They don’t have enough people in Congress to launch partisan witch hunts and fishing expeditions like they did in the 90s. They have 41 in the Senate, and the Dixiecrats are long dead or became Republicans (unlike in 1993).

Yeah, but how many Democrats have had their wills broken and will perform on command when pushed by their Republican masters?  Sometimes I worry they forget they won.

But there’s always the lingering fear that the only way someone could rise to the top in politics is to sell his soul to wingnuttery.

He is going disappoint the people quite badly at some point. I think that’s guaranteed. And probably do it more than once.

The trick for him is to do it as little as possible. The trick for us is not to freak out when it happens and to keep pressure on him to do it as little as possible.

You know, I’m not worried about individual Senators so much as I am about Harry “No Spine” Reid. I’d feel better with a different Majority Leader.

....um, “house of mirrors”?…

Amazing picture. Thanks for that.

Honestly, what everything since the election has really reinforced for me is how much I would never ever ever want that job.

I am not up to that level of responsibility. I’m not sure anyone is. Of course Obama will disappoint people from time-to-time. Of course he’ll make mistakes.

George W. Bush didn’t make mistakes. The - oops! - lack of WMD in Iraq? A “disappointment.” Abu Ghraib? A “disappointment.”

One of the things I like best about Obama is his apparent willingness to say “I made a bone-headed mistake.” To learn from errors, to adjust his preconceptions when reality intrudes.

I don’t mind a President making mistakes or disappointing people. I mind a President pretending (or worse still, honestly believing) that the mistakes never happened, that nobody was disappointed, that reality didn’t have a different opinion.

The one thing I really hope Obama does, and the one thing I think will really combat cynicism, is simply being honest about things, including mistakes. To say “this is what I’d *like* to do; this is what we *can* do.”

People actually like being leveled with.

I think there are some Democrats/leftists who are afraid of governing, and who are eager for Obama to disappoint them, so that they can feel righteous and superior.

I think there are some Democrats/leftists who are afraid of governing, and who are eager for Obama to disappoint them, so that they can feel righteous and superior.
rea on 01/13 at 08:26 PM

You are correct. Really, after the last eight years, if you are still using “not a dime’s worth of difference!” as your mantra you’re more interested in striking what you think is a cool pose rather than actually wanting to solve problems.

During the election my girlfriend and I stopped putting money into our retirement accounts, instead we donated it to Obama, figuring that a free and democratic United States was a better investment.  A lot of people gave him all the time and money we could scrape up, we wanted our country back.  Now we have to remember that he is not our savior, he is our president. 

I hope he lives up to his promise more often than not, and like Andrew said, I hope he can recognize when he falls short.

Obama is your Gorbachev.

I’ve been disappointed with every president we’ve had during my adult years, starting with Jimmy Carter and going (mostly downhill) from there.  (At least there was no doubt that Carter was a decent human being, as he amply proved after he left the presidency.)

Actually, I take that back.  George Bush Jr. was every bit as bad as I expected him to be, and more…

Obama seems like a straight shooter who doesn’t have some mindless devotion to a political philosophy he must pursue regardless of how it fucks everything up.  But of course, he’s more blank slate than known quantity at this point.

Since America blew the 2000 and 2004 elections, maybe Obama can redeem us…

“Obama is your Gorbachev.”

That’s an interesting thought.  Can you flesh it out some more?…

Hey is he posing in Bali?

No, I think that’s his house in Illinois.  Why?

I’m plenty worried about the second option. I do think the GOP will obstruct every single thing they can. On one hand, hey, they’re gonna look like horrible people, and they’ll have a decent chance of performing horribly in the next elections. On the other hand, dammit, unemployment is not a damn bit of fun, and I want someone working to fix the economy.

“Why? “

It’s all the exotic stuff such as the statue and framed drawings, don’t forget the rug as well. Said exotic stuff being threating to fundies or xenophobic Americans.

“they’re gonna look like horrible people, and they’ll have a decent chance of performing horribly in the next elections.”

Don’t forget the spin machine and the army of imbelcies they can summon up from Rush Limbaugh fans. Those are just branches of the Republican monster octupus they can bring forth.

Amanda wrote:

The Republicans have run the show for so long, corrupting the process so badly for the interests of the rich and the right wing loonies to the degree that it’s quite reasonable to think that well-meaning Democrats step into the house of mirrors and lose all sense of reality, thinking that they they really might be socialists if they suggest that rich people should pay taxes, too.

Rather short-term thinking there, I’d say.  The Republicans had a congressional majority for a whopping twelve years, six of which were during a Democratic Administration.  The Republicans held the White House for the last eight years, two of which were during a Democratic congressional majority.Since 1961, when President Kennedy was inaugurated, we have had unified Democratic rule (White House and Congress controlled by the Democrats at the same time) for 14 years, unified Republican rule for six years, and divided government for 28 years.

Really, after the last eight years, if you are still using “not a dime’s worth of difference!” as your mantra you’re more interested in striking what you think is a cool pose rather than actually wanting to solve problems.

Well said. I’m looking at you, Kucinich voters.

