only two options. This is true even when you come to a stoplight the financial system is much more complex than a four-way street. The only winners in this little game are the traders on Wall Street who are benefiting from the need to make cash via temporary investments by institutions that get their money at less than zero interest. Kicking the can down the road just means that the next time we play the game there will be more victims.
• perris December 27th, 2009 at 9:11 am «

  there were far more then two options

  giving money for loans as oposed to giving money for whatever they wanted to do being number one
• Nathan Aschbacher December 27th, 2009 at 9:45 am «

  Yes, the FDIC can just do its job. When the FDIC runs short on funding, then it can try to secure money from Treasury via Congressional approval; which it has successfully done, post crisis, to the tune of $500 Billion.

  It’s not politically impossible to get funding for the FDIC.
• temptingfate December 27th, 2009 at 9:59 am «

  I was under the impression that Geithner already promised to fund the FDIC via the magic of TARP, the giant slush fund. The Treasury and the Fed, via ZIRP to the market makers, really only go back to Congress to mollify the outliers. Witness the open ended bailouts to Fannie and Freddie buy putting their losses on the taxpayers books as an example. When they want to spend the taxpayers money they sometimes go back and inform Congress. Sometimes they just tell Congress to go away.
• Hugh December 27th, 2009 at 10:15 am «

  When they want to spend the taxpayers money they sometimes go back and inform Congress. Sometimes they just tell Congress to go away

  That is really well said.
• mamazboy December 27th, 2009 at 9:20 am «

  I’m afraid you don’t get it, romo. There’s no need for a “cabal” meeting daily in a dark room to plot the working class’s doom. Corporatists act instinctively, automatically in their own interests, which are always opposed to the interests of the rest of us. Casting it as a cabal makes it easy to dismiss.

  And, really, I think it’s a breath of fresh air to see Jane Hamsher and Grover Norquist “colluding” on something that is critically important in these terrible times. This is how movements are born and “real change” can occur — by finding common ground with a supposed enemy. I’m hoping for more such “unholy alliances.”
• KarenM December 25th, 2009 at 2:53 pm «

  Perhaps you should keep an online dictionary open to refer to as you post…

  For example, collude…

  Sorry, but your “semantic” tricks don’t work here, where nearly everyone is more literate than you are.
• romo2austin December 25th, 2009 at 3:03 pm «

  Point is Jane works with Faux News and ATF. You denied that as being a truth, when it is an immutable fact. Hence delusional.
• ratfood December 25th, 2009 at 3:08 pm «

  I will grant that you possess intimate familiarity with delusion, although your attempts at projection are laughable.

  I’m off to other pursuits. Happy holiday to you, romo2austin.
• KarenM December 25th, 2009 at 3:23 pm «

  No, I merely questioned your use of the word “collude” which implies a nefarious aim, or the intention to conspire to do something unethical or illegal, none of which is true in this case.

  Really, you’re not very good at this, are you?

  Maybe you should head back to Kos where they actually serve the kool-aid.
• bobschacht December 25th, 2009 at 8:32 pm «

  You’re obviously new to the Lake and don’t know much about Jane. When you write, your ignorance shows. I won’t bother responding to you further until you learn to shut up and listen better.

  Bob in AZ
• romo2austin December 26th, 2009 at 9:56 am «

  So is she or is she not working with those groups? I’m not doing anything but stating the facts. If what I said is wrong please say I’m wrong.
• bobschacht December 26th, 2009 at 7:08 pm «

  Just because Jane co-authored one letter with one right-winger does not mean that she is working with them on all fronts. Perhaps you missed Strange Bedfellows? Or Al Gore’s collaboration with Bob Barr (here and
  Al Gore, Republican (Bob Barr) to Attack Bush ‘Police State’ .)

  Yes, we sometimes try to join forces with Libertarians and others who value our Constitution and don’t like the way the balance of powers among the three branches of government has become tilted towards the executive. But our collaboration is based on specific issues and not a general collaboration.

  Bob in AZ
• romo2austin December 26th, 2009 at 8:11 pm «

  Bob Barr never said he wanted to drown the federal government in the bathtub.
• marxmarv December 27th, 2009 at 1:08 am «

  Seriously, did you see what Bob Barr DID do? He consistently voted theocrat — pro-war-on-drugs, pro-DOMA, pro-PATRIOT Act, pro-Iraq-occupation, anti-Wicca-in-the-military — which I suppose in some people’s minds is better than being famously quoted about bathtub drownings, eh?
• solerso December 27th, 2009 at 3:11 pm «

  BTW romo sucks. know what they call him in DC??

  ejoy
  http://www.talk-sports.net/nfl/sucks.aspx/Tony_Romo
• solerso December 27th, 2009 at 3:10 pm «

  they certainly dont give a fuck about “the good word” over at kos. unless its sliding out one side of president prevaricators mouth
• TheCallUp December 25th, 2009 at 2:52 pm «

  I always do.

  Regarding your post, I agree with your sentiments.

  Here’s what I think the Left needs to do: take the playbook of AIPAC — a group I detest, but let’s face it they scare the crap out of everyone. Like AIPAC, focus on Congress. It’s easier to financially impact a Congressional election, than a Presidential one. Form a coalition with ActBlue, MoveOn, FDL, and other with deep pockets, and relentlessly target anyone who betrays the promises we elected them on.

  And, yes criticize Obama until you’re blue in the face. I certainly do my part on that front. :)
• romo2austin December 25th, 2009 at 2:59 pm «

  Rahm is hated by AIPAC and the Israeli right FYI.

  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26173.html
• TheCallUp December 25th, 2009 at 3:05 pm «

  Rahm volunteered to serve for the Israel Defense Forces, when America — his purported country — was at War in Iraq (Desert Storm).

  Rahm’s father was a member of the Irgun terrorist gang in Israel in the 1940s.

  Get out of here with that. Likud was likely just giving Rahm cover, by all that ‘self-hating’ crapola..

  Either way, how is that relevant to my point about using AIPAC tactics?
• romo2austin December 25th, 2009 at 3:08 pm «

  Suuuure. The israeli right and their followers hate Rahm in public and secretly love him in private. It is all a conspiracy…
• TheCallUp December 25th, 2009 at 3:11 pm «

  Is conspiracy/cabal the crutch you’re going to keep leaning on when you have lost the argument?
• romo2austin December 25th, 2009 at 3:14 pm «

  No because that is what you are proposing without any solid evidence there is a secret understanding between the two entities. You guys sound like a bunch of paranoid schizos.
• milly December 27th, 2009 at 10:30 am «

  One has to wonder why rahm is chief of staff instead of Howard Dean.
• Elliott December 27th, 2009 at 10:38 am «

  Wow, milly, what a difference that change would make!
• temptingfate December 27th, 2009 at 10:53 am «

  Because Rahm Emanuel brought the Democratic party back from the brink of irrelevance after people like Dean had compromised it into center-right irrelevance.

  Oh, wait it was the other way around.
• milly December 26th, 2009 at 6:19 am «

  Smart…rahm has already used this tactic. Going around the country supporting republicans who are willing to call themselves democrats in order to get elected/money from the DLC.

  It has gotten so bad that I know if the DLC likes a candidate/politician , I already know where they will come down on US. Vote no. Yes to the corporations.
• briancady413 December 27th, 2009 at 9:49 am «

  So will you lead the forming of that coalition? It could be very boring, but very effective, which would provide its own satisfaction. Who would you want to sign up first? Perhaps you could have conditional support pledges ‘I’ll do it if you do it, along with 75% of the left’.
  This could take the form of petitions who’s signer’s names become publicly viewable when a certain pre-set number of co-signers has signed.
  I think your concept is very important.
3. KarenM December 25th, 2009 at 2:51 pm «

   Count me as another who thinks your support is helpful to this effort by Jane and Norquist. HuffPost has a broader range of audience. And those who read you are likely to be younger than many of us here. There’s a lot of energy in that younger cohort, and they’re more likely to use technology to communicate, too.
4. TheCallUp December 25th, 2009 at 3:16 pm «

   Go back to Daily Kos. Baaaggghhhh… go pledge your loyalty to the Democratic Party and follow along like the mindless sheep you are…
5. lindaj December 25th, 2009 at 3:16 pm «

   I think it was a little soon to team up with the far right like Grover Norquist.

   How does this work with Cenk’s advice to grab Obama’s attention from the left?
• TheCallUp December 25th, 2009 at 3:20 pm «

  I don’t like to see Jane on Fox News, but I have no problem with her pursuing legitimate and important things with people she disagrees with on just about everything.

  It’s about finding common ground to achieve big things — you know, which was basically Obama’s message.
• ratfood December 25th, 2009 at 3:21 pm «

  Obama marginalizes progressives and dismisses their criticism as coming from the “extreme left.” When pressure is applied from the left and right simultaneously in regard to a single issue, the hope is that it will be more difficult for him to brush off.

  Time will tell, it is a work in progress.
• Cali Techie December 26th, 2009 at 6:05 am «

  Obama and the Democrats brush off and marginalize progressives at their own peril especially with 40% of Democrats planning to stay home next year.

  They need us to get (re)elected. There is going to be one hell of a wake up call in 2010 if they don’t start acting like they care about us. Blaming their failures on us is nothing more than refusing to accept responsibility, because that would mean actually changing how they operate.
6. macaquerman December 25th, 2009 at 3:47 pm «

   Obama’s wishes don’t govern the country.

   Some intelligent and respected person said that Obama was about as progressive a person as could be elected in this country and I agreed with her and continue to agree.

   He was elected and now he has to govern.
   All bullshit aside, where were the votes to pass the health care bill that would have been best instead of this one?

   Beating on Obama might not be as smart as beating on congress.
• PaulaT December 25th, 2009 at 7:32 pm «

  That BS. My right wing dad prefers Campaign Obama to President Obama. He’s no progressive, but he prefers progressive policies to corporatist policies.
• macaquerman December 25th, 2009 at 7:42 pm «

  Paula, I’m pretty sure that most everybody here prefers progressive policies.
  I’m also sure that we’re a minority as yet and that we don’t get to have our own government. Backing the winning candidate didn’t produce instant gratification of progressive desires.
  I’m pretty old, but I don’t remember any one election that produced everything that either the left or right wanted it to produce.
• Auduboner December 25th, 2009 at 11:29 pm «

  You must have memory problems, then, macaca. Go look up the Reagan Revolution – they got EVERYTHING they wanted! And trashed the economy and the culture and the educational system as a result.
• macaquerman December 26th, 2009 at 7:48 am «

  I’m sure that I have memory problems, particularly about those years,but what i do remember is that they set out to dismantle the New Deal, did a shitload of damage, and ended up with half of them in jail.
  The New Deal still stands, the Reagan Revolution fizzled.
• Elliott December 26th, 2009 at 8:13 am «

  If only we could get even half the crooks in jail now.
• PaulaT December 25th, 2009 at 11:43 pm «

  People keep believing the center right country crap that the beltway folks are feeding them when if you look around you, it’s just not true. The public option had wide popular support. Regulation has wide popular support. Progressives are actually on the popular side of the issues these days. There has been a paradigm shift and Obama knew it. That’s why he campaigned on it and that’s why he won. People wanted change and progressive change at that. It doesn’t mean that you get everything you want with an election, but it does mean that we have to catch up with the new reality and stop enabling the same old pearl clutching rightward leaning. We are a center left nation and there is no excuse for going more conservative. They just want to do it because the big donor corporations still prefer conservative, not because our political scene is still that conservative.
7. Mauimom December 25th, 2009 at 4:05 pm «

   Cenk, do you have any thoughts about what might be able to be done to block the Fannie/Freddie give away?

   Is it a fait accomplit, or is there some way there can be either Congressional oversight, hearings, legislation to “void” this, whatever?

   There certainly should be enough outrage out here to support such action.

   Do you know of anything?
8. letsgetitdone December 25th, 2009 at 4:33 pm «

   Great post Cenk. I’ve been reading your stuff for some time at Huff Post and have always enjoyed it. We need a lot more left folks willing to punch Rahm and Barack in the puss. I’ve got some posts on punching the Leadership in the face too: here, here, here, here, here, and here.
9. malagodi December 25th, 2009 at 4:43 pm «

   I want to stress again a different way of looking at the situation. A really different way. So let’s make this a game. I’ll set up the premise, and you folks find the weakness.

   The premise: This is a coalition government, one without the need to have votes of no confidence that would call new elections. A ruling coalition of two different private Parties competing for dominance. The reward for dominance is increased contracts flowing your way. The cost of losing is not starvation, just less profit for your team. Rivals on the field, they nevertheless, like all ruling coalitions have a common goal, the preservation of the fundamental structure. In this case it is the preservation of the old industrial/banking economy.

   The ramifications:
   1. In this scenario, the idealistic wings of each party must be mollified and rendered inconsequential while marketing to their predilictions. We can see this is the case.

   2. With this level of entrenchment there are two (maybe more) responses. Outright revolution or a Constitutional Congress, or moving the spectrum in which the coalition operates to your favor, as Cenk says.

   However if my scenario is accurate, what it means is that to move the spectrum, you don’t attack, you attract. An attack produces movement away. An attraction produces movement toward. The threat and execution of an attack is the politics of fear. We want the establishment to fear us. The politics of attraction is the promise of reward.

   How to do this? With money and votes, the traditional food of politicians. This is increasing your power the old fashioned way; by earning it.

   It would also mean a shifting of strategy and focus away from the government and legislature and toward the populace. This is done with artists and media. Who is more influential, FDL or the Daily Show?

   I’ll bet Cenk understands that.

   Let’s just think about it.
• milly December 27th, 2009 at 10:36 am «

  May I be so presumptuous to add a

  3) economic meltdown. If it happens, grab your musket. Get a horse. Round up the progressives and tea baggers. Meet at the dock in Boston. Join with tea baggers in outrage at the leaders who got us here to desperate place. Throw tea bags into water. This is a pure symbolic gesture…but needed to get us all up and out of our houses.
10. ThingsComeUndone December 25th, 2009 at 5:49 pm «

    How can we move Obama Left? Fear we must show him we will leave. Men who are convinced the wife will leave get all kinds of nice at least until they think they got the wife fooled again.
    I doubt though after this betrayal Obama will get that chance again.
• ekunin December 26th, 2009 at 6:48 am «

  Not a practical approach. If the choice in 2012 is between Obama and Palin, Gingrich or Romney which do you choose or do you stay home? We need a viable alternative to the two parties and I don’t mean a third party of which there are several. We need a grass roots network that reaches down to every blade of grass, but that means deciding things ourselves rather than work and pray for leaders who think like we do. The first thing we must lose is the desire for leadership. Seems wholly unrealistic especially since for all our purported identification with the masses we don’t see them as all that smart. Too bad.
11. cbsunglass December 25th, 2009 at 6:21 pm «

    Cenk,
    I think you will find that this site will cut Obama no slack. As a member of the Young Turk Crowd, even though I am old, old, old, I applaud you showing up at Anti-poltical establishment central. Please become a regular, your insights are vital, even if you sometimes pretend you are a capitalist. I think the real wake-up call for Obama is coming in November of next year. And if he doesn’t listen then, he’ll be out of his job in 2013. How appropriate! He can vacate the scene before everyone finds out what a disaster individual mandates will be for the country. Of course, he already knew that didn’t he?
• BillWalker December 25th, 2009 at 7:09 pm «

  “Of course, he already knew that didn’t he?”

  It’s entirely possible that Obama plans to step aside in 2012. Obviously it won’t be a sense of civic duty that will make him commit to a grueling campaign with a resentful populace.

  He can blame the (fake) partisan bickering and Republican resentment over his “historic” health care reform, and slink away before the full rage hits in 2014.

  Sarah Palin did much the same thing when she left her state in a perilous state, and bailed for the sweet cash with her head held majestically high.
12. BillWalker December 25th, 2009 at 7:04 pm «

    “When Bill Clinton began his campaign for presidency, he appointed Rahm Emanuel to direct the campaign’s finance committee. But Emanuel left when the Gulf War broke out, in order to volunteer in the IDF.

    He served in one of Israel’s northern bases until the war ended, and upon his return to the US became Clinton’s advisor in the White House for almost eight years.”

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3616306,00.html

    Maybe Rahm will resign and volunteer for the IDF again after getting America into war with Iran.
• marcos December 25th, 2009 at 7:22 pm «

  Maybe Rahm will resign and volunteer for the IDF again after getting America into war with Iran.

  We should be so lucky that Rahm is captured by Hamas or Hezbollah.

  [I'm an American Jew so don't even try to go there]
• BillWalker December 25th, 2009 at 7:36 pm «

  Maybe we’ll see a photo of Rahm posing with the Hamas equivalent of Lynndie England.

  http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_V-c8hfTuu8Y/Sktp1KYvrVI/AAAAAAAAB9k/_66hhKOpaRk/s400/lynndie-england1.jpg
13. marcos December 25th, 2009 at 7:21 pm «

    It’s time to take out a couple of lead pipes and a blow torch and go to work on his ass.

    All these people understand is the credible threat of losing a legislative initiative or an electoral campaign.
14. macaquerman December 25th, 2009 at 7:32 pm «

    Bill, marcos… truly fine thoughts. Real sphincterism.
15. Jason Rosenbaum December 25th, 2009 at 7:34 pm «

    Thanks for being here, Cenk, you’re always welcome!
• Knoxville December 25th, 2009 at 8:18 pm «

  Thanks for being here, Cenk, you’re always welcome!

  I very much concur with this sentiment. Thank you for being here, Cenk. I’ve been more than a little confused by much of the criticism of Jane, mostly from people who either don’t have a clue about what she’s been doing or are afraid of her because of what she’s been doing, and appreciate your perspective on the need for progessives to wield power as well as reason in advancing our goals.
16. cbsunglass December 25th, 2009 at 7:41 pm «

    One additional point, Cenk. I think you are correct that Obama thinks he is bringing us the kind of change that he, at least, believes in. I have serious doubts that he actually comprehends how drastic a change many of us who voted for him thought we were going to get. Given his performance over the year, I would say he’s really not into big change, just a little chump change. Moving him left is a huge order, as is evidenced by his FISA stance.
17. fflambeau December 25th, 2009 at 8:07 pm «

    Does he mean well or does he have bad intentions? Come on, don’t be ridiculous. Of course, he means well.

    Faulty assumption on which you base all of our conclusions. Well for whom? So far he’s “meant well” for Goldman Sachs and for Wall St. and the insurance companies. Bread and circuses for the masses. Obama never was a progressive and in reality, his political thinking is much closer to Rockefeller Republicanism (pro-big business, pro expansion of American Empire, keep the masses in line) than anything else.
18. fflambeau December 25th, 2009 at 8:08 pm «

    Does he mean well or does he have bad intentions? Come on, don’t be ridiculous. Of course, he means well.

    Faulty assumption on which you base all of our conclusions. Well for whom? So far he’s “meant well” for Goldman Sachs and for Wall St. and the insurance companies. Bread and circuses for the masses. Obama never was a progressive and in reality, his political thinking is much closer to Rockefeller Republicanism (pro-big business, pro expansion of American Empire, keep the masses in line) than anything else.
19. newtonusr December 25th, 2009 at 8:26 pm «

    Welcome, and thank you Cenk.
    Sorry about the mosquitoes.
20. bobschacht December 25th, 2009 at 8:28 pm «

    Cenk,
    I think you are absolutely right on the money.
    First, a bit about terminology, however. I believe that when you talk about “moving the island,” what you are talking about is the Overton window. Yes, we need to move it, and we need to make some noise to do it.

    Second, I believe that you are right about Obama. The problem is, I think, that he is not looking in the right place for the “center.” He is trying to find some so-called “moderate” Republicans in a disciplined cadre of neo-conservates who want to destroy him. The second place he is trying to look is to “moderate” Democrats, i.e., DINOs and Liebercrats who don’t really represent their own constituencies. Instead, they have sold out to Big Businesses who will pay for their re-election campaigns, hoping they will be able to dupe enough of them to win re-election.

    For truly moderate Republicans, he’s going to have to look to Republican governors who are not beholden to the RNC or their Republican caucus. He’s also going to have to get smarter about who the real moderate Democrats are, and what centrist Democratic voters really want.

    He will support more progressive policies, but only, in the words of FDR, if we “make him do it.” So I basically agree with your strategy, too.

    Happy holidays,
    Bob in AZ
21. transparait December 25th, 2009 at 9:15 pm «

    I don’t trust the man enough to even speculate as to what motivates him. When he talks, I’ll assume he’s lying. When he acts, I’ll look to see who gains. When he asks for the benefit of the doubt, I’ll laugh at him.

    I assume ‘make me do it’ is some focus group tested method of leading people to identify with him. I’m puzzled that people seem to go out of their way to blame Rahm for Obama’s lies.
• shekissesfrogs December 25th, 2009 at 11:16 pm «

  From Digby:
  

  FDR was, of course, a consummate political leader. In one situation, a group came to him urging specific actions in support of a cause in which they deeply believed. He replied: “I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.”

  He understood that a President does not rule by fiat and unilateral commands to a nation. He must build the political support that makes his decisions acceptable to our countrymen. He read the public opinion polls not to define who he was but to determine where the country was – and then to strategize how he could move the country to the objectives he thought had to be carried out.

  We’re there, he’s not..

  Semi related: I remember when small businessmen asked GWB for some relief early in his first presidency he told them to hire some lobbyists.
• bobschacht December 26th, 2009 at 6:43 pm «

  SKF,
  I agree with all of your points. One of our problems is that it seems like public pressure has to be on the order of the Saturday Night Massacre, or its nothing. The Internet and E-mail have made the art of petitioning easier, but it has also correspondingly deflated the value of our petitions.

  But we not only need to move the center (i.e., the Overton Window), we need to help define the true center.

  I think Obama is determined to lead from the Center, but the Center currently is badly defined. There are no true Republican centrists in Congress. It is debatable whether the so-called Democratic “moderates” (the DINOs or Blue Dogs) are really centrists, either. There may be a few true Republican centrists among their governors. Those are the ones to keep our eyes on.

  I think Obama wants to create a true centrist coalition, against the tide of Republican obstructionism and angry Progressivism. But as Jane knows well, Progressives are often more in tune with the “center” than are the DINOs, Blue Dogs and so-called “moderate” Republicans.

  Bob in AZ
22. bobash December 25th, 2009 at 10:08 pm «

    Cenk, Love seeing you here at FDL. I read your stuff on HuffPo more than I watch your show, but I think both are great. Thanks for the support of Jane’s letter. Am disheartened by the identity politics attitude I’m seeing on some other blogs.

    And I agree with your post–I tried to say the same thing in a diary here a few days ago before the letter but you did a much better job stating it.

    I’m afraid Jane’s hardball is being misunderstood by many due to her wraparound tactic. But the allegations in the letter are the thing. If there’s nothing to them, it should be easy enough for the administration to falsify them. If they instead resort to similar personal attacks, hopefully enough progressives will recognize the Bush/Cheney/Rove tactic and think twice.
23. iremember54 December 25th, 2009 at 10:46 pm «

    Although Rahm is no angel, people don’t seem to realize that it was Obama’s economic team that told Him more progressive change in healthcare would cause huge problems to the Nations economy.

    From the Public Option to the Medicare buy in, both would have hurt the budget and the Insureance Industry both of which are directly connected to our economic future as they see it.

    The present bill does little harm to both, so is exceptable to His economic team. One has to remember that these people are close to imbeciles in their view of what’s good for the people, and their only concern is what’s good for the dollars.

    What’s right like single payer, not bailing out the people they do, and caring more about the people interests, is not in the best interests of the economy in their eyes. The upheaval of making drastic changes, like single payer, not doing the bail outs, and doing what’s right, could cause disaster in their eyes. They know, and feel the money interests would go balistic with true effective change, and drive our economy into catastrophy.

    We should be bitching more about these people, because they have even more influence than poor Rahm.
• shekissesfrogs December 25th, 2009 at 11:30 pm «

  “poor Rahm”?
  Come on.. It’s a den of thieves, and he is closest to the president. It’s fair to start where you can, picking off possible criminals that have used their positions of power and managed to skirt a real investigation.

  You do know that Rham is a Chicago DLC/Goldman’s Democrat right?
• iremember54 December 25th, 2009 at 11:36 pm «

  Hey She! I’m not saying don’t do Rahm if You must, but I think there are bigger fishes to fry, and those doing us much more harm.
• lindaj December 26th, 2009 at 2:13 pm «

  I concur. Geithner, Summers should go too (or maybe first)!
24. Knoxville December 25th, 2009 at 10:47 pm «

    Cenk,

    I’ve now read your article three times, something I only do in exceptional cases and something I have done not only because you presented it here (first time I read it), but because it’s being discussed and linked elsewhere, too.

    I quote in order to highlight:

    We have to attack Obama relentlessly from the left. Right now he is a giant that is unmoved by anything in his left flank, he keeps looking to his right and ducking and worrying and moving to accommodate them. They are so loud and so visible. It’s hard to miss them. We have to make him look left.

    Progressives … got rolled on healthcare because they had no intention of putting their foot down – and everyone knew it.

    The next time Obama pushes a corporate agenda, progressives have to knock him upside the head.

    This has the advantage of being true. If you don’t have the stomach for being this tough on Obama and the Democrats, well then you don’t have the stomach for politics. And you will permanently be the Republican’s bitches.

    For the first time in a long while, I see where we can go, where we can take things for the better.

    Jane can tell you that I’ve tried to be a pain in her ass as I’ve tried to understand what she’s doing (it has been frustrating for me).

    But reading your article has been nothing short of inspirational.

    I also get a sense of where the next battle will be fought, and masaccio and others here at FDL can tell you that I’ve shown some ability in fighting that fight.

    No one should accept standing around cheering after watching the shit we’ve watched these past couple of months and especially not after the result.

    You are right on. Move the center. Force it over. Fight. Knock the smug smiles off their faces and give them no choice but to work for the change they promised.
25. shekissesfrogs December 25th, 2009 at 11:22 pm «

    Cenk, This was good insight into why agitating works, and why Jane is doing the right thing. So many people don’t understand it and seem to be under the impression that more genuflecting and praise for Obama will get him to do what is in the public interest out of good feelings for us.
    Thanks for the diary. Kossacks really need it.
26. Teddy Partridge December 26th, 2009 at 12:52 am «

    Great diary, thanks and welcome to Seminal.

    I wish I’d had a chance to engage here, but I was busy warding off the swarm at DailyKos today.

    Happy, happy, everyone.
• Knoxville December 26th, 2009 at 5:39 am «

  I ended up doing the same yesterday, busy warding off the swarm at DailyKos.

  Came to this conclusion (expressed in response to a “can’t we all just get along” comment):

  They are weakling little fucking sockpuppets. They’ve made themselves largely irrelevant (arguing with them has helped me develop some of my own thinking, so I guess that’s a use I have for them…).
27. Inquisitr December 26th, 2009 at 1:18 am «

    Great post Cenk, and welcome.

    It’s good to see true progressives actually joining forces for once. For to long the wimps at Kos had been considered the only game in town. But as we’ve seen that weakness got nothing organized.

    I hope this is the first of many alliances in a new left fighting back.

    And yes, please do ignore the trolls. Kos is a decent guy but he’s breed an army of apologists and weaklings at his site.
28. shekissesfrogs December 26th, 2009 at 3:25 am «

    I have been at DKos, and I am now of the opinion that they don’t matter. I won’t be going back there. The scales have fallen from my eyes thanks to this comment by “Attorney at Arms”
    on the diary entitled “Clapping Harder will not make Jane Hamsher right. No matter who says.”

    asdf (14+ / 0-)

    I wanted to be done with this issue, but I just wanted to make one more point: Cindy Sheehan. She ran against a Democrat and was banned.

    I don’t know why FDL’s paid bloggers who are now doing virtually the same thing are allowed to stay on. They aren’t running campaigns against Democrats. Yet. But they are doing everything in their power to do so.

    So, given that recent precedent I don’t know why it should be (a) any different or (b) a surprise to FDL folks when they get attacked here for doing that same thing.

    This is a Democratic site. See the FAQ [..]

    I left a comment,

    Are you serious?

    Cindy Shehaan was banned when she ran against Pelosi?

    If this is true, then this blog puts party above principle and doesn’t foster discussion.
    It’s blind party worship….

    Thought policemen is what I see here. Rather than engage the issues it’s about the person – attack the dissenter. Smear them with slander or transference as Devolver did.

    I’m done with this place. Thanks for letting me know that the status quo is guarded as the precious, and new ideas or independent thought will not be tolerated. Nothing can be changed politically with this attitude I see here.
    So much for democratic ideals. Jeeze.. disgusting.

    You all are fucked up.

    That’s it for me. I’m done over there.
• ThingsComeUndone December 26th, 2009 at 3:44 am «

  Thought policemen is what I see here. Rather than engage the issues it’s about the person

  We have Authoritarians in our mists it seems Emotion choice deciders lizard brains people are more important than ideas.
  Back in the 60′s if you remember the NeoCons were on our side. They probably joined with the cult of Kennedy personally I like the guy but then came Reagan an another Personalty to follow.
  I think history maybe repeating a 60′s historian and a NeoCon expert might be needed to confirm this rough hypothesis.
• shekissesfrogs December 26th, 2009 at 4:03 am «

  I haven’t been politically active or aware for that long, so I don’t know about that period. I am trying to catch up but only know certain periods/locations of history and the politics adds a whole new dimension.
  Authoritiarian followers are exactly what they are. The Irony is lost on them that they are calling us teabaggers. It’s stupid. They aren’t thinking critically over there.
• ThingsComeUndone December 26th, 2009 at 4:31 am «

  Sorry I thought you were older I was a kid in junior high when Reagan was running against Carter thats why I’m still iffy on my theory.
• shekissesfrogs December 26th, 2009 at 5:05 am «

  I’m probably a little older than you then but I didn’t pay a lot of attention.
  I was born in 63.
  You threw me off with this:

  Back in the 60’s if you remember the NeoCons were on our side

  Didn’t these neocons appear in the nixon WH? Jean Kirkpatrick jumped over to the neocon side with Reagan though. Or are you talking about hippies going right?
• mattcarmody December 27th, 2009 at 11:20 am «

  I was born in ’50 and born “politically” when JFK was running for office. The nuns at my school had us all praying for the catholic.

  I was truly born politically in ’64 when the Warren Commission report came out and as a freshman in HS I read the entire thing and just got the feeling something wasn’t right.

  The neocons started out as Trotskyists and became disillusioned when they were marginalized by the other members of their various groups. Kennedy would not have been authoritarian enough for them, Goldwater would have. Nixon’s brand of authoritarianism worked well for some of them who were cutting their teeth b ut some, like Bill Kristol, didn’t have to worry about making their own way or finding patrons because he had mommy Midge Dector and daddy Irv “Commentary” Kristol to smooth the way for him.

  Many of the neocons got their start working for Henry “Scoop” Jackson in the Senate. When he left the senate they realized that other Democrats didn’t quite subscribe to their beliefs (the party wasn’t completely taken over by the DLC yet because it didn’t exist yet) so they gravitated towards the “populist” Reagan and started finding work in the newly-minted wingnut think tanks. When Saint Ronnie was elected, they were ready to serve and the Reagan Democrats (traitors to their class and their own class interests) were only too happy to listen to the drivel put out by these so-called intellectuals and “patriots” and many of them gave up thinking for themselves.

  Hence the dearth of critical thinkers among the populace as a whole and the ovine characteristics of the American electorate.

  This is all from what I observed and remember, some of my reflections on the neocons might be off a bit. I do know that when I was in HS in the 60s there were already Young Republican assholes roaming free with the glazed eyes of the initiated. Of course, none of them went to the war, that was for the rest of us to do.
• TalkingStick December 27th, 2009 at 11:51 am «

  like Bill Kristol, didn’t have to worry about making their own way or finding patrons because he had mommy Midge Dector and daddy Irv “Commentary” Kristol to smooth the way for him.

  Just for accuracy’s sake I believe.. Bill’s mother is Gertrude Himmelfarb and Midge is John Podhoretz’s mother.
• Cali Techie December 26th, 2009 at 6:10 am «

  I left a couple of days ago when I got HR’d into oblivion for daring to disagree with the Obama fanatics that seem to have taken over the site.

  DKos has gotten quite toxic in the past few months and I see more and more people migrating over here from there. The DKos community is falling apart due to the blind loyalty thing. They don’t care whether or not Obama is doing the right thing, all they care about is that everyone must march in lockstep behind him right or wrong. All they’ve done is replace IOKIYAR with IOKIYAD.
• jdcompsci December 27th, 2009 at 8:29 am «

  Yeah I ditched DailyKos yesterday myself. People were getting Hide Rated for merely disagreeing with the party line. Funny thing, the party line they were asserting was nothing like the party line during the last election cycle. DailyKos isn’t about crashing the gate, it is about setting up a new gate on the Internet. The community moderation there does more harm than good. I prefer to choose what to read and ignore.
• perris December 27th, 2009 at 8:36 am «

  scary stuff finding out there are dmocrats the same, worse, and more mindless
  then republicans
• blacker128 December 27th, 2009 at 6:30 am «

  my sentiments exactly. another dKos to FDL migrant here.
• milly December 27th, 2009 at 5:33 pm «

  Jane brought out Daily Kos’ true colors.Good.They went overboard this time and tried to bring it down a notch.Too late.DLC with Repub tactics. If the message is right …shoot the messenger.Kos is Korporate.rahm got mad about the same time Kos did.HMMMMMM

  Their comments show people are gettig paid to go there.
29. fwankie December 26th, 2009 at 4:16 am «

    The Liberal Democrats in the House and Senate need to get to work!

    The conference committee, by majority vote, decides how to compromise on the various differences in the bills. Then it issues a “report.” This report is what is then voted on by the members of the House and the Senate. If they approve it — by a MAJORITY VOTE — then the bill goes to Obama to sign.

    And there’s no filibuster available at that point. We will pass whatever we can pass with a simple majority.

    So why wouldn’t the House and the Senate members of the Conference Committee agree to put the public option back in — and maybe even a strong public option — whatever, that is, that a majority of the House and Senate would approve? To hell with the Liebermans!
• ThingsComeUndone December 26th, 2009 at 4:32 am «

  I hope your right but just who is in the Conference Committee any Progressives who support a public option?
30. bud111 December 26th, 2009 at 5:16 am «

    Obama should confess that he’s really a Republican!

    If Obama did this, his decisions would make more sense, e.g., it would become
    clear why he is helping the very rich while allowing the Middle Class to die.
• milly December 26th, 2009 at 6:23 am «

  bill clinton was republican. He got legislation passed no right winger could have ever dreamed of.

  1) NAFTA

  2)three strikes and you are out. ..exploding the prison population.

  3) welfare reform..after NAFTA when there were no good jobs left for the working poor.

  4)repeal of Glass/Stegall. ..which resulted in the financial boondoggle we are presently in

  5) hurting the democratic party by his bizarre sexual antics.

  6) consolodating media..Don’t know the exact terminology.
• tinman1967 December 26th, 2009 at 10:11 am «

  Bill Clinton is the best president we’re likely to ever see in our life time.
31. Leen December 26th, 2009 at 5:54 am «

    “George Bush thought he meant well too ”

    I sure would hate to see what would happen when Bush did not mean well.

    Tax cuts for the wealthy, war based on known lies, hundreds of thousands dead, injured, millions displaced, part of the team that outed Plame.