We should note that it’s easy for the lunatic fringes on both the left and right to remain ideologically pure, because they never have to do any of the hard work of governing. Politics is intended to be a system of compromise. It’s unfortunate that the people we have to compromise with are so frequently wingnuts, but that’s the price we pay for being able to make some changes that positively impact the lives of regular people. It’s better to get some things done, and shift the mood of the electorate further toward our position, rather than refuse to compromise, accomplish nothing, and then have the consolation of being able to strike a pose of martyrdom and rage at all the sellouts in office.

Thanks or shitting on my cool Amanda.  I keep vacillating between guarded optimism and cynical despair.  Harry Reid scares the shit out of me.  I know Lieberman has had enough of blowing the chief executive and will now stand up, wipe off his chin, and start holding hearings on everything Obama does.  The village is just waiting to see if the new black neighbor is as bad as they think.  Oh well.

Obama is your Gorbachev.

I’m hoping he’s not their Friedrich Ebert.

While I share your fear, Amanda, I have to comment on something else that I was fearing when I read this post. I’m not too keen on the left-hate that’s already cropped up here in comments and elsewhere against anyone who dares criticize Obama from the left. Do so, and you’re liable to be branded as a poseur, an extremist, “just like the Republicans we hated,” ideologue, you name it. The willful suspension of belief, the failure to consider that Obama’s “pragmatism” and “competence over ideology” might also a pose, also an ideology that he can ram up into any problem, regardless of how well the circumstances fit, doesn’t seem to register. And if you dare point to this possibility, or dare I say, probability, the wailing begins.

Might there be a modicum of respect for those on the left who aren’t fervent supporters of Obama, based on a sense that this lack of support is based on principles and that principles are, in fact, a good thing to maintain, and can, in fact, be used to pull and push Obama towards policy that helps people? “Compromise” is one way to get things done. Organizing is another. One requires we “work with the other side.” The other involves the creation of new sides… and one of those sides is to the left of Obama, where there are legitimate critics with legitimate gripes.

Yeah, I know, he “hasn’t even started yet,” but history moves fast and it’s smart to make intelligent predictions based on history and a close reading of what the man himself has said and done. We can, and should, be well aware of the path his trajectory seems to be taking him. Glen Greenwald says this all better than I can, speaking to the fact that numerous Obama fans have suddenly found FISA to be no big deal, and Guantanamo a “complex” situation that needs time. This shift, this re-appraisal of the limits of the left, as defined by whatever Obama is currently supporting, is also something we should be wary of.

Obama is your Gorbachev.
dc on 01/13 at 08:30 PM

You mean he is the last President of the United States and he is going to leave the country collapsed into a state of ruin? Uh, thanks I guess.

It’s better to get some things done, and shift the mood of the electorate further toward our position, rather than refuse to compromise, accomplish nothing, and then have the consolation of being able to strike a pose of martyrdom and rage at all the sellouts in office.
Ebonmuse on 01/13 at 09:03 PM

You know who is doing that right now? The Republicans. They’re convinced they weren’t right wing enough, and that that is how they will win the election next time! Point out to them that isn’t the case, and they will say “well we don’t want it anyway! Better to lose than to elect a RINO!”

And that’s while they will be in the minority for a long time.

’m plenty worried about the second option. I do think the GOP will obstruct every single thing they can. On one hand, hey, they’re gonna look like horrible people, and they’ll have a decent chance of performing horribly in the next elections. On the other hand, dammit, unemployment is not a damn bit of fun, and I want someone working to fix the economy.

I just saw Barney Frank on Rachel Maddows.  She was talking about how the Republicans are talking about blocking the release of the TARP funds, even though they’re the ones who fought to give them to Bush with no strings attached, and even though they know they don’t have the votes to stop it, and even though they know it’s going to piss off most of America.

Frank said that while most people would look at the election results and say that the Republicans had gone too far to the right, the people in charge of the Republican party are insisting that they didn’t go far enough!

They will reflexively fight everything Obama tries to do.

Our country is not safe yet.

Or, you know, what Ben D. posted while I was typing.

She was talking about how the Republicans are talking about blocking the release of the TARP funds,

They can’t do that in the House (Pelosi can ram through anything she pleases pretty much) and I doubt they will do it in the Senate with Snowe, Collins, and Specter defecting.

A point of historical clarification, not to take away from Amanda’s otherwise thoughtful post: The Joycelyn Elders dust-up wasn’t during the nomination process. She was already Surgeon General of the U.S., and had been for over a year. Rather, she was forced to resign because of it.

Still, maybe it’s impossible to fend off Republican obstructionists, who have the advantage of being free of the constraints of decency, morality, and conscience that would otherwise make it hard to fuck someone up royally.

However, the Republicans can have the tables turned on them… (via Balloon Juice)

Bwahahahah.

Did anyone else four years ago think a black freshman Senator from a deep blue northern state would defeat not only Hillary Clinton in the primaries, but John McCain for President in a 365 EV drubbing?

If I told you guys four years ago this would happen, you would either be ecstatic or tell me I was crazy.

Yeah, but how many Democrats have had their wills broken and will perform on command when pushed by their Republican masters?  Sometimes I worry they forget they won.

Let me tell you an inspiring story. 

It’s mid-November 2004.  Bush has won re-election.  Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle has been defeated.  House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt, probably the Democrat most responsible for the Iraq War, watches us lose the last election of his career.  Bush declares that he’s earned political capital and he’s going to use it on privatizing the most awesome program we inherited from Franklin Roosevelt: Social Security. 

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid become the new House and Senate leaders.  Pelosi pulls the House caucus together so strongly that of 200+ Democratic congresscritters, a total of 1 goes over to support Bush’s Social Security privatization plan.  Pelosi doesn’t even allow members to come out with compromise plans.  All they’re allowed to say is No. (When nervous members pestered her about when they were going to come out with a compromise plan, Pelosi snapped “Never. Is never good enough for you?”) Reid follows Pelosi’s strategy in the Senate.  Zero Democratic Senators support privatization. 

Moderate Republicans start to freak out at the fact that they’re not going to have any bipartisan cover for privatizing Social Security.  And there aren’t enough Republicans left to agree on a plan.  Privatization collapses. 

That was the moment when I got my faith in the party back.  It was sort of the opposite of the Iraq War Resolution.  Pelosi and Reid defeated Bush at the moment when things were the absolute darkest.  And then they led the Democrats through two elections where we won everything that wasn’t nailed down.  It isn’t like 2002 anymore.  We can, on occasion, take bold stands and win the hell out of stuff.

I’m not too keen on the left-hate that’s already cropped up here in comments and elsewhere against anyone who dares criticize Obama from the left.

Well, if it makes you feel better, it’s not the Obama criticism that’s annoying. I get annoyed by anyone who places ego above sense, and alas, I just see a lot of leftists whose politics are less sincere than their own self-image as constantly beleagured, morally superior people.  It’s the same thing that bugs me about conspiracy theorists, even though conspiracy theorists have the additional problem of being batshit.  Not everyone that’s a leftist.  But enough that my eyes get weary the second someone brags about how radical they are.  They’re really probably not.

Neil, I’m glad they protected Social Security.  But I want to see them defend even more popular programs, and add new ones.  I’m not feeling safe yet.

I think there are some Democrats/leftists who are afraid of governing, and who are eager for Obama to disappoint them, so that they can feel righteous and superior.

-

Well said. I’m looking at you, Kucinich voters.

We should note that it’s easy for the lunatic fringes on both the left and right to remain ideologically pure, because they never have to do any of the hard work of governing. Politics is intended to be a system of compromise.

I’m a leftist. I wanted Kucinich in the primary. I guess maybe to you, that means I’m on the lunatic fringe.

I gave money to Obama. I travelled to another state and went door to door for Obama. I called people for Obama. I defended Obama during that bullshit with Rev. Wright. I must be waiting for Obama to fail so I can feel righteous!

I give a shit about Iraqis, Iranians, and Gazans. I give a shit about economic justice. I must be a lunatic! People who give a shit? looney tunes, every one!

It must be awesome to shield yourself from painful issues by convincing yourself that the people involved are all crazy.

Being more charitable about the Bali comment, it could be because the pictures in the background look like Balinese shadow puppets or wayang. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayang.

Neil, it was the slow regular capitulation after that tremendous success which was so depressing.  They had a taste of really making things better, and they turned away.

atheist --

I was by no mean talking about Kucinich voters. Kucinich voters are Democrats in good standing. I was talking more about post-2000 Nader/McKinney voters.

“I get annoyed by anyone who places ego above sense, and alas, I just see a lot of leftists whose politics are less sincere than their own self-image as constantly beleagured, morally superior people.”

Certainly, morons abound, and the particular jerkiness kink of “radical leftist pretension” exists. But let’s not for a second pretend that there isn’t a whole heap of holier than thou amongst the self-professed “non-extremists” whose vision of “just wanting what works” is held up as the highest of moral virtues, whether or not “what works” is, in reality merely “what doesn’t make people on the Sunday talk shows squirm and call us socialists.”

So, whether or not there are morons to the left or right is rather immaterial. What really matters is that the seeds of the Obama-personality cult are firmly planted, and what’s sprouting is the thorny hedgerow that will soon define the furthest boundaries of “acceptable leftism” with all policy positions and debate to be formulated somewhere to its right. Just because some leftists are dolts shouldn’t stop us from pointing out this probability (indeed, the media already largely operates on the idea that Obama represents the far-left, that’s why they never wonder why he doesn’t talk about ideas to his left when he speaks of “reaching out to everyone” they assume he could only reach in one legitimate direction - the right. This sentiment is echoed by his fervent supporters). And for those who disagree, the fact that some leftists are dolts shouldn’t preclude an explanation for why this scenario of “no left beyond Obama” isn’t cause for serious concern.

Maybe, Bai, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.  I’m just not eager to go through the process of holier-than-thou types pouncing on everything Obama does they don’t like not to pressure him into doing what they want, but to feel superior to mere mortals who don’t have the proper levels of cynicism about the rest of humanity.

I’m really afraid that Obama be like my dad when he’s planning holidays.  He’s so worried that if he doesn’t make certain concessions to others that he actually ends up forgetting what he going to do in the first place or no longer having time for those originally planned actions.  The Warren bone-throw is a hint to me that it’s a possibility.  Rich Warren and his kind should have gotten nothing but a middle finger.  They shouldn’t be allowed out in public, let alone to speak at such as a major event at the inauguration.

I anticipate that the next 4 years will see many victories but not as many as I want.  Much of the next… Odin only knows.... years will be spent rebuilding everything the Bush Administration took a wrecking ball to.  President Obama and Congress have a difficult task before them.  Four or even eight years from now we won’t be where I want, but we’ll be a lot closer than if the other team was in control.