    The pile of evidence that Bush knew that he was breaking U.S. and International laws is just too obvious.
    There are truly evil people and Bush, Cheney and team fit into that category.
32. milly December 26th, 2009 at 6:26 am «

    Cenk…you are the only media person I trust to always come down on the right side of the issues. Use civil discourse and not be boring. Which is not an easy task from an oursider’s point of view.

    KOlberman lost me when he would demonize Chavez. Little things like that are important to me now. I see it as the ground work to go in and steal Venuzuela’s oil.
33. sherwood December 26th, 2009 at 8:24 am «

    I think this analysis is way off. All well and good with the Overton window theory and everything.

    But cenkuygur scenario is simplistic in the extreme. Ever considered the scenario of attacking from the left and succeeding? Succeeding in discrediting the president, succeeding in discrediting the democratic party and succeeding in driving down voting on the left in the midterms next year.

    Succeeding like George McGovern in 1972, Edward Kennedy in 1980 and Ralph Nader in 2000?

    Because that’s what will happen.

    The answer is not using the Overton window strategy on a politician, the answer is using it on issues and policy.

    Getting progressive people with a platform to say that the democratic party and president is teh suxcor will result in the democratic party and president losing election and in the republican party winning elections. Bush 2000, Sarah Palin 2012. It’s real.

    But getting progressive people with a platform to go out and say that the president is good, the democrats do good things but it is not enough, america wants much much more. We need much much more. It’s dangerous if we don’t get much much more.

    That this bill is better than nothing, but that only single payer would deliver superior value to americans, that without single payer insurance companies will keep screwing over the little guy.

    And that conservative ideology and policy proposals are the most dangerous of all.

    That is a feasible strategy to move the ideological window, and it will not beckfire and become counterproductive, like the one suggested.

    By all means go after Joe Lieberman in the next election about how he recklessly sold out his constituency, how he moved out of the mainstream, how he became an extreme industry flack. He’s a traitor and he needs to be punished. If there’s a district that could hold a more progressive representative than by all means get rid of the corporatist sellout that occupies it.

    And if a district can presently only hold a bluedog, then move the Overton window on the issues and policy in that district. Get advocates in the district that can make the case for the progressive policy and change the debate so that the district can deliver a more progressive representative tommorow!

    But this “strategy” suggested here, it’s no strategy – it’s a suicide pact. Some pats on our collective backs and a lot of self-gratification and getting to feel tough. But it’s not Obama that needs convincing, it’s the american public and the washington establishment that needs convincing.
• PJEvans December 26th, 2009 at 8:56 am «

  Thank you for telling us we have to keep doing the same things as before, even when they’re clearly not working. That’s a recipe for making things worse for everyone.
  What we need is a good opposition party, instead of the mess we have now.

  (You must have missed the campaign against unHoly Joe in 2006. We were leading against him then. That’s when he changed parties: he lost the democratic primary.)
• sherwood December 26th, 2009 at 9:07 am «

  They are working insofar as the policy you will see become law today is more progressive than what became law five years ago. And more progressive than what will become law in five years if we follow the friendly fire strategy.

  But what we are not doing is getting enough talking heads, pundits etc on tv and in print making the case that this bill is good but we really need single payer. Not now, not during this whole years worth of debate.

  Did you read that? Did you see that?

  Because that’s how the Overton window really works. If you explicitly keep pounding the message through multiple channels that single payer is still on the table, still the ideal, then you make the public option the “middle ground”. That’s where Jane could make a real difference – instead of doing silly & traitorous (to the progressive cause) things like teaming up with Grover “Outlaw all tax increases” Norquist and going on Fox&Friends to bash Obama.

  It’s not about taking down individual politicians on your team, that’s counterproductive – if they have not showed themselves traitors (see Lieberman, John). It’s not about getting your ideological base evermore bitter and resigned.

  It’s about getting your message out and making your preferred policy the common-sense middle ground.
• jackstraw December 26th, 2009 at 9:45 am «

  A vast majority of Americans support the public option. Yet it is nowhere to be seen. The democratic notion that convincing a majority of citizens to support an idea is how you get it implemented seems to have become a quaint relic of a time that was, or never was, I don’t know.

  I am a lawyer by training. In addition to the obvious obnoxious corporate bail out provisions of this bill, it has so many potential problems and pitfalls and loopholes for the insurance industry and loopholes for people who want to game the system that its enactment may discredit any notions of healthcare reform for another generation, or five. People may well get disgusted with the whole idea of reform. A real failure all around, this bill is.
• sherwood December 26th, 2009 at 10:13 am «

  W/r to the support for the public option – you’re right! Polling shows it’s popular.

  But unfortunately this is exactly where the Overton window comes in. Since the structure of the senate is stacked in favor of small, conservative states that get a disproportionate impact and the Overton window of the debate around the public option is tilted far to the right in those states and vulnerable to demagogueing by talk radio etc – THAT is why Nelson, Landrieu etc where to chicken or did not want to let it pass. Oh, and Lieberman. See above.

  So with a proper analysis you see that you got two choices – move the Overton window on the issues in those states so as to tilt a couple of them so that it is politically feasible for their senators to vote yes OR make constitutional reform reality. Those are the feasible options.

  About the bill:

  Those “corporate bailouts” that we hear so much about, a.k.a the subsidies – they also give a shitload of money to poor people to buy health insurance. I can live with the bailout (for now, until PO and then single payer) to help those poor people. And millions of them.

  About what I assume is enforcement problems that you’re refering to, I don’t doubt they’re there. But I note you say that stuff MAY happen. And I think there’s a certain level of negative thinking along the lines of “we can’t make firmer regulatations on the insurance industry because they will only circumvent them”. Other countries does not seem to have this huge enforcement problem, why should we with proper resources? And why shouldn’t we try. As it is now, on all of those points there’s no regulation at all, so if it works only to the level of 50% that’s 50% more than today.

  But for us to continue this discussion you’ll have to get more specific. It’s all fine and good that you have some professional insight and this is your judgement but for me to decide if I find that judgement convincing we have to get into specifics.
• jackstraw December 27th, 2009 at 7:07 am «

  I want to think for a while about your Overton window argument before I attempt a response.

  With respect to the subsidies for poor people to buy insurance, it’s been said before, but what good is a subsidy if you cannot effectively use it, and the high deductibles (up to $11,000, isn’t it) make it almost impossible for poor and working people and even those comfortably middle class to use the subsidies for any but the most life threatening ailments (cancer, etc), where the only choice is between poverty and death.

  As to the individual mandate, (which is the bail-out I think we’re all pissed about, by the way, given the risk that it creates a monopoly around private for-profit insurance corporatism), the fines/taxes used to enforce the mandate currently are capped at the average national cost of a policy. Not sure that penalty can go any higher. There is, I think, a real constitutional problem with the mandates which might limit just how much you can penalize people for not having insurance before you overstep Congress’s authority, which under this bill is pegged to the 16th Amendment (Income Tax).

  So here’s a scenario I picked up from someone on the right. If you’re healthy, don’t buy the insurance. Pay the fine instead, since under current legislation the fine is capped at the average cost of a policy and money from the fines goes to the treasury, not to the insurance industry. If you get sick, go pick out a nice policy and buy into it. You cannot be denied, remember? (Indeed, really, you can never have a meaningful individual mandate unless you also have a bar to denial for pre-existing conditions, come to think of it). So now the only people signed up for insurance are those who are sick, (and those whose employers haven’t yet dropped coverage in favor of paying the fines.) Premiums skyrocket, insurance company profits evaporate.

  This is a great scenario for a mass movement to stick it to the health insurance companies– unless like me you happen to have a wife who has cancer and relies on private insurance for her survival. Then things get kind of dicey.

  With a strong public option, I don’t have to worry about how this poorly thought out bill that antagonizes so many people on both the right and left plays out. We have someplace relatively safe to go. So before Congress starts monkeying with the status quo in a manner that everyone not employed by an insurance company seems to hate, I’d like to see the protection of a robust public option in place.

  And yes, I know I am being somewhat contradictory: on the one hand bemoaning the threat of an insurance company monopoly of healthcare for generations to come, and on the other hand pointing out potential holes in the legislation that permit mass movements to gut those very same insurance companies. But that’s where we are right now. Confused. Apprehensive. Knowing that a world of suckiness is coming our way but not sure how to respond.

  Final thought: Killing this bill might, just might, take off the table forever the idea of a mandate to force people to pay money to a private corporation as a condition of citizenship. This would, it seems to me, breath new life into a single payer solution. But that too could be wishful thinking.
• sherwood December 27th, 2009 at 9:52 am «

  I want to think for a while about your Overton window argument before I attempt a response.

  Fair enough.

  With respect to the subsidies for poor people to buy insurance, it’s been said before, but what good is a subsidy if you cannot effectively use it, and the high deductibles (up to $11,000, isn’t it) make it almost impossible for poor and working people and even those comfortably middle class to use the subsidies for any but the most life threatening ailments (cancer, etc), where the only choice is between poverty and death.

  Well here’s what you’re talking about in the senate bill currently going to conference (per the KFF health bill comparison pdf):

  Create four beneft categories of plans plus a separate catastrophic
  plan to be offered through the Exchange, and in the individual and small
  group markets:
  – Bronze plan represents minimum creditable coverage and provides the
  essential health benefts, cover 60% of the beneft costs of the plan,
  with an out-of-pocket limit equal to the Health Savings Account (HSA)
  current law limit ($5,950 for individuals and $11,900 for families in
  2010);

  (In the house bill the so called “basic” plan sets the coverage at 70%)

  So (unless I’m totally mistaken) what the bill(s) do(es) is to set legislate a bar of 60% or 70% of benefits costs that must be payed by the provider and a cap of 5,950 for out of pocket spending (for an individual). Today there’s no such legislated cap whatsoever (right?) and there’s no such lower bar as the 60%/70%. Today the insurance company is completely free to sell cheap insurance that only covers 50% of benefit cost. Or did I miss something?

  Further, this is the cheapest standardized plan of 4 in the bills. The other three sets coverage levels at 70%, 80% and 90% (senate bill) and 85%, 95% and 95% (house bill).

  So when I look at this I see two things that this part of the legislation and the subsidies does:

  - The subsidies make buying insurance affordable for moderate income people.
  - The standardized plans defines a minimum level of benefits and coverage and a maximum level of out of pocket. Neither of those exist today. It also enables easier comparison of what value you actually get for what prize, hopefully leading to a more competetive marketplace (in the new exchanges where the standardized plans will be sold).

  I cannot for my life see that either of things is anything but a vast improvement from the situation we have today. Sure, if you’re unlucky and contract a chronic, expensive disease you could end up paying 5950$ out of pocket in one year, as an individual. That’s most certainly not chickenshit and you may end up in financial trouble. But at present that same person would be deeply and utterly fucked! Right?

  As to the individual mandate, (which is the bail-out I think we’re all pissed about, by the way, given the risk that it creates a monopoly around private for-profit insurance corporatism), the fines/taxes used to enforce the mandate currently are capped at the average national cost of a policy. Not sure that penalty can go any higher. There is, I think, a real constitutional problem with the mandates which might limit just how much you can penalize people for not having insurance before you overstep Congress’s authority, which under this bill is pegged to the 16th Amendment (Income Tax).

  Look, firstly there’s already the exact same “monopoly around private for-profit insurance corporatism” in the existing individual market, where the mandate will come into play. That has nothing to do with the creation of a mandate. What you’re pissed about is that there’s no public option to break that already existing monopoly. And that pisses off me as well. I wrote elsewhere on who I blame for that and what I think could productively be done about it (hint: I don’t blame Obama – at least not firstly, nor secondly, nor thirdly).

  Moving on, I think it’s simply incorrect, or possibly misleading to say that the penalty is capped at the national average of a policy (today).

  Whats in the bill are (per KFF health bill comparison pdf):

  - $2250 or 2% of household income for a family of three (Senate bill)
  - 2.5% of adjusted income above the fling
  threshold up to the cost of the average national premium for self-only or family coverage under a basic plan in the Health Insurance Exchange.

  I think this last part is the one you mangled slightly. Note that the national average cost of a policy for those individuals that will get subsidies is much much more than 2% of their income. In the range of 25% of household income is not unusual. Check for yourself with the Healt Reform subsidy calculator from KFF – it uses either of the two bills, and statistics about average premium costs today to calculate what you are paying today in average and how much you’d pay with subsidies, as well as showing the size of the subsidies.

  So, all this misinformation flying around about what’s actually in the bills is not helpful. How much of the outrage rests on a shaky foundation?

  So here’s a scenario I picked up from someone on the right.

  This should tell you something. Which is worth more – advancing real, progressive policy as messy as it may be or getting to bitch and break stuff even if it means teaming up with the dark side?

  If you’re healthy, don’t buy the insurance. Pay the fine instead, since under current legislation the fine is capped at the average cost of a policy and money from the fines goes to the treasury, not to the insurance industry.

  The fine is actually very likely lower, than the policy without subsidies but may be higher than the policy with subsidies.

  If you get sick, go pick out a nice policy and buy into it. You cannot be denied, remember? (Indeed, really, you can never have a meaningful individual mandate unless you also have a bar to denial for pre-existing conditions, come to think of it).

  Actually, I think that while it’s true that you cannot be denied coverage when you get sick, I’m not so sure that there is legislation that says that you will pay the same price as if you were not sick. Dandy, eh? Let’s hope a lot of real people and families follow this advice shall we?

  In addition, you will now have droven up the premiums for everyone buying insurance – especially for the poor and unhealthy / old insurance buyers on the individual market. That’s just swell.

  And, I’m not sure if I got you right but would you buy insurance only when you get cancer – or would you buy it when your baby get’s the flu or when you need a general checkup? If it’s the latter then you might as well buy it right away. If it’s the former, how will you deal with all those minor, non-lifechanging times when you also may need some medical assistance? Will you go to ER? There you’ll get poor, inadequate care for you and your family, and also extremely expensive care that will end up on all our tax bills and take money away from other good stuff that our government does for us.

  But maybe you’re just a nihilist who like to do stuff 4 teh lulz?

  So now the only people signed up for insurance are those who are sick, (and those whose employers haven’t yet dropped coverage in favor of paying the fines.) Premiums skyrocket, insurance company profits evaporate.

  Oh yeah, and the poor peoples premiums skyrocket, and they get kicked off insurance and they go into bankruptcy and die! Viva la revolucion!!

  This is a great scenario for a mass movement to stick it to the health insurance companies– unless like me you happen to have a wife who has cancer and relies on private insurance for her survival. Then things get kind of dicey.

  Exactly. I feel for you guys. Have you read up on what’s actually in the legislation? Maybe there’s actually something in there that will give you guys a break? (KFF bill comparison pdf)

  With a strong public option, I don’t have to worry about how this poorly thought out bill that antagonizes so many people on both the right and left plays out. We have someplace relatively safe to go. So before Congress starts monkeying with the status quo in a manner that everyone not employed by an insurance company seems to hate, I’d like to see the protection of a robust public option in place.

  Fair enough, I want it as well. But it was politically impossible! Not because it did not have popular support (it had!) – but because of the structural problems with the Senate and how it allows small conservative states to hold progressive legislation supported by a majority hostage!

  That’s just how it is. Magical thinking is NOT the answer, and dreaming about superman Obama of my dreams who just grabs Ben Nelson by the balls and squeezes until… It doesn’t help either! Because it is not happening. Because it is a faulty analysis of facts, that eventually lead you to expend your valuable energy on the wrong fucking target!

  The answer is:

  1) Moving the Overton window on on the issues, in some of those states, so as to enable them to send better senators to congress. It’s not impossible. Before the south had to give up on segregation they were not deaf and blind to the value of progressive legislation, that scale can be tipped back. But it takes work.
  And/Or
  2) Change the way congress work. Constitutional reform. Get rid of the senate.
  And/Or simply
  3) Today conservatives still have confidence enough to implement this level of obstruction we’ve seen today. If they loose that confidence they could never effect the unbroken 40 votes against all this year. In such a climate Snowe and Collins are yes votes on a strong public option.

  This last one is the most realistic and fastest payoff I think. This could happen in 2012 basically, with a landslide Palin loss f.e. But it won’t happen if the firebrands on the left starts civil war, and/or starts working with the repubs to get progressives to stay home and not vote.

  And yes, I know I am being somewhat contradictory: on the one hand bemoaning the threat of an insurance company monopoly of healthcare for generations to come, and on the other hand pointing out potential holes in the legislation that permit mass movements to gut those very same insurance companies.

  That’s exactly what it is. It’s taking the slightly better and comparing it to the almost perfect in order to reach the conclusion: let’s settle for the worst – and then pal up with the devil to effect it.

  It’s the real world “no we can’t!” as it were.

  But that’s where we are right now. Confused. Apprehensive. Knowing that a world of suckiness is coming our way but not sure how to respond.

  What’s coming is slightly less sucky than what we have, but still plenty sucky. It’s not a very gratifying thought, so I can buy why the choice to go for the simplifications seems attractive.

  Final thought: Killing this bill might, just might, take off the table forever the idea of a mandate to force people to pay money to a private corporation as a condition of citizenship.

  Killing the bill now would take health care reform off the table for a long time. Your pals on the right may be whispering sweet nothings in your ear today. When they write the history tomorrow, they’ll name this chapter “The American Public Rejecting Even Moderately Progresive Government Takeover – Long Hail The Center Right Right Right State!! FTW!!”. Ask yourself if you’re prepared, determined and skilled enough to offer the American public another version of history?
• Teddy Partridge December 27th, 2009 at 12:06 pm «

  You might think about writing that up as an entire post itself, here at The Seminal. There are a number of ideas you’ve proposed that really deserve community discussion, more than they’ll get when expressed as a comment in another’s diary thread.
• malagodi December 27th, 2009 at 1:24 pm «

  Pretty much with you here Sherwood.