The right wing has taken a pretty thorough beating but they are not destroyed.  When authoritarians lose a measure of their power their response is predictable.  They will hammer the people they still control even harder and lash out at their enemies in every way possible.

This may be sycophantic, but Marcotte nails it again.

What really matters is that the seeds of the Obama-personality cult are firmly planted, and what’s sprouting is the thorny hedgerow that will soon define the furthest boundaries of “acceptable leftism” with all policy positions and debate to be formulated somewhere to its right.

Oh, Jesus.

Yes, that’s right, if we don’t immediately excoriate Obama from the left the instant he, say, proposes a tax break for businesses, it’s because we’re all part of the Obama Personality Cult.

Arguing that you should be taken seriously as an opposition voice won’t get you very far if you keep insisting that the rest of us who don’t take your pet issues seriously enough are part of the Obama Personality Cult.

The Rick Warren thing really brought out this fear, even though, in all honesty, the most likely explanation is that Obama thought to throw the fundies a meaningless gesture that appeals to their main desire, which is to be considered the Bestest, Worthiest People In America before he undermines all their actual political goals.  Also, to take some of the mean-spirited piss out of Rick Warren, who is a scary enemy to make.  (As the debate that was clearly slanted against Obama demonstrated.)

That’s sort of how I walked away from it in the end.  Sure it was maddening as hell, and definitely a slap in the face to a goodly large number of Obama’s electorate (kinda like inviting the molester uncle to a family get together but not informing the molestee), but in the end, does it have to mean anything more than a symbolic gesture?  It’s a crappy symbolic gesture, indeed, but if the trade-off is that the paths to repealing DOMA and DADT will now be easier as a consequence, on some level I’m OK with it.

Their side can lay claim to having their fundie preacher saying some meaningless words at ceremony, our side can lay claim to undoing two hateful pieces of legislation and moving towards greater equality for all Americans.  I’ll take “B”.

It must be awesome to shield yourself from painful issues by convincing yourself that the people involved are all crazy.

I don’t really believe this is a fair characterization of Ebonmuse.

And for those who disagree, the fact that some leftists are dolts shouldn’t preclude an explanation for why this scenario of “no left beyond Obama” isn’t cause for serious concern.

This is where you’re confusing me.  Who, other than the MSM and Republicans, is claiming that Obama is a far leftist and that anything to the left of his policies is out in crazyland?  Anyone with half a brain can see that Obama is a centrist and has always been a centrist.  He’s always said he’s a centrist.

Yes, if you watch Fox News all day, you’ll think that Obama is as far left as you can get in mainstream American politics, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone on the left claim that Obama is a socialist, or that he’s on the far left.  There were all kinds of stories about pushback from Senate Democrats who felt the stimulus plan didn’t go far enough to the left, and they got the concessions they asked for.  So where is this push to have “no left beyond Obama” coming from?

I’m plenty worried about the second option. I do think the GOP will obstruct every single thing they can. On one hand, hey, they’re gonna look like horrible people, and they’ll have a decent chance of performing horribly in the next elections. On the other hand, dammit, unemployment is not a damn bit of fun, and I want someone working to fix the economy.

Part of the reason I’m sorta keeping an eye on the RNC chair elections.  If shitbag Chip Saltsman wins the job, you can bet your last dollar they will do everything under the sun to obstruct everything and anything.  The talking assholes of the party are carrying on with their screed that the party needs to be MORE not less conservative, and that McCain lost because he’s just a giant pussy in their opinion, and I have very mixed feelings about whether or not I want them to heed the screed.

2010 will put 36 Senate seats in play (19 Republican Class III seats, 15 Democratic Class III seats, and Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton’s seats).  FOUR seats currently held by Republicans will be completely open - Martinez (FL), Brownback (KS), Bond (MO), and Voinovich (OH).  Right off the top, the Dems have gained some advantage in all 4 contests because there will be no incumbent to defeat.  Nate Silver now has Missouri ranked as the singlemost competitve Senate race of 2010, whereas prior to Kit Bond announcing retirement, it was probably fairly safe for the GOP, or at least a seat that was leaning GOP.

Being obstructionist assholes for the next 2 years may cause irreperable harm to the GOP, because it could cause the Democrats to win an unstoppable mega-majority of 65 seats after 2010.

A completely tone-deaf RNC Chair like Saltsman won’t foresee this as being a realistic possibility, and will make Obama’s life miserable, but it could be a suicide mission for the GOP.  A more level-headed party chair may anticipate these problems and push for the legislators to take it easy on Obama, which would probably help prevent an electoral catastrophe in 2010 for them, but it would also help to get some good progressive policy moved forward.

We’ve got them by the balls right now; it’s a matter of the leadership of the Democratic Party recognizing that fact and not shying away from it.

Aside from Bible-thumper David “pallin’ around with prostitutes” Vitter being a pissy asshole today, the Republicans seemed to be on good behavior in Clinton’s confirmation hearing, with Dick Lugar even going as far as calling Sen. Clinton the epitome of leadership.

We’ll see how things play out.  Look for Snowe, Collins, and Specter to be really careful with how they vote over the next 3 years - Snowe and Collins are the most liberal members of the GOP (and would likely lose their jobs if they weren’t), and Specter needs to be careful about not emulating his former colleague Santorum, as Arlen is in a potentially very hot race in 2010, and being a super-obstructionist could cost him his job in a state that’s leaning more and more blue every year.

If I told you guys four years ago this would happen, you would either be ecstatic or tell me I was crazy.

FIVE years ago, perhaps.  Actually, yes, FIVE years ago, I would have said you were crazy.

After hearing him at the 2004 DNC, I had the exact samereaction that Ethel Kennedy did… “That man is gonna be President.” I probably would have leaned towards thinking 2012 or 2016, but I wouldn’t have ruled out 2008.  I got on the “Obama for President” bandwagon in Summer 2006, more than 6 months before he even announced his candidacy.

A Mikhail Gorbochev is all too damn likely. 

I’m going to be like dc and not really explain (somewhat long), but he’s not playin’.

If you read the first book, you know very clearly that this is not someone you fuck with without regretting it. You also appreciate how much Obama values stability: this is someone for whom his wife and kids are the bedrock of his life, and that’s going to run through what we see of him as President. But stability wasn’t what formed him, and stability was not what made him take the leap and run as a freshman Senator: he knew—and Michelle said it—that it if he hadn’t got the nomination or won the election, that would be it. The Senate is the graveyard of political ambition for someone who wants to shake the tree.

And it’s not cultish to say that when Obama asked for people to keep him honest and to give something of themselves after the election, he meant it.

What, am I the only one who’s main fear centers around Obama getting shot on the way to the inauguration?

“ If shitbag Chip Saltsman wins the job”

What about the other shitbag who was also nominated who defended Saltsman as saying the Magic Negro song was not offensive?

“the most likely explanation is that Obama thought to throw the fundies a meaningless gesture that appeals to their main desire”

To the fundies who make up the base it’s not meaningless at all. I have relatives who are either Southern Baptist or Pentascostal from deep red areas of the South and when told about the Warren invite said they were honestly surprised at Obama and wondered aloud if the Republican party was being honest about Obama’s positions. It makes the secret Muslim claims a lot less powerfull in the minds of the fundies when exposed to the Warren invite.

Glen Greenwald says this all better than I can, speaking to the fact that numerous Obama fans have suddenly found FISA to be no big deal, and Guantanamo a “complex” situation that needs time. This shift, this re-appraisal of the limits of the left, as defined by whatever Obama is currently supporting, is also something we should be wary of.

Those aren’t “the left.” Those people are Democrats. Always were. Nothing will make sense unless you make the distinction. Democrats go where the party goes, and Obama’s at the helm. Don’t worry that this means the left is being manipulated by Obama; we aren’t. What it means is that the left is smaller than you’d guess by counting Democrats.

I agree with most of what you said, Bai, especially this:

But let’s not for a second pretend that there isn’t a whole heap of holier than thou amongst the self-professed “non-extremists” whose vision of “just wanting what works” is held up as the highest of moral virtues, whether or not “what works” is, in reality merely “what doesn’t make people on the Sunday talk shows squirm and call us socialists.”

But I take exception to the “Obama Personality Cult” smear. It’s thrown around way too easily, and it’s very offensive. You’re going to find lots of people who disagree with Obama on lots of issues but who happen to be defending him on some particular issue X which is currently under discussion, because they think it’s a reasonable idea. And lots more who agree with him 75% of the time but think he’s dangerously wrong on a few important things. There’s no way to tell the difference between any one of these people and a drone without getting to know each individual well, personally, which you can hardly do over the Internet. And calling someone a cultist adds nothing to the discussion when the relevant point is some particular policy difference. So please, quit it. It’s obnoxious and distracting.

Folks on the left have a dilemma on how to react when Obama does something that hurts us.

We can criticize it, in which case we contribute to the flood of “INCOMPETENT PRESIDENT” noise that will come from the right no matter WHAT he does, and increase public negative perception of him which will make it harder for him to get stuff that we DO want through.

Or, we can shrug and say well, we don’t like it but he was the best choice we had in November, in which case we’re not holding him accountable.

Obviously there’s a balance to be drawn, and I think it lives closer to the first point than the second.

Neil, it was the slow regular capitulation after that tremendous success which was so depressing.  They had a taste of really making things better, and they turned away.

I didn’t get too depressed, because I fully understood the difficulty of their situation.  For 2005-2006, they were down 10 Senators and 30 Congresscritters.  Then from 2007-2008 we had a Democratic Senate Majority that depended on Joe Lieberman, while Bush turtled up and decided that he didn’t care about accomplishing anything as long as he got to keep his war.  These are not good conditions for making progress.

I was fairly impressed with the way the Supreme Court stuff went, even if we lost. Harry Reid talked Bush into nominating a 60-year-old woman whose feminist lecture series brought Gloria Steinem and Susan Faludi to campus.  Sure, the far right blew up the nomination after a while, but it’s a better shot than I thought we’d get at making them waste a Supreme Court nomination.  And I’m still pretty well convinced that if people on Judiciary (Biden and Feinstein in particular) hadn’t fallen down on the job, we would’ve blocked Alito.  It takes a flawless effort to block a Supreme Court nomination at 45 Senators, and the rest of the team played well.  I can’t think of a single mistake Reid made in the entire process, and I can tell you about six things he did well. 