  Here’s my difficulty (not with you): “Without a vision, the people perish.” How do we move the window, or as I call it shift the spectrum Greenward?

  What we’ve got is a bad bill, one that most people will not like because they’ll see no favorable change in their own situation (I said most). This, coupled with ~a lot~ of youth and activist disappointment or anger with Obama leaves us without a vision for the people through 2012.

  Voting is an act of shopping, of choosing a brand. It is rarely a policy analysis. The Obama brand has lost its luster, and asking people to buy into the Democratic party is like asking people to invest in Saab.

  The system is legally and structurally stacked against any third party. A new party has to be big enough to take over nationally and displace one of the existing parties to be anything other than a spoiler.

  You’re absolutely right, the whole temple must be destroyed, or we must find another way to influence the clergy.
• cbsunglass December 26th, 2009 at 9:00 am «

  So … How does your strategy differ from the one we started in 1988? We have been on the “lesser of two evils” train wreck for years and we have not seen much daylight between the parties when it comes to legislation. If you are arguing that things are so desperate that if the Republicans take back over we will see the end of America as we know it, I have to say that the death knell for America began playing in earnest about a year ago when Obama came in and continued the Republican Policies that have guided this country since Reagan. These are drastic times, I will agree, but we haven’t the time to take the nice way out anymore.
• montanamaven December 26th, 2009 at 11:00 am «

  Yes, we haven’t the time to take the nice way anymore. People are living with relatives if they are lucky and in tents if they are not. Everybody should take a couple days and read Paul Street’s articles and read what a real lefty thinks. He calls himself a libertarian socialist. I think people call Noam Chomsky that too. So teaming up temporarily with Norquist is theatrical, makes sense, and is pragmatic. Kevin Baker in his article “Barack Hoover Obama” said that “this is one of those rare moments in history when the radical is the pragmatic.”

  I’ve discovered in the last 5 years of my involvement with electoral politics that 1) it’s dreary and 2) I’m a lefty. From reading articles by Doug Henwood, Alexander Cockburn, Glen Ford, Bruce Dixon, and Paul Street, I see “progressivism” as weak. Progressivism seemed to be born out of a educated middle class effort to work within the status quo by conservatives like Teddy Roosevelt and other well-meaning people. They seemed wary and sometimes afraid of the labor movement and radical African Americans. As their battles proved mostly useless, they lost heart and decided to embrace business liberalism. Hoover would not attack the financial status quo. Later Bill Clinton who also saw the battles of the 1960s as mostly useless abandoned economic justice and embraced corporate liberalism.

  At least that’s my take from Baker and from the Paul Street article “Business Liberalism”. If the middle class had joined with labor in the period of 1890-1916 what might this country look like now? We saw a little bit of it in “The New Deal”years from 1936-1968. Then everything went plum to hell as Milton Friedman unleashed his fundamentalist neo feudal thinking followed by Robert Rubin’s smiley faced version.

  I applaud Jane who I mostly agree with but not all the time. I was a firm believer that the public option was a bait and switch (courtesy of reading Kip Sullivan). But I admire her determination and her willingness to be a player. I don’t have the inclination or patience for playing with bullies. But I will be happy to watch her back.
• lindaj December 26th, 2009 at 2:32 pm «

  Thanks for this. My sentiments exactly (for what that’s worth). :)
• malagodi December 26th, 2009 at 6:16 pm «

  Thanks, some sanity at last.

  Michelle Bachmann doesn’t know the Battle of the Light Brigade, but I do.

  I don’t mind Jane attacking Rahm and if she wants to co-sign something with Norquist, that’s her business.

  But as strategy, attacking the DP and the President as hopeless sellouts will only be counterproductive.

  I didn’t hear Sherwood say we should do what we’ve been doing, I heard him or her say we need to do what we did well even better. What we did well as activists was be the spearheads and point guards, the organizers for the general population. We kept the thing alive. And we didn’t do it by attacking, even when there was ample provocation.
34. leliorisen December 26th, 2009 at 9:32 am «

    Is there anyone who does advocacy better than Cenk? I don’t think so. His blunt, no-nonsense approach is what makes TYT so refreshing.

    He is totally right. The Dems just defeated the drug re-importation bill. That speaks volumes about Rahm’s control of the party. He has made clear many times over that he despises progressives (except when it is time to get us fired up for the elections). We are used by the DLC wing of the party and, as of now, nobody respects our voice.

    The only way to get the party back is by forcing it to listen to us. We are not the fringe of the party, as Washington would like everyone to believe.

    We are the ones who man the telephone banks and get petitions signed and blog passionately to get our people elected.

    I have vowed to only do this, in the future, for progressives, of either party.

    Rahm and the Blue Cross Dems can go to Hell for all I care.

    Cenk is dead-on.
35. sherwood December 26th, 2009 at 9:32 am «

    You really don’t see a difference between the policies of Obama and Clinton on the one hand and Bush II and Reagan on the other? That’s Nader-speak in my ears and sure the guy still has some voters.

    But the way I see it, Clinton marks the start of the end of this round of ascendancy for conservative and libertarian ideas. Clinton achieved pretty much the most progressive policy at that point in time; now with Obama I think it’s pretty clear that the progressive policy achievable is a little bit more than the last time.

    What I see is the conservatives about to splinter into evermore radicalized factions, some moderates and people who just lose the energy and interest for the conservative cause. Some of them still think that republicans are supposed to be constantly winning and that america really loves conservative ideas, ever since 80, 84 & 88. When they finally realize that this has changed they will resign an or defect.

    So in other words, I think we are at the beginning of a new “golden age” of progressive ideas in american politics, like the 30s or 60s. But it starts slowly and cautiously.

    But there’s a job to be done and that’s getting rid of a lot of conservative thought garbage that is currently entrenched in the american public discourse. “Common knowledge” that government can only screw up and be inefficient, stuff like that.

    It’s quite obvious that Obama is very aware of that – just look at his line about it not being the matter of more or less government but “good” government. It’s about rolling back Reaganism. And that’s where we need to move the Overton window together and create room for us to implement real progressive policy.

    So maybe now, we get this HCI reform which actually includes a lot of good stuff, in addition to what it does not include, and how it does not stick it to the insurance industry.

    And then in 2013 we get the public option and ten years later single payer. If we keep on advocating the Public Option and Single Payer and keep getting candidates to run on it. If we keep pushing the Overton window to the left.

    But then there’s another issue, and that is the corporate influence on policy in this country. In itself, progressive officeholders and policy will decrease corporate influence somewhat but not much.

    There are structural issues with our constitution, campaign financing, government etc that stacks the decks to favor corporate influence more than in other western countries.

    This can only be countered by constitutional reform, and constitutional reform can not (i think) only or effectively be pushed by the democratic party. Constitutional reform (or “radical washington reform”) should be pushed by a nonpartisan, populist movement. And it’s not to early to start today!
36. sherwood December 26th, 2009 at 9:34 am «

    My previous post in response to @cbsunglass
37. sherwood December 26th, 2009 at 9:38 am «

    @leliorisen

    I’m not dissing Cenks advocating skills, I’m saying his suggested strategy to get progressive policy into signed law is counterproductive and his analysis is off.

    Off course you should volunteer for only sufficiently progressive candidates and causes. But you should not volunteer against “Blue Cross dems & Rahm Emanuel” – not without a good and accurate analysis of the consequences and not without an alternative.
• leliorisen December 26th, 2009 at 9:44 am «

  Actually, I think Rahm Emanuel is trying to destroy progressive influence in the Democratic party. He has said as much, going back at least to 2006.

  So, we disagree. I think Rahm’s influence on the Democratic party is rather negative. He does not represent my values and I feel used by him.

  I have come to that conclusion, as an avid activist in my own rite. I have not let others influence me in that regard. In fact, I have been very disturbed reading some of Rahm’s remarks, which I came across through my own substantial research efforts. Because I know he has told others to ignore progressive priorities, we get results like the defeat of the drug re-importation bill.

  Rahm is the Dick Cheney of this administration and I will not be sorry to see him go.

  The alternative…giving progressives at least SOME voice in this party. Right now there is none. Or can you tell me of one concession that was made to progressives in the health care reform debate. The GOP got them, the pro-lifers got ‘em, LIEberman got ‘em. Insurance companies and Pharma got ‘em. What concessions did progressives get?
• romo2austin December 26th, 2009 at 9:58 am «

  You guys got an interesting way of extending the influence of progressives by teaming up with arch conservatives and their propaganda tools. LOL!
• leliorisen December 26th, 2009 at 10:33 am «

  Try an intellectual argument for a change troll.
• perris December 27th, 2009 at 9:34 am «

  simple stuff romo;

  it’s very easy to use a right wing propaganda tool, they are usually simpletons, simple to use Templeton’s as tools and that much more effective when we use that tool at odds with their right winged purpose

  for instance, you’re post obviously serves the Obamabots, it’s eminently simple using your rhetoric to prove the point that is at odds with the script you’ve posted here

  so there you have it

  off for some more life, see all later
• sherwood December 26th, 2009 at 10:01 am «

  Well, to start with your last question, we got subsidy levels at 400%. We get premium discrimination b/o of gender outlawed. We may get an employer mandate or half of one. We may get even better subsidies. We get single payer for everyone below 133% of the poverty line and maybe for everyone below 150% of the poverty line.

  That means that people may start to ask – why should only people below 133% get single payer. Then you can advocate pushing the line upwards.

  Etc. I’m not saying the progressive wing got a lot in all the rounds of negotiation during the summer and autumn but my analysis of why that is may differ from yours:

  1) Because the structure of the Senate stacks the deck in favor of small state conservatives giving them superior leverage. The answer is constitutional reform and moving the Overton window in those same small states.

  2) Joe Lieberman is an asshole who already burned his ships with the progressive wing and had nothing left to lose there and he wanted to fuck with the democrats. Get him out of office next time, we can have a real progressive in that seat.

  3) Those facts gave the “moderates” superior leverage from the start. Thats why progressive “balls” could only ever do so much and still cant until the basic circumstances change.

  Then I think it’s analyticly important as hell to keep distinguishing between what is a disagreement of goals on the one hand and what is a disagreement on strategy on the other. Progressives may have the same goals (single payer, if not public option) but they may differ in strategy (“kill-bill” vs “realist”).

  OTOH if you don’t want government involvement in health insurance at all (Nelson, Lieberman) or actually work against the cause of a womans right to choose (Stupak, Nelson) then you are not appropriately called a progressive but something else. Bluedog, moderate, conservative whatever.

  People in the first category are by definition on the same team, the question is how to accomplish the goals.

  People in the second category are acceptable only insofar as the alternative is presently worse, and only until there’s a better alternative.

  Are you quite sure in which category to place Emanuel and the comments he made?
38. tinman1967 December 26th, 2009 at 10:07 am «

    Investigate Rahm?
    Are you people insane?
39. transparait December 26th, 2009 at 10:24 am «

    There seem to be a lot of similarities between Bush Republicans and Obama Democrats. Both residents policies are are actively destructive to the American people as a whole, and both pour money into corporate interests, and sell wars. Still the drones keep droning for their resident because they were told that the scary bad reps/dems would be worse. Was Bush ‘worse’ than Obama, or simply more personally repellant to us because of how our perceptions have been shaped, which sort appeals have been made to us? Are Bush and Obama the same, actually? The overton window seems a fallacy to me, it assumes that attitudes direct government policy. I don’t see it.
• sherwood December 26th, 2009 at 10:26 am «

  Can you offer substance, in addition to namecalling and “sheeples” rants?
40. sherwood December 26th, 2009 at 10:29 am «

    Or to answer your question:

    Yes! Lying us into the wrong war, getting us into debt only in order to lower taxes for the rich and fucking up the economy by removing all regulations and enforcement on the banking industry is much worse than an imperfect try to give Health care to 30M people that does not have it today.
• transparait December 26th, 2009 at 10:41 am «

  Not much difference, then.
• sherwood December 26th, 2009 at 11:06 am «

  In other words: you have no substance to offer, so you make a meaningless, silly retort.
• transparait December 26th, 2009 at 11:25 am «

  No. You can’t come up with any differences that aren’t a matter of perception. When you ask for ‘substance’ you ask me to implicitly let you define what that is. You are simply trying to con me into debating you within the framework you’re comfy with. I don’t care enough about your intellectual toy to bother with it.
• sherwood December 26th, 2009 at 11:42 am «

  Hey, all power to you.

  And yes, of course i have a “framework” – inside of which I think it is easier to have a productive discussion, as it were. It’s a framework that incorporates ground rules that forces you to think about why you believe what you believe and then make the case for it. To argue your case, even if that means that you find flaws in it. Sure – that can be painful, but you know what? It’s worth it. Because it forces you to think.

  And: what the f**k do you even mean by “intellectual toy”?
41. SouthernDragon December 26th, 2009 at 10:40 am «

    Most excellent post, Cenk. It’s past time to separate the neoliberals from the progressives.
42. SouthernDragon December 26th, 2009 at 10:42 am «

    I see our knuckle dragging mouth breathing friends have joined us again.

    Don’t feed the thread hijacking trolls, pups.
• klynn December 26th, 2009 at 10:48 am «

  Ditto that. Just get the word out to friends folks. Let’s move.

  Thanks for the post Cenk!
43. Hugh December 26th, 2009 at 10:52 am «

    Some of us have been opposing Obama’s Blue Dog corporatism for some time now. I for one keep a list of Obama scandals on the web much as I did for Bush precisely as an antidote to our tendency to forget all the myriad events, stories, and scandals that assault us, and the exploitation of this amnesia by our political leaders and the trolls who defend them.

    I disagree though that Obama is triangulating. You can’t square the progressive rhetoric with the conservative action. He is where he is ideologically because that is where he is. It is not simply where he finds himself. Nor is he cautious. A first term Senator doesn’t get to become President by being cautious. A cautious President doesn’t promise escalation in Afghanistan.

    Nor do I accept that winning the Presidency suddenly resulted in his capture by Washington interests. He may have been a first term Senator but he was one for 2 1/2 years before starting his run for the office in 2007. So he already knew about the Washington bubble. The idea that it captured him only after his winning the election is, I think, untrue. The idea too that he has done so little because he is limited in what he can do is likewise untrue. The truth is he never tried. But leaving aside the story that he was hobbled by Congress, look at what he has or could have done in other areas, where this was far less a concern. In particular, I would point to the seemingly never-ending stream of really noxious briefs emanating from his Department of Justice which in many cases not only continue but seek to expand claims of Presidential power and immunity. I would add there is nothing cautious in these.

    In my view, Obama is and acts like a Blue Dog status quo corporatist, period, full stop. We can only oppose him, just as we could only oppose Bush. The only means we have to modify his actions is, as Cenk says, to exact a price at the polls (although Obama and Rahm might use this as an excuse to move even further to the right) and to try to convince what few actual progressive legislators are in Congress to spike his efforts and win some concrete concessions in return. I don’t hold out much hope for the second. I think our best hope is to primary as many Democrats as we can with progressive alternatives and hope for(and look for) an outsider Perot-like candidate for 2012.
• montanamaven December 26th, 2009 at 11:14 am «

  Thank god you stopped by. Your list of transgressions of Obama is invaluable and your debunking of conventional wisdom like “Obama is cautious” makes my day. Ken Silverstein debunked the myth of a naive liberal Obama way back in 2006.
  

  6. Ken Silverstein, “Barack Obama, Inc.: The Birth of a Washington Machine,” Harper’s (November 2006). See also David Mendell, Obama: From Promise to Power (New York: Harpercollins, 2007): 248-250.

  Paul Street also sites
  

  Larissa MacFarquhar, “The Conciliator: Where is Barack Obama Coming From?,” The New Yorker (May 7, 2007). In an in-depth account of Obama published in the spring of 2007, MacFarquhar (no leftist) reported that, “In his view of history, in his respect for tradition, in his skepticism that the world can be changed any way but very, very slowly, Obama is deeply conservative.”

  And, of course, Glen Ford of blackagendareport.com.
  

  Glen Ford, “Barack Obama The Warmonger,” Black Agenda Report (August 8, 2007), http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=305&Itemid=34;

  Just go to any of Paul Street’s essays. He has an extensive footnote section at the end of each.
44. dugsdale December 26th, 2009 at 11:06 am «

    Sherwood, really enjoying your posts here, and Cenk’s as well. I also appreciate the comments suggesting we regard Jane’s situational alliance with Norquist as a work in progress rather than as something to be excoriated out of hand.

    I voted for Obama with the idea that if he delivered 20% of what he seemed to be advocating, I’d consider myself lucky. Okay, post-hcr I’ve had to revise that down to 5%, but it’s still a gain over McCain. And I was really set back on my heels by the full weight of the corporatist takeover in Washington, which makes threads like this terrifically important: plotting a way forward now is much more challenging.

    In fact, for my money, before congress begins considering financial reform, I think the #1 priority OUGHT to be first, getting rid of the 60/40 rule in the Senate, and ultimately putting our full weight behind an effort to have publicly-funded elections (thereby giving congresscritters much more incentive to vote their principles rather than voting the principles of their biggest donors). Absent those two initiatives, any reform you get will be weak, compromised, –better than nothing, perhaps, but — fatally flawed in some way. Ultimately, I’m afraid, it boils down to lots more hard work, organizing, and coalition-building along strategic lines, and frankly I think we DO need to see the health reform bill for what it contributes, rather than getting hung up on how it falls short. We need THAT sort of intellectual energy for the fights to come, and I think we need to be seriously leery of splitting progressives into factional camps. If there’s a lesson from the Goldwater rightists, it’s unity and constancy of purpose.

    One last word, a lesson Jodi taught me: do not feed the trolls; do not even READ the trolls.
• sherwood December 26th, 2009 at 11:36 am «

  Well, thanks for the kind words! I appreciated your thoughtful post very much as well.

  And that’s also basically my major point. As soon as you realize what your end goals are then it’s rational to work towards them in however small a way. If what I want to see here is basically a scandinavian style welfare state, then I hope to work towards that with anyone, including Noam Chomsky and John Pilger even if I think they sometimes are on the slightly nutty side and that the X-bar theory rests on dubious evidence.

  But there’s simply one major demarcation line and if we are on the right side of that line than we should keep an open mind and listen – while keeping true to our convictions about ideology and strategy and tactics, stating them openly and honestly.

  And where we part ways in strategy and tactics, we may have to part way in execution – but I will always recognize a friend in terms of direction and end goal.

  That’s where I hope to see a friend in Jane while knowing that I could never find one in Norquist.

  W/r to constitutional reform, that would be the most consequential change that could happen to american politics. It’s the only way to cleanse this ever-present and bought corporate influense out of what should be the untainted representation of the will of the people. That was the intent of the founders, but time has shown that other forms of government are more true to that intent.

  But like I stated previously, I don’t think the democratic party alone can ever effectively promote this issue. This is a policy waiting for a nonpartisan grassroots movement. As it were, this is maybe the only area where I could see a place for teaming uo with Norquist, Ericksson, Palin or whomever is interested in signing up.

  Make the house of representatives based on proportional vote total per state and therefore enabling and conductive to a multiparty system for starters. When voters are used to it and take it for granted – then get rid of the senate.
45. khin December 26th, 2009 at 11:49 am «

    cenk, I think this post makes some good points. It introduces a modicum of reality into the thinking about Obama. However, I think we also need to go beyond understanding what we have to do, which is what your post discusses, to understanding how it can be done. So while it is true that we have to “move the island,” we cannot do this from positions that are inside of the island. Just as a ball cannot throw itself, we can’t constantly take politically acceptable positions and expect change. But in fact that is exactly what “public option” advocates like HCAN, Moveon, Daily Kos, Howard Dean and the like have done. They’re trying to move the island from inside the island. You can’t do that. If we are going to succeed, we have to join organizations like PDA and Healthcare-NOW that advocate national health care, which a majority of the US population probably supports.
46. ivanafter5 December 26th, 2009 at 1:10 pm «

    If you don’t have the stomach for being this tough on Obama and the Democrats, well then you don’t have the stomach for politics.

    Well put Cenk. Too many on the left do not seem to have the stomach for it, unfortunately. I hope that is starting to change.
47. sherwood December 26th, 2009 at 1:15 pm «

    Riddle me this: how many undercover Operation Chaosers are there in the comments section of FDL?
48. ThingsComeUndone December 26th, 2009 at 1:33 pm «

    SheKissesfrogs at 77 I think it was Raven who pointed out some of the NeoCons in the Bush WH were on our side I don’t think they were ever hippies though just Dems.
• oldnslow December 26th, 2009 at 1:51 pm «

  Some of us old hippies are pretty good at spoting old hippies.

  Thanks for a very thoughful post cenk. Nice to see you here.
49. arcadesproject December 26th, 2009 at 3:37 pm «

    I agree entirely that Progressives should use any and every means to move Obama in the direction of sound public policy. I just don’t think we should buy into the ‘extreme left’ frame. The policies that Progressives favor are dead center, non-negotiable political realities in the rest of the developed world. If Obama wants to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands, continue to exclude people from access to health care, prevent upward mobility by making education unattinable for most Americans and fight wars that nobody else supports, he should be forced to argue for his views, using facts and logic. And stop his vindictive campaign against his critics who are neither insane nor stupid, as his appointees have claimed.
50. seeker561 December 26th, 2009 at 5:00 pm «

    I find the idea that the health care bill is going to extend insurance to 30 million people laughable. In my state, Medicaid is government paid for PRIVATE INSURANCE administered as HMO’s. It is nearly impossible to find a primary care physician. Does anyone really think access will be improved by increasing the number of medicaid recipients by 50%?

    Is there a provision to increase the number of doctors accepting medicaid reimbursement proportionately?

    A recent report in the Houston Chronicle pointed out that the largest increase in uncollectable debt in the county hospital district was from patients with employer based health insurance, making $40 to 70,000 per year that were unable to meet the deductable and out of pocket expenses. The mandates are most likely to result in insurance policies that are too expensive to use. Many people believe they are well insured only because they haven’t gotten sick enough to actually need the benefits they believe they have paid for.

    Since the proposed subsidies are “budjet items” they will be subject to freezing, reducing or eliminating altogether in the name of “deficit reduction’ using reconciliation when the republicans take back the house majority or a few senate seats.
51. Cujo359 December 26th, 2009 at 11:56 pm «

    So, what Obama does by his nature is find the middle ground. As an excellent innate politician, he will find the political center of any field and rush to it. That’s where elections are won – the center. So, that’s why he sounded so progressive during the primaries, because that was the center of the left. And why he sounded like such a reformer during the general election because the great majority of Americans desperately wanted change.

    What Obama has done his whole career is cater to the people who have power, so he can have power, too. He did that with shady folks like Antoin Rezko and Yesse Yehudah. He steered clear of controversy as an Illinois senator, where he become known as “Mr. Present” for his non-votes on many issues. His path has always been to court the wealthy and powerful, and to never upset them. He’s still at it.

    People who want power, but don’t ever do anything with it to help their societies, aren’t in it for any reason other than the power. Obama is one such individual. To pretend otherwise is to misunderstand how to deal with him. The way to get Obama to do what you want him to is to convince him he has to if he doesn’t want to lose power.
• TalkingStick December 27th, 2009 at 9:07 am «

  People who want power, but don’t ever do anything with it to help their societies, aren’t in it for any reason other than the power. Obama is one such individual. To pretend otherwise is to misunderstand how to deal with him. The way to get Obama to do what you want him to is to convince him he has to if he doesn’t want to lose power.

  This is a good insight.

  I believe Cenk is also correct in saying Obama means well. Narcissists tend to equate power with being right and being virtuous. “If is am most powerful I am automatically the most virtuous and knowledgeable.” The also have a tendency to believe the universe is in their image and make “well meaning” decisions based on how they would affect themselves.

  That said Cujo, I personally believe you are right on target with a strategy that Obama and (his apparently most trusted self-object) Rahm Emanuel can see as a threat to their power.
  Forget appealing to logic, compassion, empathy etc..
• Masoninblue December 27th, 2009 at 10:03 am «

  People who want power, but don’t ever do anything with it to help their societies, aren’t in it for any reason other than the power. Obama is one such individual. To pretend otherwise is to misunderstand how to deal with him. The way to get Obama to do what you want him to is to convince him he has to if he doesn’t want to lose power.

  I agree.
52. dkmich December 27th, 2009 at 5:52 am «

    I would love to see Jane, Norquist, Dean, and Ron Paul do something to pull the disaffected together. If they don’t want to listen, let’s quit talking to them and do something different. If third party won’t work, then move them left by voting against them and for Republicans. If they want to act like Republicans, we might as well have the real thing. I have no intentions of voting for Democrats in 2010 or 2012.
53. perris December 27th, 2009 at 8:09 am «

    Does he mean well or does he have bad intentions? Come on, don’t be ridiculous. Of course, he means well. But in his own mind, George Bush thought he meant well too (for the most part). I’m positive that Obama thinks that he is doing the best he can to bring about as much change as he can within the limits of this system.

    I argue your conclusion;

    if he did not have bad intentions he would not have lied to us, he would not led us around the ring by our nose for the public option, he would not have claimed he was doing what he could when we saw him do more to abandon the public option, he would not have demanded we cede to Joe Lieberman

    if he did not have “bad intentions” he would claim “the fringe” are those on the right not those on the left

    this man is a corporatist who corrupted himself, now you personally might believe Obama has deluded himself into believing his corporate puppet masters have the best intentions in mind but I personally believe that is also delusional

    sorry
54. egregious December 27th, 2009 at 8:10 am «

    Thanks Cenk – a great honor to have you writing here.
55. perris December 27th, 2009 at 8:15 am «

    now, here is how we move obama to the left once and for all;

    we get someone like jane to go on fox news once more with all the information indicting rahms crimes with fanny mae

    fox hates fanny mae, they hate obama, they hate rahm, they will jeff beck the intire episode in rahms past only this time they will actually have a case, rahm will go down and obama will be forced into earning the support of progressives

    THAT’S how we move obama to the left, get rid of “obama’s brain” at the same time
56. jdcompsci December 27th, 2009 at 8:16 am «

    Cenk, the problem is the “left/right” false-dichotomy. The American people are ready to reject this fake political spectrum. The spectrum over-simplifies our political discourse and prevents allegiances that absolutely need to happen.

    For example, there is no left/right spectrum on health-care. There is no center. There is either corporatist or non-corporatist. Neither of those is left or right! Neither is center. You can find a common “anti-corporate-bribery-of-our-government” viewpoint on both the far “left” and the far “right.”

    We have to redefine the political spectrum in a way that resonates with the vast majority of the American people, and then ridicule the left/right divide. That will resonate with people. If there is anything Americans are sick of, it is the stalled politics — the lack of progress — that is resulting from the “left”/”right” charade. it is the puppetry of this charade that prevents the puppeteer from being exposed: corporate control of our Government.

    We must reframe this debate in a way that avoids talking about pushing this country “to the left,” because that will immediately alienate people who will always view themselves as part of “the right.” It is the tribalism — the rally around the party — mentality that has to be crushed. And it can only be crushed by finding common ground. And that common ground, CLEARLY, is a disgust at the CORRUPTION. And that is neither “right” nor “left.” It is profoundly HUMAN.
• perris December 27th, 2009 at 8:26 am «

  And that common ground, CLEARLY, is a disgust at the CORRUPTION. And that is neither “right” nor “left.” It is profoundly HUMAN

  excellant!
  `
57. perris December 27th, 2009 at 8:19 am «

    I’m sure Obama is a progressive that would help the average American if he thought he could. But apparently he thinks he can’t. He can only bring them a small amount of change because of what he thinks the system will allow.

    this clearly assumes as facts what is oposite the evidenct

    of course he could make progressive changes, of course he could use reconciliation, of course he could pressure the blue dogs, of course he could pressure lieberman

    the man will not make progressive changes and every single thing he has done indicates he actually believes in the REDICULOUOS “trickle down evonomics” which caused the problem in the first place

    wealth begins with product not the other way around yet everything this man has done HAS been the othre way arouund
58. TarheelDem December 27th, 2009 at 8:19 am «

    There are only two questions that a politician wants to know about progressives:

    How much money can you raise for campaigns? And what will I have to do for it (without looking too quid pro quo)?

    How many voters can you turn out to the polls in off years? And over what geographic distribution? And what will I have to sell them?

    Right now the conventional wisdom (especially within the Beltway) is that the answer to the first question is “not enough to bother working for, but if is free of demands, OK”. And the answer to the second one is “San Francisco, some neighborhoods in New York and little else, and for those all I have to do is say the right code words.”

    Any plan to move the island must deal with both of those in a dramatic way. Picking up some seats that are “conservative” in the conventional wisdom (such as what, R+10 or better) would be one of those dramatic events that shatters the Beltway narrative. And this is clear from the fact that they have not grasped NY-23 or fully understand why Tom Perriello is riding high in VA-05. The progressive Congresscritters don’t stand up until they realize that there is nothing to fear from the right and everything to fear from the left. The second part is easy to do with a few metaphorical two-by-fours. The first is much more difficult, but is where we have to work in order to shift the island.
59. Bluetoe2 December 27th, 2009 at 8:19 am «

    Obama was seen doing the backstroke in Hawaii. It just feels more natural to him.
• eCAHNomics December 27th, 2009 at 8:24 am «

  In his Speedo? Link to the photo please. *g*
60. Bluetoe2 December 27th, 2009 at 8:23 am «

    An interesting interview of Nat Hentoff that’s worth a read.

    http://www.rutherford.org/oldspeak/articles/interviews/oldspeak-Hentoff_2009.html

    http://www.rutherford.org/oldspeak/articles/interviews/oldspeak-Hentoff_2009.html
61. eCAHNomics December 27th, 2009 at 8:24 am «

    I favor rewarding good behavior and punishing bad behavior. I don’t care which party.

    The Rs went along with every bad thing W did, and see where that got them in 2008.
62. OldFatGuy December 27th, 2009 at 8:27 am «

    Wow, on my out the door, and this has probably already been brought up, judging by the number of comments, but I couldn’t not comment, though admittedly doing so without reading any of the above.

    I’m just an old guy, no job, no influence, a real nobody; and you’re a man with his own show, so take this with a grain of salt.

    But IMO, that post was hogwash. The best he could do “in this system”???

    Bullshit. There is only ONE system. It’s written on that little piece of paper we sometimes refer to as our Constitution. And there is NOTHING in that system that says a bill requires 60% Senate support for passage (in fact, the document is quite clear on which votes DO require more than a majority. Funny that.), and there is NOTHING in that system that says corporations have any right to representation, only citizens, and finally, there is NOTHING in that system that says the Senate is the only body that matters and the House is irrelevant.

    No, President Obama CHOSE these outcomes, based on the system he CHOSE to highlight. I.E., appeasing corporations rather than strictly following our quaint old system. The Senate can kill any filibuster they want tod with 50 votes. They can pass any bill with 50 votes. (Biden as tiebreaker).

    They knowingly CHOSE this system, and thus this outcome.

    Spinning it any other way is more Obamapology at work, IMO.

    Have a great day, sorry for my intense critique, but we can’t work to defeat out enemy without at least understanding who’s on our side and who isn’t. Obama isn’t, IMO.
• ratfood December 27th, 2009 at 8:34 am «

  I agree with you, OFG. Stating at this point that Obama has good intentions assumes facts not in evidence.
63. jcy333 December 27th, 2009 at 8:31 am «

    Your article makes a lot of sense. I’ve been disappointed in Obama since the healthcare debate started. I thought he was going to ‘hit the ground running’ on healthcare reform and take on the insurance industry like he promised, and we’d get real change which included ‘choice’! But, the first thing he did was invite the insurance industry to the table and throw single payer out the window! And it’s been going downhill ever since. His ‘hands off’ approach is making things worse for everyone except big business. I’m so disgusted. I want to shout from the rooftops…President Obama wake up! Why are you catering to the insurance industry? Why did you compromise this country’s future by giving in? We need a leader who will stand up to big business. We need a leader who will stand up to the republican obstructionists. Find some guts and stand up and FIGHT for us! This was our one shot to finally be in control of our own healthcare, and you blew it Mr President.
64. SouthernDragon December 27th, 2009 at 8:33 am «

    In November 2008 we voted for change. We listened to people who said they were going to bring the changes we, and the world, were demanding. It didn’t happen. We got the status quo in new wrapping. Time for new players.

    My dad used to say, “If you want something done right, do it yourself.”

    We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.
65. jlamkin December 27th, 2009 at 8:34 am «

    Cenk,
    I’m a captain in the TYT Army, and would follow my commander (YOU) off a cliff.

    I’m with you on bloodying our Liar in Chief from the left, but I say, START NOW.

    We need a group of really brave members of the Progressive Caucus in the House, or just ONE Senator to stand up and kill this lousy HCR legislation. This is THE signature domestic issue for the Mr. Change You Can’t Believe in. Kill this one, and you’ll have his attention, alright. It would make the Financial Reform fight a hell of a lot easier.

    I don’t expect Brown or Franken to do it; their seats are too competitive and their voices too valuable. But, what the hell does Feingold or Sanders have to lose by torpedoing this corporate give away? If they’re too scared of their own shadows to do it, then the Financial Reform battle is already lost.

    Enough is enough. Until we prove we’re crazy enough to inflict real damage, we’re never going to get where we need to go. And, you trolls who are going to give me that “half a loaf” crap? Go ahead. You’re not even going to get crumbs with your approach.

    Why wait for the financial reform battle? I say the time to fight is NOW.
• perris December 27th, 2009 at 8:38 am «

  I don’t expect Brown or Franken to do it; their seats are too competitive and their voices too valuable. But, what the hell does Feingold or Sanders have to lose by torpedoing this corporate give away? If they’re too scared of their own shadows to do it, then the Financial Reform battle is already lost.

  I am hoping sanders is going to be true to his word, expecting the bill is fixed in congress, if it is not I am hoping he will veto the bill and as jane pointed out, every democrat now enjoys veto power thanx to liarman
• eCAHNomics December 27th, 2009 at 8:39 am «

  Hope is a 4-letter word.
• perris December 27th, 2009 at 8:40 am «

  oh

  then there’s no looking back
• eCAHNomics December 27th, 2009 at 8:41 am «

  Fight is not a 4-letter word (fight politically, that is).
• ratfood December 27th, 2009 at 8:46 am «

  The pressure that Dem leaders never brought to bear on Lieberman, or Nelson, or Landrieu will certainly be applied to any member who threatens to stray because the bill is not sufficiently progressive. Bernie would probably have the least to lose.
66. alank December 27th, 2009 at 8:43 am «

    CU, your premises are extremely faulty and leading.
67. KayInMaine December 27th, 2009 at 8:48 am «

    How to move Obama to the left? According to Jane Lieberman we have to ban with Grover Norquist, have sex with Karl Rove each morning, and when all else fails….WE MUST SAY NICE THINGS ABOUT FOX NEWS. See? It’s very simple.
• ratfood December 27th, 2009 at 8:52 am «

  Karl was busy but penciled me in for mid-afternoon. Does that still count?