Whatever they were doing for the past four years, it was part of a political strategy that took us from 45 to 59 Senate seats and gave us a big House majority.  Now we’re finally in position to do some stuff.  And our Senate position is likely to get even better in 2011—the Senators facing re-election are 19R-15D. 

Really, I think Democratic bloggers would be regarding Harry and especially Nancy as heroes today if they hadn’t carried over their justified mistrust of the Congressional leadership from the 2002-2004 era.  There are still people who need a good smacking around (Rockefeller) but there are people who are so awesome I almost can’t believe they’re there (Waxman).

What, am I the only one who’s main fear centers around Obama getting shot on the way to the inauguration?

No, you’re not the only one.

DTG: but in the end, does it have to mean anything more than a symbolic gesture?  It’s a crappy symbolic gesture, indeed, but if the trade-off is that the paths to repealing DOMA and DADT will now be easier as a consequence

*shrug* Democrats have for decades been giving Republicans/conservatives/wingnuts what they want, in absolute contraction to what the Democratic party’s electorate want, because that’s supposed to make it “easier” for Democratic policies to make it through. It never works.

If Obama does end DADT, and does repeal DOMA, then yes, Rick Warren giving the Invocation will look like a sop thrown to the wingnuts. But President Clinton talked a good fight with regard to LGBT equality, yet his attempt to remove inequality from the military ended in DADT, and he was pressured into signing DOMA. So, I’m waiting for actions that will show which side Obama’s really on - and his first action was to give a homophobic wingnut the Invocation. Not promising. We’ll see.

I see no reason why we shouldn’t criticize Obama for what he does, or what he fails to do. Sure he’s going to be better than his predecessor, but that’s an appallingly low bar to judge him by. John McCain would have been better than George W. Bush - though of course Sarah Palin… *shudder*.

“and his first action was to give a homophobic wingnut the Invocation. Not promising. We’ll see”

Are we forgetting the Gay Bishop who is giving the prayer and the woman reverened who are also involved? As well as the civil rights leader in particular gay and lesbian rights who is also involved with the inaugration?

pepito, don’t worry about adding to ‘incompetent president’ noise.  Go ahead and attack Obama loudly from the left if you think he deserves it. 

Because you know what will get a bunch of Republicans to support Obama?  The tears of hippies.  If they think he’s infuriating The Left, many of them won’t feel that they should oppose him.  Republicans generally don’t understand policy—what they really care about is making hippies cry.  And if I were as good with the tears as those guys at OpenLeft are, I’d be happily crying my way to universal health care.

I was by no mean talking about Kucinich voters. Kucinich voters are Democrats in good standing. I was talking more about post-2000 Nader/McKinney voters.

-

It’s unfortunate that the people we have to compromise with are so frequently wingnuts, but that’s the price we pay for being able to make some changes that positively impact the lives of regular people. It’s better to get some things done, and shift the mood of the electorate further toward our position, rather than refuse to compromise, accomplish nothing, and then have the consolation of being able to strike a pose of martyrdom and rage at all the sellouts in office.

Ebonmuse on 01/13 at 09:03 PM

Ebonmuse, Ben D., I’m sorry for the angry reaction last night. I agree with you that it is much better to make decent policy than feel righteous. And there are people who would rather feel righteous than actually get something done.

But here’s my point. The people who would rather feel righteous than get something done are not actually confined to the ‘far left’ or ‘far right’… though they end up in that position more. Also, there’s people who seem quite ‘far left’, Kucinich voters, or McKinney voters, who nevertheless get the whole deal that their ideology is out of the mainstream and who are in fact willing to compromise all over the place to get something done.

That’s true, atheist. I should have been clearer in my last comment: I wasn’t referring to people who backed Kucinich in the primary and then Obama in the general, but people who still back Kucinich and think that any Democrat to the right of him is a worthless sellout. I know a few, and I still get treated to near-daily tirades from them about how Obama is exactly as bad as Bush (yes, really), and how the Democrats are all sellouts who deserve to lose elections. This is clearly the kind of person who prefers being able to strike a pose of self-righteousness over accomplishing anything meaningful.

How about those of us on the left who criticize him from the left because we understand that part of the whole compromise idea, is making sure that the left-wing side is represented and heard so that people stop believing that the political spectrum in this country doesn’t run from Harry Reid on the Left to Skeletor on the Right. Letting people know the real spectrum of political opinion in this country and countering the Right Wing noise machine is very crucial in Obama disappointing us in small ways rather than in large ways.

It is also crucial for Obama. He can only be seen as the poor centrist making do the best he can to heal the deep rifts in the country, blah, blah, blah dc speak, if he is seen under pressure both from the pantless brigade of psychotics, but also rationalists who speak for what we really need.

Silence has never worked for the Left. We have gotten that advice for year and it has never once worked. It is only when we speak up, show a force of those for genuine change do impossible things seem possible. I mean, should we forget the lessons of this last election? We elected a man everyone said was impossible over all the statements that we needed to vote for compromise over principles otherwise we risk everything. Instead we stood up against the “common wisdom”. Now look where we are. We stand up or we lose the power to save this country.

If it means appearing ungrateful for what Obama has done and will done, I’m sorry for that first impression, but I will also do what I can to highlight what he has done. Both sides are needed and that’s what’s important. You need radicals and compromisers. Both.