  Resistance is futile, come to the Dark Side, Kay.. :-)
• KayInMaine December 27th, 2009 at 9:51 am «

  There’s gotta be another right wing fringer out there that you can have brunch with! Keep looking. Make us proud!
68. KayInMaine December 27th, 2009 at 8:49 am «

    Joe Lieberman is our idol now don’t forget! Hating the Democrats by going to the right is the only way to have power today!
69. mookieblaylock December 27th, 2009 at 8:51 am «

    its a puppet administration so whether he is well intended or not makes no difference. It’s pathetic that you think that these people can be influenced given all that’s gone on in the last 10 years, so good luck with that
70. egregious December 27th, 2009 at 8:55 am «

    Please do not call other commenters trolls. I hope we can have a discussion about ideas without getting into the motivations and character of other people in the community – thanks.
71. CalGeorge December 27th, 2009 at 8:58 am «

    Nader:
    

    His is a concessionary demeanor, an aversion to conflict and to taking on entrenched power, a devotee of harmony ideology not because he doesn’t believe in necessary re-directions, but because he does not project the strength of his beliefs and willingness to draw the line—here and no further—as did Ronald Reagan or FDR.

    http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/23463

    I have no illusions about Obama anymore. He is what he is. Four years and hopefully he will be gone.
72. Starbuck December 27th, 2009 at 9:03 am «

    For Christmas, I received a book called “The Big Burn” by Timothy Egan, subtitled “Teddy Roosevelt & the Fire that saved America” (well, a bit over the top I suspect!). The setting is exactly 100 years ago, 1910, and the fight was over the preservation of the natural resources. If I didn’t know any better, I would swear that I was reading an account about bank bailouts and insurance companies grab for, in today’s case, financial resources.

    There is one glaring difference: Roosevelt and his secretary Gifford Pinchot are spoiling, eager for the fight. They will not back down, nor will one of the chief antagonists, William Clark, the Copper King of Butte Montana and also a US Senator, who brags he will buy whoever and whatever it takes to get his way. Rather blatant ,IMO, but then, you know your enemy and he ain’t a lyin’!

    Today, we have a president characterized as a risk adverse manager.

    We need not just a TR, but a Pinchot as well. hell of a man. My nomination for that role? Jane Hamsher is very high on my list.
73. CalGeorge December 27th, 2009 at 9:05 am «

    William Harryman:
    

    1) He has great intrapersonal intelligence (he knows who he is and how to modulate his thoughts and feeling), which is what made him a candidate who rarely made mistakes on the campaign trail. This makes him seem aloof and withdrawn as President.

    2) He also great interpersonal intelligence (an ability to connect with people) that allows him to deliver very moving speeches on topics he is passionate about (such as his Philadelphia race speech). But as a leader, he is crippled by his need to build consensus and avoid conflict.

    3) [...] His belief in working together seems to prevent him from leading from his internal sense of what is right. And his distaste for conflict keeps him from engaging directly in the fray, which is what we need him to do.

    [...]

    What we have seen so far (in my opinion) from Obama as a leader is a failure to understand his role. If I were his life coach, I would be asking him to assert more of his intrapersonal intelligence in terms of following his heart and gut and to redirect his interpersonal intelligence toward getting people (the Congress, for example) to do what he wants, rather than letting them do the work (which is bound to be corrupted by special interests, as we have seen in the health care debate) and trying to avoid conflict.

    http://integral-options.blogspot.com/2009/12/why-obama-is-failing-as-leader-two.html

    So maybe the answer is to send Barack to a shrink.
• Hugh December 27th, 2009 at 9:17 am «

  I think Hayman is still trying to rationalize the Obama as progressive meme. This approach is inherently flawed because we would expect at least some issues where Obama’s progressivism would manifest itself. But we don’t. We really need to apply Ockham’s razor to this. Obama is not some progressive at heart conflict avoiding cautious manager who just happens to go Blue Dog. He acts like a Blue Dog because he is a Blue Dog. The progressive verbiage is just pap for the rubes.
• temptingfate December 27th, 2009 at 9:52 am «

  While it has been said before, by me at least, there is something to be said for the idea that the big trick the Obama Democrats pulled off was in the area of cognitive dissonance. If you can make a person support something that is a bit disturbing to them they will often start to believe that they have always thought that way. As people searched in their own minds for a way to justify the health insurance deform they were forced to either support it or leave the comfort of the group running the show. So they changed their minds instead.

  My favorite recent indicator of how much good Obama’s so-called move to the center is working was when I read a recent post by Karl Denninger. For those that have never read his stuff, he is a guy who when he talks about fraud and malfeasance in the financial industry can come up with interesting information. On the other hand, when he starts talking about politics he generally treads in the land of the somewhat less rational. So his big meme right now is that the mandate within the health insurance debacle is all about political jujitsu. Pass the illegal mandate along with stuff that isn’t so insurance industry friendly and wait for the mandate to be proven unconstitutional. Since the mandate isn’t the only big gain for the insurance and pharmaceutical giants I’d have to put the idea in the fail list. As well, given the recent rulings or the lack thereof by the SCOTUS, assuming that they will toss the mandate simply because it is unconstitutional is a big assumption indeed. If it looks too tricky to pull off then it probably isn’t a trick.

  The big takeaway though is that, like the Clinton administration before, doing everything the right wants simply means that they have to try a little bit harder to find ways to hate you. Trying harder just makes it a bit more interesting.

  I completely agree that the Obama team is just fleecing the sheep.
• dick c December 27th, 2009 at 9:53 am «

  … He acts like a Blue Dog because he is a Blue Dog. The progressive verbiage is just pap for the rubes.

  No doubt about that.

  During the election campaign I thought that the way he was portrayed by the right as “the most liberal Senator ever” would eventually work out well for actual liberals since Obama was being accepted by most people as being extremely smart, serious, and capable of doing the job. The Democratic party, however, is still working to undercut liberals in order to cement relationships with corporate interests. Nothing new I guess …
• briancady413 December 27th, 2009 at 9:59 am «

  Occams’ Razor serves us well, but when it comes to blaming, we might consider the at-first-contradictory-seeming ‘Why ASCRIBE to malice what incompetence can explain?’ Here I take ascribe to mean ‘blame publically’, as opposed to ‘think privately’. I suspect the thought behind this is that politicians, like us all, would rather be seen as powerfully evil than as embarassingly inept, so when they don’t do what we want, let’s call them silly-looking, instead of evil.
• Hugh December 27th, 2009 at 10:12 am «

  Hannah Arendt argued that the two were not exclusive when she talked about the “banality of evil”.
74. solerso December 27th, 2009 at 9:05 am «

    “small amount of change”

    this is sometimes called “chump change”. I agree with you inasmuch as i certainly beleive that BO thinks we little people are all chumps.
75. Hugh December 27th, 2009 at 9:07 am «

    romo2austin is in fact a well known troll from dkos and he has been invading threads and hijacking them here for days. He uses the same kinds of circular arguments, non sequiturs, bald statements, and subject changing that every other troll who wanders or is sent to this site uses. But sure, if you don’t want me calling the troll a troll. No problem. Obamabot and Rahmocrat will do fine.
• temptingfate December 27th, 2009 at 9:21 am «

  I don’t completely disagree except that there have been a few irrational trolls that have simply been beyond the pale. This page currently has the more rational kinds. Perhaps there could be levels of trolliness but that would probably end up being a dKos or HuffingtonPost-lite. Getting put down by folks that can’t think of a counter argument while favoring conformity via private downgrades is not very much fun.

  For myself I see opportunities to make my own ideas a bit clearer in my own mind in some of my responses. Still, it is the case that a retread of previously discredited ideas rolled into a three sentence synopsis can be a bit tiring when stated over and over again.
• perris December 27th, 2009 at 9:28 am «

  there are times a person is not here representing an actual argument, they are here to disrupt the argument

  those people are trolls

  otherwise I do not mind at all engaging people who come here thinking they can defend their point of view, those people are fine, it’s those who come to highjack the discussion and create diversion from the point of a thread, those are the trolls, or rather, as you say, “obamabots”
• ratfood December 27th, 2009 at 9:45 am «

  Over the past couple days my thinking on the subject has evolved (as this 2-day old thread illustrates). Some of our recent visitors have come in merely to insult Jane and the larger FDL community and I see no need to accept that graciously.

  On the other hand, if they make an effort to engage in dialog, albeit from a different point of view I am inclined to give them the benefit of any doubt.
• Hugh December 27th, 2009 at 9:49 am «

  The “not feasible politically” seems like the latest iteration of why Obama hasn’t done any of the things he ran on and was elected to do, the change we were supposed to believe in. Before it was 11-dimensional chess, or that he hadn’t been in office long enough. Now it is cautious, conflict avoiding, consensus building, risk manager who can’t do more because it isn’t politically feasible, he’s just the President, the Congress is the one really calling the shots, and besides he never really promised any of this stuff anyway and anyone who voted for him should have known what they were getting. It isn’t argument or evidence. It’s just excuses applied as needed to whatever issue without any regard for how illogical and contradictory they are when taken together.
• ratfood December 27th, 2009 at 10:03 am «

  He does appear to inspire inexplicable devotion in many. Perhaps my television is too old to emit the requisite hypno-rays.
• Hugh December 27th, 2009 at 10:28 am «

  He does appear to inspire inexplicable devotion in many.

  The thing is when I broke with Obama back in July 2008 after becoming increasingly disenchanted in him, the ratio at fdl between Obama supporters and critics was the reverse of what it is now. Rahm and Obama think they can ignore or manage with some PR massage the negativity they are creating by their policies. I think the opposite is true. The public will judge Obama first and foremost on his handling of the economy. High unemployment coupled with the cushy bailout for banks has already tarnished his image. The 2010 elections will do further damage. 2011 as I keep trying to warn people looks like a really frightful time for the economy. By 2012, the public, and probably even the -bots at dkos will be sick to death of Obama.
• wizardleft1962 December 27th, 2009 at 10:30 am «

  Obama is a marketing creation….an empty suit….Obama really stands for nothing and if you listen to his speeches carefully, just on audio, he sounds very robotic-like…..Listen and read what John Pilger has said about Obama….Do a search Pilger on Obama and his insight is quite valuable to those whom still have hope and faith in this evil president of ours. Obama is evil because he knows he lies to the people with a smile on his face….
• TalkingStick December 27th, 2009 at 11:11 am «

  The point Cenk is making as I understand it is that what Obama is ideologically is not as relevant as his reaction to threats to his power. I agree.
• wizardleft1962 December 27th, 2009 at 11:35 am «

  Anyone who thinks Obama is a leftist is delusional.

  Anyone who thinks Obama can be moved to the left is also delusional.

  Anyone who thinks Obama is a peace president is more than delusional.

  Anyone who thinks Obama can be moved from his natural cneter-right position is really, really delusional.

  Anyone who thinks Obama has a liberal or progresive bone in his body other than to tease and get over on progresives and easily so from what I see is psychotic and not treatable.

  The ObamaBots are incurable.

  ObamaCare would not even help the ObamaBots out of their hallicitory or delusional stupors.
• TalkingStick December 27th, 2009 at 11:57 am «

  An interesting group of non sequiturs. But I am not sure of your point.

  Obama will not react ideologically.
• TalkingStick December 27th, 2009 at 12:07 pm «

  That is not to say we progressives cannot get some of our ideologically based agenda items incorporated. The old fashioned way — manipulation. Power politics.
• ratfood December 27th, 2009 at 10:38 am «

  The first year of the Obama Administration peeled off many former supporters who were paying close attention. Low information supporters might take a little longer but as you mentioned, the poor economy and a jobless recovery (when it happens) will take it’s toll.

  The personality cultists will undoubtedly cling the longest.
• tinman1967 December 27th, 2009 at 10:20 am «

  It’s politics as usual.
• Hugh December 27th, 2009 at 10:31 am «

  It’s politics as usual on the Titanic.

  Fixed that for you.
• Cujo359 December 27th, 2009 at 11:35 am «

  “Not feasible politically” is a great excuse to do something, because it seldom involves any actual logic or data. It’s just a feeling, really. Yet, if someone is considered authoritative, it can be persuasive.

  That’s not to say that such statements can’t be backed up by real information. It’s that they don’t have to be.
76. lucky December 27th, 2009 at 9:09 am «

    “I’m sure Obama is a progressive that would help the average American if he thought he could.”

    Not sure about that at all, but it doesn’t really matter, if he can be moved once ‘the island’ moves – count me in on this strategy..
77. lonestarliberal December 27th, 2009 at 9:13 am «

    Just had to thank you, Cenk Uygur, for your kick-ass post! I have been reading your work for a while now–in light of all the disappointment many of us feel in this administration, your clear, powerful voice is critical right now. Keep all that great stuff comin’!
78. billybugs December 27th, 2009 at 9:37 am «

    The best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them , for they are far too stupid to see the fallacy of their arguments
79. TalkingStick December 27th, 2009 at 9:44 am «

    Well. Troll or not the accused poster has certainly disrupted what could have been a useful conversation. (sigh)
• Kelly Canfield December 27th, 2009 at 9:45 am «

  Hmm hmmm. Which was the purpose.
• TalkingStick December 27th, 2009 at 11:05 am «

  Yup
80. briancady413 December 27th, 2009 at 9:46 am «

    See below, #203
81. Kelly Canfield December 27th, 2009 at 9:47 am «

    The long and short of this diary is:

    The Overton Window works from the Left as well as the Right. So, open it.

    And Obama is not the only one. The sustained pressure needs to be on Reid and Pelosi too, so that the whole rest of the elected leadership is moved leftward.
82. badlib December 27th, 2009 at 9:49 am «

    Cenk wrote ‘Let’s get real, we already lost the health care fight. But luckily, something even more important is up next. Financial reform. That’s where we know for a fact the American people have our back. We also already know that Obama’s Treasury Department is a joke. Tim Geithner has fought reformers in the House every step of the way. It’s time to take out a couple of lead pipes and a blow torch and go to work on his ass.’

    This kind of incendiary writing got me banned by trolls on huffpoop! lol Good job Cenk!
• Masoninblue December 27th, 2009 at 9:58 am «

  I’ve also been banned forever from Huffington Post for challenging the assumption that Obama is an honorable man with good intentions surrounded by bad people who influence him to do bad things.
• temptingfate December 27th, 2009 at 10:04 am «

  Well at least you think you know why you got banned. I set up an account and was never less reasonable than I am here more than a year ago. That of course ended up completely unacceptable, though I really never understood why.

  Perhaps I was just too wordy.
• ratfood December 27th, 2009 at 10:13 am «

  Commenting at HuffPo is like putting a message in a bottle and casting it into the ocean… but less efficient.
• Elliott December 27th, 2009 at 10:18 am «

  I completely agree, not much point posting there.
• badlib December 27th, 2009 at 10:19 am «

  Attention all trollin huffpoopers… please flush your pablum twice! wahahaha
• americanbubba December 27th, 2009 at 10:26 am «

  Huffpo has mastered the art of the “Middle”, they ABSOLUTELY CENSOR POSTS – oh excuse me, they MODERATE.
83. Masoninblue December 27th, 2009 at 9:51 am «

    Does he mean well or does he have bad intentions? Come on, don’t be ridiculous. Of course, he means well. But in his own mind, George Bush thought he meant well too (for the most part). I’m positive that Obama thinks that he is doing the best he can to bring about as much change as he can within the limits of this system.

    Cenk,

    I have a very different perception of Barack Obama because I see a man without empathy who believes people deserve what they get because anyone can be anything he or she chooses to be. People who are unhappy with their circumstances in life are responsible for those circumstances and should blame themselves instead of blaming others. He worships power and wealth aggressively and with Machiavellian efficiency and ruthlessness he overcame every obstacle and achieved the impossible by becoming President of the United States. He sees himself as living proof of his beliefs and now he wants to effect change that forces people to accept responsibility for their lives by eliminating all government assistance to the needy and creating a free market economy.

    Barack Obama’s value system and philosophy is as counter progressive as it is possible for a person to be and there isn’t anything we can do to change him. We represent what he despises and this is why he systematically excluded us from having a voice in his administration.

    Barack Obama is a ruthless and dangerous man and we must do everything we can to expose and discredit him so that he has no chance to serve a second term.
84. lucky December 27th, 2009 at 9:54 am «

    “Of course, he means well. But in his own mind, George Bush thought he meant well too (for the most part)”

    Enough of the ‘means well’ nonsense. Bush was a sociopath, period. A heartless, cruel, arrogant, twisted bastard. That’s the truth!

    Any evil character throughout history or literature ‘meant well’ according to what they believed..

    Obama has proven himself to be a Liar. A well-spoken opportunist. Didn’t campaign on public option? – Bull. There is no indication to believe he is anything but. We should operate from that understanding, and let’s see if we can ‘move the island’
85. TheShadowKnows December 27th, 2009 at 9:58 am «

    Why waste time getting blocked by Huffington Post?

    I don’t think HR is lost. If a single Senator can block, or enough Reps. can block, go for it.

    Being forced to buy insurance from the cartel is not a favor to anyone but the cartel. We all will pay extra tribute, whether we are covered or not.

    Giving up on HR show us to be good sports aka – losers.

    Oh Really, we’ll win the next time. Do tell.
• badlib December 27th, 2009 at 10:15 am «

  hahaha I was banned from huffpoop by censor Ben S. for speaking ill of ’2 of amerikas most beloved politicians, Colin Powell and Condoliar Rice’. Huffpoop has become a very lame site indeed.
86. wizardleft1962 December 27th, 2009 at 10:01 am «

    I respectfully disagree that Obama can be “moved to the left” because he is not a “lefty” or “progressive” or “liberal.”

    Obama is a center-right president because that is what he is. When Obama ran against Bobby Rush, a race he lost for the U.S. House, he ran from the right against Rush. Rush beat the crap out of Obama in that race and was the one who called Obama an “elitist.”

    So, for those who know Obama well from his days in Chicago, like both Bruce A. Dixon and Paul Street–whom are both community organizers themselves, neither has any good things to say about Obama.

    I suggest people read the articles written by Paul Street and Bruce Dixon if they think Obama can just be “nudged to the left.” It’s wishful thinking and it’s not gonna happen.

    I know what people want but waiting for Obama to be a “lefty” ain’t gonna happen.
• americanbubba December 27th, 2009 at 10:37 am «

  I believe ALL the red flags were there, we did not want to see them – we wanted so bad a Real CHANGE from the previous 8 years. It is too bad, we had such an opportunity and again I feel the nation has lost another incredible op. I have dozen of friends, associates, colleague that feel the same way. It is heartbreaking to think we had such an opportunity to help so many Americans NOW in a REAL WAY, not a “compromised” way; and REALLY CHANGE THIS COUNTRY. I truly fear we’ve lost the Big One to the Corporations and the Corporatists. Sad.
• wizardleft1962 December 27th, 2009 at 10:49 am «

  Obama is a Fraud….The Democratic Party are frauds and have been for years and years….

  If you are expecting the Democrats to make “change,” you are wasting very valuable time and energy.

  Obama is a center-right guy. Obama has no real political philosophy but he readily rejects the tag of “liberal” or “progressive” saying he wants “common sense solutions.” Obama will never yield or bend to any “liberal” or “progressive” issues.

  If the GOP take over Obama will enact with some of their legislation if it’s corporate friendly because that is what Obama is all about. Obama likes his support from the GOP on his war escalation……

  If there was ever a foreshadowing about Obama’s definite center-right beliefs, it’s the decision to file a brief on behalf of John Yoo in not seeking prosecution against him. So, for anyone still deluding themselves about Obama, this court action regarding Yoo speaks volumes about Obama’s spineless nature. Obama lacks a personal or political backbone. But he is no lefty but a proud center-president and on some issues a right president in the name of his hero Ronald W. Reagan.
87. wizardleft1962 December 27th, 2009 at 10:17 am «

    “Don’t get Sick”

    If your’re old or elderly, “Don’t get Sick” under ObamaCare….

    Yes, the teabaggers are crazy on many things but on ObamaCare and the Elderly, they are right…..If people do some actual reading of the ObamaCare Bill soon you’d realize that this bill is NOT KIND to GRANDMA or GRANDPA….

    It’s a crazy day in America when Sarah Palin makes fools out of the Washington Insiders who do not care about you or I either, because they are basically all millionaires on TV and media whom look at things from elitist viewpoints. What scares the eltists the most are mass movements from the right or left and that is why they attempt to marginalize the so-called “fringes” on the left and right. The elites call the left/right activists the fringes to undermine their legitimacy on issues they might be actually correct about. That “biparistian consensus” out of Washington is just to push their Corporate–Fascist agenda through. The so-called “fringes” detest the hijacking of America…..The Insiders are just happy to loot America and Obama is one of those who enjoys looting America as well as his predecessors dating back to Nixon…..Obama’s hero is Ronald Reagan…..Obama is the same kind of marketing creation that Reagan was as well…..Obama even said what Reagan did in killing so many innocent civilians in Central America was “justified.” Obama has also scolded those whom would find fault with the American Military Empire in his books. Obama never wrote a peer reviewed law journal article out of fear of criticism from his peers but wrote two books which were not peer reviewed. That’s Obama for you.

    Obama is a parasite!!! Rahm Emanuel is a parasite. Joe Biden is a parasite. David Axelrod is a parasite. Kethleen Sebelius is a parasite.

    Even the crazy teabaggers are correct on something. I suggest people really delve into the healthcare bill about coverage for the elderly and what they will not receive in terms of healthcare coverage…..It ain’t pretty and to think the Dems just “love those seniors.”

    If you love your parents, or humanity itself, then you would be appalled by this bill!!!
• tinman1967 December 27th, 2009 at 10:18 am «

  Amen
• badlib December 27th, 2009 at 10:24 am «

  This just in!! Jebus was rushed into a local ER after a construction accident. The examining intern says to him ‘so Mr. Haysoos Krist I see your date of birth here is 12/25/0000 is that correct?’ JC nods. The intern continues ‘Well sir unfortunately you are too poor to have insurance, you are an undocumented alien from a country that does not exist, you don’t have a green card to be a carpenter here and take away a job from an American and so you don’t qualify for any government coverage plans. Further more someone of your age should not be up on a ladder. Due to your advanced age all of your other ailments are pre-existing conditions and would not be covered under any private insurance plans anyway. Maybe the free clinic downtown will help you. We are discharging you immediately, sign here.’
88. tinman1967 December 27th, 2009 at 10:18 am «

    But getting back the topic at hand…..
    I understand prgressives being upset. Barack Obama was viewed by many of you people as being a progressive puppet. It hasn’t turned out that way. Why? Because Obama got some good advisers like Rahm.
89. SusanD December 27th, 2009 at 10:36 am «

    If I could speak to Obama face to face I’d read these two quotes to him. The first is from Herbert Swope:
    “I cannot give you the formula for success but I can give you the formula for failure – which is: try to please everybody.”

    And the everybody means all those in D.C. and all those who head corporations. Obviously not the people.

    And this one from an unknown source:
    ” The chief cause of failure and unhappiness is trading what we want most for what we want at the moment.”
90. MrWhy December 27th, 2009 at 10:45 am «

    I don’t have time to read all the comments, but I wanted to commend CenkU for his post/editorial. It seems to me most (Jane, Marcy, Christy, Bmaz, Spencer, Lisa, Tbogg), of the frontline bloggers here @ FDL have been saying most of this out loud for quite awhile, but Cenk says it explicitly and in concert with Jane collaborating (not colluding) with Norquist. Unless you are willing to piss Obama/Emanuel off by following through on your promises, they’ll ignore you. You can’t just bark, you have to (be willing to) occasionally bite.

    Get rid of Lieberman and a handful of Blue Dogs, and you have an opportunity for progressive change. Punish the Blue Dogs for acting like Republicans, you might have an opportunity for progressive change. Unless you punish Blue Dogs for acting like Republicans, things will never change.
91. thegris December 27th, 2009 at 10:45 am «

    If the progressive caucus in the House blocked a healthcare bill without a public option that might get Obama’s attention.. just as a lead-up to blocking financial giveaways reform.
• wizardleft1962 December 27th, 2009 at 10:54 am «

  The Progressive Caucus will soon cave to Obama just like the Black Caucus and the Women’s Caucus……They all bow to Emperor Obama even as they get on TV and tell you it’s not over yet and much to be worked out….

  The only thing to be worked out, is getting the bill to look like the Senate one, all while feigning they “tried” and “tried” as this HCR bill was cooked a long time ago. The fix on this HCR bill was fixed back in March…..The appearance of working to make it better is to quell the outrage of the public…..

  See, delay or working out the last details of this bill is about trying to quell the public’s outrage…..

  One of the big reasons they want to get this bill jammed through is because they do not want the public to know the real details of this bill like the microchipping implanting section of this Fascist bill. That is just one part of the bill which is disgusting…..

  When I told one of my friends about some of the provisions in this bill, he replied, “No wonder why they want to pass this so fast.”
• Teddy Partridge December 27th, 2009 at 12:15 pm «

  Can you please provide a page number or paragraph cite for “microchipping implanting” in either the Senate or House version of the bill?
• wizardleft1962 December 27th, 2009 at 1:02 pm «

  Microchiping included in Healthcare Bill?

  Human Microchips included in Health Care Bill under:

  National Medical Device registry

  Sub Title C-11 Sec:2521

  “Buried deep within the over 1,000 pages of the massive US Health Care Bill (PDF) in a “non-discussed” section titled: Subtitle C-11 Sec. 2521— National Medical Device Registry, and which states its purpose as:
  “The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the ‘registry’) to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device that—‘‘(A) is or has been used in or on a patient; and ‘‘(B) is a class III device; or ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable.”

  In “real world speak”, according to this report, this new law, when fully implemented, provides the framework for making the United States the first Nation in the World to require each and every one of its citizens to have implanted in them a radio-frequency identification (RFID) microchip for the purpose of controlling who is, or isn’t, allowed medical care in their country.
• sherwood December 27th, 2009 at 1:24 pm «

  “The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the ‘registry’) to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device that—‘‘(A) is or has been used in or on a patient; and ‘‘(B) is a class III device; or ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable.”

  In “real world speak”, according to this report, this new law, when fully implemented, provides the framework for making the United States the first Nation in the World to require each and every one of its citizens to have implanted in them a radio-frequency identification (RFID) microchip for the purpose of controlling who is, or isn’t, allowed medical care in their country.

  In “real world speak” – you freaking conspiracy loon – it means having a register for products of medical equipment where their effectiveness and safety record can be kept. I.e. is this (implantable) pacemaker more safe than this other pacemaker. Maybe we should have federal guidelines that this implantable hearing device should be used – because its safer, more effective and cheaper to boot; we could get that information from the register.

  What the hell is wrong with you people? Don’t you care you’re starting to act more looney than the freaking teabaggers!? Are you teabaggers?
• Teddy Partridge December 27th, 2009 at 1:41 pm «

  No need to call other commenters names if your argument can stand on its own (which I absolutely believe, in this case, it can).
• sherwood December 27th, 2009 at 2:33 pm «

  No need to call other commenters names if your argument can stand on its own (which I absolutely believe, in this case, it can).

  Hm, sorry you’re absolutely right (and sorry wizardleft). I was not being very friendly.

  I have to say this though (and this is on the general level, not relating to wizardleft whatsoever): I’m somewhat torn in thinking that while everyone deserves respect and a polite discourse, on the other hand there must be some form of incentive that makes you think twice about what you’re about to throw out into the common zone.

  I’m f.e. not quite sure if Sarah Palin deserves respect when she wrote that Obama wanted to put her disabled downs syndrome kid in front of a “death panel”. Actually, I think that what Sarah needed was being publicly confronted with the in reality abnormal level of disrespect and lack of common courtesy she treated the president with and made to publicly apologize. In other words, on some level you just have to own your own shit.
• malagodi December 27th, 2009 at 1:32 pm «

  Did you read what you were typing as you typed it? A database of devices.

  wait, now I hear the helicopter… no that was the landscaper.

  I’m sure we’ll hear plenty about the chips when the other nutcases who brought us the death panels get wind of this latest threat.
• MrWhy December 27th, 2009 at 4:35 pm «

  In case anyone was inclined to believe the Wiz wuz correct, here’s what RFID blogger Mark Roberti has to say about this:

  So basically, the bill put forth by the U.S. House of Representatives wants to track the results of these [implantable, life supporting or life-sustaining] devices and link them to a registry so a doctor looking to implant a device in a patient can check whether it actually worked in previous patients who received the device. There is no mention of RFID, and no mention of tracking individuals who receive the device.

  I’m not sure if bloggers simply can’t read, or if they are using this kind of misinformation to scare people on purpose. Either way, it’s an unfortunate part of the Internet that we just have to accept. I do find it ironic that some of those who oppose RFID because they claim it will be abused are themselves abusing the openness of the Internet. Oh, well.
• wizardleft1962 December 27th, 2009 at 5:09 pm «

  In early September, 2009, up to 200 Alzheimer’s patients living in the Palm Beach, Florida area were implanted with the microchip by the company VeriChip absolutely free.

  The chip, which is about the size of a grain of rice, contains a 16-digit identification number which is scanned at a hospital. Once the number is placed in a database, it can provide crucial medical information. People are already lining up for the VeriChip, but it’s already stirred up controversy.

  The story, carried by ABC TV News, caused one reporter to ask, “Is Big Brother watching?”

  The relative permanence is a big reason why Marc Rotenberg, of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, is suspicious about the motives of the company, which charges an annual fee to keep clients’ records.

  The company charges $20 a year for customers to keep a “one-pager” on its database — a record of blood type, allergies, medications, driver’s license data and living-will directives. For $80 a year, it will keep an individual’s full medical history. In recent days, there have been rumors on Wall Street, and elsewhere, of the potential uses for RFID in humans: the chipping of U.S. soldiers, of inmates, or of migrant workers, to name a few.

  Believe as you may or wish—when they force you to be implanted to get health insurance, don’t say you never knew it about…

  Laugh at me all you want…..I am sure you still think Obama is a “progressive” as well.

  To Learn more and to become more educated about RFID and implant devices, I suggest you all consult Katherine Albrecht’s blog and writings about this. She has appeared on the beloved Countdown with Keith Olbermann program and is Harvard educated. Dr. Albrecht specializes in this and is an expert on these matters.
• malagodi December 27th, 2009 at 5:27 pm «

  And so, in a thread based on Cenk’s post “What Progressives Can Do to Move Obama Left” we’re talking about the threat of RFID.

  BTW, RFID has been promoted to investors as the next big thing for about a decade. Many an investor is still waiting for their returns on investment.

  Oh, and I personally have located the very grateful owner of a lost dog because the county I live in requires all adopted animals to be chipped. My guess is that animal control was experimenting with the system on behalf of…
• wizardleft1962 December 27th, 2009 at 5:38 pm «

  I am anti-Big Brother….

  It’s obvious you are pro-Big Brother……and so, too is Obama and Emanuel and Biden and Hillary–all Big Brother Politicos—that is why Obama just loves FISA and the Patriot Act……

  Lecture someone else dude, alright? Because you have no clue what you are talking about….

  Reality sucks for some but I prefer it than to have my head in the sand making beliebe it does not exist so I “feel better.”

  Sorry—Obama’s HCR bill includes all kinds of invasion of privacy provisions and singling out of old people and getting rid of Medicare as we now know it.
• malagodi December 27th, 2009 at 5:43 pm «

  I always preferred Homage to Catalonia over 1984.
• sherwood December 27th, 2009 at 6:09 pm «

  Look, Wizard, It’s quite obvious for anyone to see that the part of the bill that you quoted does not contain anything about neither rfid chips nor forced implantations.

  Really if you think this is a productive way to spend your time, I suggest you do the following before continuing to spend mine:

  1) Read the bill.
  2) Find the text in the bill that you think is most likely to authorize the involuntary implantation of Rfid chips into US citizens.
  3) Learn enough law so that you’re at least barely able to judge if you got a reasonable interpretation there or not.

  Before you go out witnessing you got a freaking responsibility to get a modicum of authority and knowledge on the subject. Otherwise you’re just spending our time without having had the courtesy of first spending your own time. That’s just lazy.
• wizardleft1962 December 27th, 2009 at 6:20 pm «

  You NEED TO READ THE BILL and GET INTO REALITY….

  It’s already happened to elderly people and the bill does contain it….You need to READ the BILL!!!!

  And stop being so naive.
• Teddy Partridge December 27th, 2009 at 12:13 pm «

  It is, in fact, the ONLY way to get Obama’s attention: to thwart him.
92. badlib December 27th, 2009 at 10:59 am «

    How progressives can move Obama to the left? Simple and effective. 1. Tie him to one of 3 hard chairs in a small room. Duct tape his mouth shut. 3. Put Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann unrestrained in the other 2 chairs with instructions to educate the president on what America is really about. 4. Lock the door for 1 hour. 5. Open the door, resuscitate the President and PRESTO! We get a newly minted progressive president immediately. Problem solved.
93. fuckno December 27th, 2009 at 11:03 am «

    Obama watched as Clinton’s BFF’s son screwed the population mercilessly and with no consequences to himself, and realized that “not getting fooled again” is a myth, or applicable to electorates of other than the #1 country on the face of a burning planet.

    So, there you have it, and what do you plan to do about it? – srsly, what?
94. factanonverba December 27th, 2009 at 11:21 am «

    Obama is an immovable object. The sooner you realize this, the better off you’ll be.

    Furthermore the problem is deeper than just Obama or Rahm. There is a mindset that has gripped DC for a generation that what is good for Wall Street is good for the country.

    Don’t blame you for trying though but you need to change values and that ain’t easy.
95. wizardleft1962 December 27th, 2009 at 11:22 am «

    Check out the Anti-Rahm Emanuel Healthcare Advertisement. Rahm = Weak @:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNAZHcKP6QY&feature=player_embedded

    Progressive Change Committee Advertisement playing in Chicago, Illinois!!!

    “A lot of us back home hope Rahm Emanuel is fighting for people like us as White House Chief of Staff. But if he sides with the insurance companies and undermines the public option, well, he won’t have many fans in Chicago,” says the constituent Joseph Breitenbucher in the ad.

    He tells the story of an insurance company trying to avoid paying for his spinal surgery, but his wife helped him out because she knew the particulars.

    Emanuel has never ruled out an eventual return to public office. This ad will not do him any favors with the people of Chicago.

    Obama has already made his many decisions….Only the delusional still think he can be moved….Obama has never been with the left and Emanuel detests the left even more so. Obama will NOT BE MOVED TO THE LEFT EVER!!!! Obama is a CORPORATIST!!!!

    Can you deniers get that through your thick skulls?
96. TheShadowKnows December 27th, 2009 at 11:46 am «

    For me, it was speaking factually (ill) of the Clinton feeling pain game. (Nothing personally offensive to be sure. Even after tweaking for the nun’s ears, it still wouldn’t fly.) This kind (HP) of tweaking is churlish and childish. It’s Ariana’s Party, and she’ll censor if she wants to. Fine, the heck with your party. It basically a bookmarks page, and linker to corporate news any way. NO BIG LOSS to me.
97. Masoninblue December 27th, 2009 at 12:03 pm «

    Earlier in this thread, someone identified rampant corruption in government as a unifying issue for all Americans, no matter their political views. The agonizing slow-motion train-wreck that produced what Obama proudly calls “health reform” was bought and paid for by Big PhRMA and the Insurance Companies (an obscure but well financed punk band of questionable origin and lamentable ability) and inscribed in stone before Congress unwrapped and began to toy with it to the rhythmic thump of $1.4 M per day.