Ebonmuse

Yeah, that makes sense. People who hold on to a candidate after that candidate loses in the primary are always wierd to me. They’re so… unclear of the concept. I agree that their stance can be expained if you assume that they care more for poses than actual governance.

I also deal with people who really do seem to be that way, who are so radical on foreign policy that they can’t or won’t see the actual differences between Bush and Obama, or indeed between any neoconservatives and any center-liberals. This has always seemed to be a somewhat pointless stance to me.

“Well said. I’m looking at you, Kucinich voters.”

I voted for the (as Matt Welch of Reason described him) socialist elf in the primary, though I think he’s a bit nuts. (Department of Peace? Fuck off, Dennis) However, he mostly closely approximates my politics. I learned my lesson in 2000 and I’ll vote for the least worst viable candidate in the general every time, without fail. I don’t think this makes me holy in any way, just self-interested, as I think its the best way to get left-wing ideas more play and say and I think that’s good for me, personally, and good for the country. The Nader idea that a Bush presidency was good for the left is silly fantasy. Even if it worked and the electorate turned around and voted Green after 8 years of Bush, you’d still have to spend so much time and energy fixing everything, it wouldn’t be worth it. Plus, y’know, Republicans run things, more people die. 

“I defended Obama during that bullshit with Rev. Wright.”

I think I actually said a few times that I wished Jeremiah Wright was running for president instead of Barack Obama, but that was mostly Republican-shocking fun. 

“You mean he is the last President of the United States and he is going to leave the country collapsed into a state of ruin? Uh, thanks I guess.”

Maybe it means he’ll roll back our most untenable imperial positions, while keeping the tenable ones?

tootiredoftheright: Are we forgetting the Gay Bishop who is giving the prayer

...at an unofficial ceremony two days before the Inauguration itself? No, I’m not forgetting Gene Robinson. Nor that Obama decided to prefer honoring Rick Warren by putting that scumbucket front and centre when he could have asked Bishop Robinson and been really radical.

and the woman reverened who are also involved? As well as the civil rights leader in particular gay and lesbian rights who is also involved with the inaugration?

Either of them actually at the Inauguration? Hm?

Cerberus says: You need radicals and compromisers. Both.

Yes, this. I’m one of the too-left-for-the-Dems folks, but I can see this. Absolutely we need to push at Obama from the left, and not get too easy with the sausage-making that politics is, but we also have to get used to the idea that someone who may actually listen to us is in charge now. Moving from the opposition to the government is more than just a name change, it’s a change in how we think, and it may take us a little while to figure out how to do it (whether each of us is a radical, a centrist, or what--whatever our role is in this thing).

As for Warren, while his selection pisses me off, I was nodding emphatically at this:

I have relatives who are either Southern Baptist or Pentascostal from deep red areas of the South and when told about the Warren invite said they were honestly surprised at Obama and wondered aloud if the Republican party was being honest about Obama’s positions.

I know people to whom Rick Warren is a good person, and while I disagree with them greatly and vocally on policy, I’d rather see them arguing with my positions (and Obama’s positions) on policy rather than OMG NOEZ GAY MUSLIMZ. So from that angle, I see value in this choice. If, with one symbolic gesture, you can cut down on the background right-wing noise...well, that’s not all bad.

Meanwhile I’m celebrating the inauguration by going to my sister’s first drag performance. :D

As well as the civil rights leader in particular gay and lesbian rights who is also involved with the inaugration?

That’d be Dr. Joseph Lowery, mentioned on the front page here a few weeks back, if I’m not mistaken.

The Nader idea that a Bush presidency was good for the left is silly fantasy.

Nader has always struck me as a guy with great values, and great positions, but with an absolutely terrible take on political strategy. Essentially, he trolled the US political system in the hopes that more people would pay attention to him. FAIL.

“at an unofficial ceremony “

It’s not unofficial. It’s an organized event. Robinson was invited by Obama. The Inauguration festivies are several days not one day
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-clergy13-2009jan13,0,2268607.story

http://www.pic2009.org/pages/schedule/
Sunday, January 18th
President-elect Barack Obama will kick off the schedule of official inaugural activities in Washington, D.C., with a welcome event on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on Sunday afternoon. The event will be free and open to the public.

“mentioned on the front page here a few weeks back, if I’m not mistaken.”

And given scant attention to everywhere even though the Bendication is considered the more important of the two prayers.

Neil the Ethical Werewolf wrote:the Senators facing re-election are 19R-15D

19R-17D

You forgot about special elections for Biden and Clinton’s seats.

But I’m not too worried about those seats - New York, and even moreso Deleware, should be pretty safe for the blue team.

Add in the improved chances we have in KS, FL, MO, and OH with retiring GOP Senators Brownback, Martinez, Bond, and Voinovich, and the fact that Jeb Bush WON’T be running in FL (frighteningly, he would have been a strong favorite), and I’d be feeling pretty nervous if I were a GOP strategist.

As well as the civil rights leader in particular gay and lesbian rights who is also involved with the inaugration?

That’d be Dr. Joseph Lowery, mentioned on the front page here a few weeks back, if I’m not mistaken.