    And then there is the matter of the $800 B slush fund established at Fannie and Freddy’s Saloon, which is located in an outhouse next to the vegetable garden on the White House grounds.

    Thee two situations present a thrilling opportunity to neuter and imprison Obama, Rahm, and their congressional coconspirators in a political doghouse and keep them there until America replaces them at election time.

    And then there’s the God awful war to consider.

    Considering the virtual all-you-can-eat buffet of delicious populist issues with which to wreak unending havoc on those who seek to steal our heritage as they destroy us with the Shock Doctrine, we should pause and thank the gods for our good fortune rather than wallow in helpless fear and depression. We truly are blessed to have indefatigable, strong, and visionary leaders like Jane Hamsher to lead all Americans to a better place.
98. TheShadowKnows December 27th, 2009 at 12:05 pm «

    I think Cenk is a good thinker. I have met him, called into The Young Turks way back when. Usually very good analysis.

    I disagree with his premise on this post. (When he said c’mon now, or something like that).

    If BO WAS progressive BEFORE becoming insulated by Washington insiders, wouldn’t there have been more INITIAL Progressive appointments even before inauguration?

    If BO WAS progressive BEFORE becoming insulated by Washington insiders, wouldn’t he at the VERY LEAST, made appointments NOT of the Wrecking Crew Geithner and Summers Gang?

    If BO WAS progressive BEFORE becoming insulated by Washington insiders, wouldn’t he have called for Too Big To Fail MEANS Too Big To Exist?

    If BO WAS progressive BEFORE becoming insulated by Washington insiders, wouldn’t he have moved to REALLY reverse many despicable Bush/Cheney abuses of the Constitution?

    No Cenk, we’ve been had by a Chicago Hustler who had no problem doing Real Estate deals with a Chicago wheeler-Dealer.

    But he did NONE of these things, not early on, not now.

    When Obama is giving a noble sounding speech, I hear his now meaningless words with my ears, but when I read his face and eyes, what my mind hears Obama saying is

    “You F’ing dumb a**holes. Eat some of this shit. And like it.”
99. norcallib December 27th, 2009 at 12:28 pm «

    I don’t agree much with Cenk’s analysis of who Obama is, but I do agree with what he suggests we should do about it.

    Obama isn’t a progressive. Never was, never will be. Obama, Ploufe, Axelrod and the rest knew they would never flip enough Hilary supporters to win the nomination. So he used his political gifts to inspire liberals/progressives to donate and vote, and do the grunt work, especially in the caucus states. Now he’s paying huge price for raising progressive expectations so high. As much as I hate to say it, Obama used us and now he’s kicking us to the curb.

    Cenk is right that we must flex our power to make them move to the left. IMO, they have to fear us, too, as unpalatable as that may be to the readers here. The Dem leadership has to fear the loss of our votes, passion, and most of all, our money. The threat has to be real. Of course, we all know the threat is not real. With a significant portion of the “base” eating a shit sandwhich, and insisting it is steak, Washington Dems are just laughing at us.
100. Masoninblue December 27th, 2009 at 12:49 pm «

     The political battle today is whether government should serve corporations or people. Obama and Rahm are for sale and they will do anything corporations want them to do in exchange for money. Most people in Congress are the same. The rich and privileged who own and control the corporations obviously will pay the government to pass laws that benefit them and the corporations they own.

     The best interests of corporations and the rich and privileged rarely coincide with the best interests of people.

     Everyone should take a few minutes to list all of the issues upon which they believe people of all political persuasions can agree that serve their needs and interests instead of corporations. These issues constitute the common ground and fertile soil for successful non-violent revolution.
• jdcompsci December 27th, 2009 at 4:58 pm «

  Well put !!
101. TalkingStick December 27th, 2009 at 12:56 pm «

     The Dem leadership has to fear the loss of our votes, passion, and most of all, our money. The threat has to be real.

     Aye. There’s the rub.

     Suggestions?

     A third party? It really wouldn’t take a lot to tip an election.
     Marches and demonstrations?
     We also need our songs.
     Begin with Ernie Ford’s Sixteen Tons. (I owe my soul to the company store)
     I was and remain convinced the music had a lot to do with persuading the public to question Vietnam. of course the capitalist songsters are now obsessed with policing downloads.
102. Masoninblue December 27th, 2009 at 1:03 pm «

     Saint Peter don’t you call me cuz I cain’t go,

     I owe my soul to the company store.
103. weimerbinx December 27th, 2009 at 1:10 pm «

     its all pretty simple.
     progressives repeatedly violate the number one rule in any negotiations: you always have to be willing to walk away from the table if the offer from the other side is not adequate or acceptable.
     plain and simple.
     if progressives want to be taken seriously, they need to set down plain markers and say no, if their demands are not met.
     until they do that, no one will ever take them seriously and they will get rolled time after time after time.
     the progressive caucus is the biggest caucus in the house.
     i do not believe there are similar caucuses in the senate, but if there were, progressives would control the biggest caucus in the senate.
     at least on the democratic side.
     being unwilling to use their power in order to negotiate effectively means that progressives will never achieve their goals.
     it is really very simple, but it will take leadership and courage to put progressives in the position of strength their numbers should allow them to enjoy.
     unfortunately, leadership and courage are two qualities that have been sadly lacking on the left for many, many years.
104. wizardleft1962 December 27th, 2009 at 1:18 pm «

     HCR BILL COOKED LONG TIME AGO—HCR COOKED BY MID-MARCH FOLKS!!!!!

     businessweek.com

     Cover Story August 6, 2009, 5:00PM EST
     The Health Insurers Have Already Won

     How UnitedHealth and rival carriers, maneuvering behind the scenes in Washington, shaped health-care reform for their own benefit
     By Chad Terhune and Keith Epstein

     “….As the health reform fight shifts this month from a vacationing Washington to congressional districts and local airwaves around the country, much more of the battle than most people realize is already over. The likely victors are insurance giants such as UnitedHealth Group (UNH), Aetna (AET), and WellPoint (WLP). The carriers have succeeded in redefining the terms of the reform debate to such a degree that no matter what specifics emerge in the voluminous bill Congress may send to President Obama this fall, the insurance industry will emerge more profitable. Health reform could come with a $1 trillion price tag over the next decade, and it may complicate matters for some large employers. But insurance CEOs ought to be smiling…..Executives from UnitedHealth certainly showed no signs of worry on the mid-July day that Senate Democrats proposed to help pay for reform with a new tax on the insurance industry. Instead, UnitedHealth parked a shiny 18-wheeler outfitted with high-tech medical gear near the Capitol and invited members of Congress aboard. Inside the mobile diagnostic center, which enables doctors to examine distant patients via satellite television, Representative Jim Matheson didn’t disguise his wonderment. “Fascinating, fascinating,” said the Democrat from Utah. “Amazing.”"

     “….The industry has already accomplished its main goal of at least curbing, and maybe blocking altogether, any new publicly administered insurance program that could grab market share from the corporations that dominate the business. UnitedHealth has distinguished itself by more deftly and aggressively feeding sophisticated pricing and actuarial data to information-starved congressional staff members. With its rivals, the carrier has also achieved a secondary aim of constraining the new benefits that will become available to tens of millions of people who are currently uninsured. That will make the new customers more lucrative to the industry….Matheson, whose Blue Dogs command 52 votes in the House, can’t offer enough praise for UnitedHealth, the largest company of its kind. “The tried and true message of their advocacy,” he says, “is making sure the information they provide is accurate and considered.”"

     “….Despite such episodes, UnitedHealth is generally well received in legislative circles in Washington. In late May its in-house point man on reform, Simon Stevens, hand-delivered a report to key senators detailing ways to save an estimated $540 billion in federal spending over 10 years. A week later, on June 4, Stevens accompanied UnitedHealth’s chief executive, Stephen J. Hemsley, to a meeting with Senator Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), an influential moderate member of the Senate Finance Committee. Conrad has since led an effort to create nonprofit medical cooperatives that would operate much like utility co-ops as a substitute for a federally run plan. With less heft than a proposed national plan, the state medical cooperatives would pose a far weaker competitive threat to private insurers….Conrad says in an interview that the co-op idea evolved independently of any industry input. Skirmishing over the public plan could jeopardize efforts at reform, he warns. Co-ops, he argues, are “the only alternative that’s got much of a shot” to gain sufficient votes in the Senate.”

     Read the entire article @:
     http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/09_33/b4143034820260.htm
• perris December 27th, 2009 at 1:22 pm «

  wizard, that post deserves it
  s own diary and I believe it would make front page
• malagodi December 27th, 2009 at 4:45 pm «

  Of course, Mr. Wizard. Of course it was cooked. This ruling coalition was not invented last year, it’s been in place for a good long while. All during what is now called “The American Century.”

  So, like what were you expecting?

  Back in July, I began calling for, and trying to interest ‘leaders’ in the idea of a 2 day national sick out for national health care. Specifically the 2 days right before Labor Day. The similarity to the struggle for the 8 hour day is quite compelling.

  Why did I do that? Because I knew that if this was left to the legislature and the executive, it would not ~could not~ be done for the benefit of the people. This whole campaign needed to be waged as a popular struggle, not solely a legislative one. Oh well.

  While I agree with Sherwood on quite a lot, my view is that this is a ruling coalition of two private parties whose common interest (other than themselves) is the preservation and protection of the old industrial and banking economy. It’s that economy that’s killing the planet.

  In this view the parties are not identical or even similar. Which one is dominant is important. If the Democratic Party was not dominant at this point, we wouldn’t even be talking about HCR. They’d probably be trying to privatize social security again. If the Republicans were dominant, we’d still be defending evolution and climatology.

  Did you think that Barack Obama was Sir Lancelot? Or, to bring Sherwood into this again, did you think he was Robin Hood?

  Let the revolutionaries among us show me their revolution.
• sherwood December 27th, 2009 at 6:16 pm «

  While I agree with Sherwood on quite a lot, my view is that this is a ruling coalition of two private parties whose common interest (other than themselves) is the preservation and protection of the old industrial and banking economy. It’s that economy that’s killing the planet.

  I mostly agree with that! I would maybe differ on detail, and focus more on personalized elections and campaign financing through donations rather than taxes, making politicians beholden to and owned by big business to a far bigger extent than most other western democracies.
• malagodi December 27th, 2009 at 6:26 pm «

  google me and write. I’m not Giovanni.
105. wizardleft1962 December 27th, 2009 at 1:21 pm «

     Anyone wonder what a Ted Stevens trial would have revealed about members of the Senate and others in Congress?

     I wonder why the Obama administration and Eric Holder let Stevens off the hook? Nobody gets off for “goodwill reasons,” but there has to be much more to this story than meets the eye….

     Food for thought anyhow.
106. wizardleft1962 December 27th, 2009 at 1:31 pm «

     Off to the bookstore in New Haven, CT….See ya later folks….believe as you may…..

     RFID is in the healthcare reform bill…..I don’t care if you want to be in denial about it……But don’t come ctying here or anywhere else when they make you do it to get coverage…..Just like the Obama is “progressive” crap I keep having to listen to.
107. sherwood December 27th, 2009 at 2:12 pm «

     Pretty much with you here Sherwood.

     Here’s my difficulty (not with you): “Without a vision, the people perish.” How do we move the window, or as I call it shift the spectrum Greenward?

     Sure, I hear you. But it’s easier to push the vision while in oposition, and it’s especially hard when the vision slowly becomes real (15%), births are messy.

     What we’ve got is a bad bill

     It could be much better, but I dont agree it’s “bad”.

     one that most people will not like because they’ll see no favorable change in their own situation (I said most).

     Granted. If we’re to trust the CBO (something i’m prone to, but suspect a lot of you guys are not), this bill will over time put 30M (senate version) on health insurance.

     I think one (of many) reason(s) that many on the left are more negative than warranted is the fact that almost all the discussion right now is about the individual mandate without the public option. Then we have the subsidies which is arguably the most clear act of progressive lawmaking in a generation. It takes 200B$ a year and gives it to the most poor.

     But what is totally forgotten right now is the employer mandate. Granted, there’s only a clear employer mandate in the house bill, while the one in the senate bill only applies to companies that have at least one employee that recieves subsidies.

     Anyhow, it is not the case that all of those people that get insurance b/o the bill will do so because of the individual mandate in combination with the subsidies. In fact a chunk of the newly insured will be people that gets coverage through their employer b/o the employer mandate.

     Then we have the expansion of medicaid (single payer!) to include everyone below 133%/150% of the poverty line. That’s millions of new people that gets single payer. Etc. The debate is tilted. And it’s not fair, because it does not cover what’s actually in the bills.

     So, I’m not so sure that most people will not like the bill, once it’s implemented. I think most people will see at least moderate improvement. Sure, that may not seem like a great deal if compared to what could have been, or when hearing a lot of crazy scare talk about death panels or mandatory rfid implants.

     But once law, the situation changes pretty dramatically. The death panels and rfid chips which never materialized become irrelevant.

     And the improvement, moderate as it was, becomes a real improvement that you know what it is and that someone wants to take away from you.

     Because that is what the republicans will have to run on, if they want to run against the health care bill after it’s implemented. They have to run on repeal. And even if the subsidies, the employer mandate, and the consumer protection stuff seem like catpiss now it’s another deal when someone runs on taking it away.

     This, coupled with ~a lot~ of youth and activist disappointment or anger with Obama leaves us without a vision for the people through 2012.

     Sure, but motivated by what? I don’t get it? The way I see it:

     - We don’t torture anymore. Should count for something.
     - We’re scaling down Iraq, and up Afghanistan. Maybe the latter fact disappoints some, but that’s exactly what Obama (and all other democratic candidates since and including 2004) ran on.
     - We now go to the global warming conference and work to get and improve the deal, instead of going there to sink the deal.
     - We put a solid progressive on the supreme court; one that will not take away a womens right to choose.
     - We get a partial, incremtal win on healt care. One that will actually get it to those poor people that don’t have it today and need it the most. We get some small, meaningful improvements for the rest of us. We get 30M more insured and all the good that does for society. So, we did not get to “stick it to the insurance industry” today. So what? We’ll stick it to them tomorrow.

     Voting is an act of shopping, of choosing a brand. It is rarely a policy analysis. The Obama brand has lost its luster, and asking people to buy into the Democratic party is like asking people to invest in Saab.

     Sure, I agree. That’s definitely true, Obama can’t run on the same platform in 2012, and he probably never could have.

     And let’s not pretend that half of the “yes we can” message was about “yes we can elect a black guy with a name that sounds like Osama” and “yes we can get rid of George W Bush”. When it happened, that was for sure half of it, even if we come to believe it was about other stuff in retrospect.

     So sure, he’ll have to run on something else. And hopefully the republicans will nominate Palin, then voter turn out on the left will be trivial.

     But my point is that even if it’s understandable, it’s not quite fair to feel that it’s a Saab. Or, rather – there’s something deeply wrong with the democratic infrastructure and democratic voters if we are not able to win, and rule, without turning on ourselves, shooting ourselves in the foot and throwing it all away. Typically, the repubs – who are not unused to winning and ruling, since the early 80s – have no problem with keeping their ranks together while in power. They just focus on the godless liberal homo traiters thats coming for them and problem solved.

     The system is legally and structurally stacked against any third party. A new party has to be big enough to take over nationally and displace one of the existing parties to be anything other than a spoiler.

     Yes, that’s why I think there is room for a grassroots, nonpartisan movement to advocate and push representative state level vote counting for the house of representatives. The factions of the right also have an interest in breaking free from the two party system. There’s no reason why a libertarian necessarily has anything in common with an evangelical christian.

     Replacing one of the two existing parties with a new one will only solve so much. The main problem is two parties having to accommodate the views of hundreds of millions, and it will remain as long as there’s only two to choose from.

     You’re absolutely right, the whole temple must be destroyed, or we must find another way to influence the clergy.

     I agree 100%, and I hope such a way could be to pursue two strategies. On the one hand you work inside the system, inside the democratic party to further as progressive policies as feasible. There, you can only achieve so much as is possible within the existing system.

     The other, parallell strategy is independent grassroots movement that can push issues that the existing parties are unable to do. Like constitutional reform f.e.
• sherwood December 27th, 2009 at 2:19 pm «

  Errata: “And let’s not pretend that half of the “yes we can” message was [not] about …”
• TalkingStick December 27th, 2009 at 4:41 pm «

  The system is legally and structurally stacked against any third party. A new party has to be big enough to take over nationally and displace one of the existing parties to be anything other than a spoiler.

  That is true. But the fear of losing votes to a spoiler progressive party can have its impact on the current Democratic establishment. Losing to the GOP because of a spoiler is losing all the same.
• malagodi December 27th, 2009 at 5:37 pm «

  Talking, that post was mine originally.

  If you take my proposition that this is a ruling coalition, then losing doesn’t mean starvation, banishment or execution. It only means that the subdominant party gets less of the spoils.

  It’s the people who lose, not the party.
• milly December 27th, 2009 at 5:39 pm «

  Third parties have no way of winning unless the right and the left are angry.This is happening to Landriu in Louisiana. Here in ME the conservatives are also angry at snowe. Why I don’t know. I guess for talking to democrats.The right has gone right wing wacko…even neocons can’t make them happy.

  I am going by the online Bangor Daily News . Mid and upper state ME. Also Portland Press. ..lots of conservative comments.Angry at snowe and collins. Eating their own now.
108. sherwood December 27th, 2009 at 2:22 pm «

     Errata: “[representatives proportional to votes, counted on the] state level”
109. ssss December 27th, 2009 at 4:12 pm «

     HOWARD DEAN THE ONLY HONEST FIGHTER IN THE LOT!

     Thanks for bringing this out. For those younger one needs to go back to Jimmy Carter, another fighter made to look marginal by the establishment powers, to find an honest politician with the people’s interest in constant focus.

     SS
• milly December 27th, 2009 at 4:44 pm «

  I second that.