Who is, in fact, delivering the Benediction at the Inaugural itself, which is THE big enchilada event we’re talking about.  And I don’t see a point in getting in a pissing match over who got the sweeter Jesusy gig at the Inaugural, because I don’t really know which is supposed to be more important, the Invocation (Warren) or the Benediction (Lowery).

As for the other two ministers participating in the other inaugural events, these are in fact OFFICIAL events, in the sense that they are being presented by the Presidential Inaugural Committee.  They aren’t the main event, but they are “official” events, as opposed to say, Al Gore’s “Green” Inaugural Ball, which is NOT an “official” inauguration event.  But now we’re getting into silly semantic debates that really won’t really mean squat years from now.

I’m just not eager to go through the process of holier-than-thou types pouncing on everything Obama does they don’t like not to pressure him into doing what they want, but to feel superior to mere mortals who don’t have the proper levels of cynicism about the rest of humanity.

That’s why I dropped Dennis Perrin from my regular blog-reading rotation.  When Jon Schwartz criticizes from the left, I get the feeling he really wants the left to have some influence on the Democrats.  But when Dennis Perrin criticizes from the left, he just sounds like a bitter asshole who wants to be able to say “I told you so.”

I feel I must disagree with Amanda on this.  While it is true that in some things the left may disappointed (especially as to speed), I think Obama has a deep dark plan going here.  He’s going to be so damned charming and reasonable that the Rethugs have only two choices, niether of them attractive from their point of view.

Choice one:  they can cooperate on most things and lose the ‘specialness’of their brand.
Choice two:  they can fight from the last ditch and lose the last moderates they have and confirm for all time that they are only a regional party.  There is no love lost between the Olympia Snow/Voinivich types and the Shelbyites.  Kit Bond and Voinivich can see the handwritting on the wall; you could see it during the GM debate.

Far from living in fear of what Obama will do I am smacking my lips in anticipation.  If he accomplishes nothing in the next two years but the final destruction of the GOP, he will have succeeded.

“Choice two:  they can fight from the last ditch and lose the last moderates they have and confirm for all time that they are only a regional party.”

You read about what happened in Tenn with the GOP down there?

Guantanamo a “complex” situation that needs time.

Guantanamo is a complex situation.  Do you think we can just fly those people to Afghanistan and release them into the wild?  Maybe we can tag their ears for a little extra captured-wild-animal effect.  Some of the people captured in Afghanistan aren’t even Afghanis.  There’s the issue of whether those people’s home countries even want them back, what will happen to them when they’re returned there (some of them may be imprisoned and tortured upon return), whether they deserve any restitution, and how many of them are actually guilty of something and can be charged and tried in a legitimate court of law.

Another huge problem with the purists, whether on the left or right, is that they’ve convinced themselves that anything and everything is so fucking simple.

how many of them are actually guilty of something and can be charged and tried in a legitimate court of law.

None of them can be tried in a legitimate court of law b/c of the torture.  None of that evidence is admissible, and once they walk, they have a case against us for torturing.

Torture does not work in the real world.  People in agony will say whatever they think their torturers want to hear in order to stop.  Determining whether or not that info is any good wastes any time that might possibly be “saved” by the torture.

Plus we have now legitimized torture for everyone, instead of insisting that civilized people do not torture.

I dated a Green Beret once.  He told me that they were instructed to tell their captors everything.  That there was no way to resist torture, so try to keep yourself alive.  They would automatically assume that any captured soldier had talked, and would change the plans accordingly.

That bit about ‘name, rank, serial number’?  Makes for a good movie.  Not remotely real life at all.

Thanks, DTG, I’d forgotten about those.

I find it hard to worry too much about Obama simply abandoning his beliefs because of some prevailing right-wing atmosphere in Washington. After reading Dreams from My Father, there seemed to be a remarkable consistency and continuity to his manner of thinking—including both the ways in which he’s gratified and disappointed the left. That’s no gaurantee, of course, but I find it difficult to envision personally.

There’s a more outlandish possibility: that everything he’s done up until now—writing Dreams, his career as a state and federal senator, his campaign—is a façade. Now the façade isn’t needed, and he can be the power-crazed madman he was deep down all along. He won’t be corrupted by Washington—he was really depraved all along, did an amazingly good job of hiding it, and now he can act that out. In short, he’s the Smiler from Transmetropolitan, only subtler. This strikes me as a little too far-fetched to be real. If it turns out to be that way, though, and Amanda has to become a bold, drug-addled blogger/journalist who will speak the Truth to the people, and needs two handsome men to serve as her filthy assistants, then I’d be willing. Although I’m probably neither sufficiently handsome nor sufficiently well-armed or skilled in combat or journalism to be of very much use.

Torture does not work in the real world…
Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes on 01/14 at 03:39 PM

As you say, it doesn’t work for the purported purpose of eliciting reliable information.

However it serves another purpose quite well--it is a way of terrorizing a subject population. In the case of Gitmo and the whole Bush-era rendition machine, the subject population is at least potentially the whole freakin’ world--ourselves included.

Torturers proclaim by their actions that they can do any damn thing they want to anyone in their power and no one can hold them accountable. It ups the stakes--people must either submit or go to war against the torturers.

The Bush admin, in its stupid arrogance, welcomed either alternative, being primarily concerned with perpetuating a security/industrial complex and a dominator worldview. For them, torture was rational.