The Rift Between Obama Democrats & Progressives

It is interesting to see the tweets of Angry Black Lady, Joy-Ann Reid and Shoq attacking progressives for disagreeing with with President Barack Obama's policy. Shoq is anonymous. (Though I suspect Shoq is African-American.) Angry Black Lady and Reid feel an understandable racial connection to the first black president. To place it in proper perspective: in 1961, talking smack about JFK in a Boston Irish pub would probably result in an ass-kicking. Considering the racism directed towards Obama, it is understandable Angry Black Lady and Reid would feel the need to defend the President. Where I get lost is when Angry Black Lady accuses Salon.com blogger Joan Walsh of racism in a tweet war.

Joan Walsh and I had words. Rather than retract her statement about resenting black folks who call themselves "THE BASE" (which I originally took to mean "exclusively" and then asked her who was making such claims), she proceeded to race-bait while accusing the black folks who called her out of race-baiting. Then, much later, she claimed that the Twitter character limit prevented her from using a word other than "RESENT."

Angry Black Lady post a series of tweets that transpired between her and Walsh. I strongly suggest you read that to get context. Walsh wished Obama's policies were more progressive. (So do I.) Walsh wrote that she will support Obama in 2012.

Barring something horrific, I will support President Obama in 2012. (And I read Glenn Greenwald daily, so I know there's a digest of fairly horrific things taking place in the realm of civil liberties, on top of the regular cave-ins to corporate America.) I have explained before: I think a primary race would be distracting and destructive to progressive politics. It would tear the Democratic Party apart in ways that would make that unpleasant 2008 bickering look like a love-in. As the great Michael Harrington used to say, when it comes to electoral politics, I stand on "the left wing of the possible," and that's about where I believe Obama is. So I expect to stand with Obama next year.

Equally important, though, I oppose a primary challenge from the left because I believe it would keep progressives trapped in the fiction that presidential campaigns are the be all and end all of progressive politics. They're not, as Obama's election should have proven to everyone. MoveOn, Dean-turned-Democracy for America and much of the lefty blogosphere went all-in for Obama, lauding him as the true-blue progressive in the race, when he was not. They helped bring him the Democratic nomination he should have had to at least compete for among progressives. (Do people now understand that his praising Reagan and saying Social Security needed fixing might have been harbingers of the way he's led?) They dissipated energy that could have been spent in other ways; progressive groups have spent the last two years trying to figure out how to organize the base for truly progressive causes, rather than allegiance to a centrist Democratic president. Meanwhile, the stunning organizing achievements of Obama for America in 2008 -- building an email list of 13 million names, 4 million donors and 2 million active volunteers -- were never put behind a grass-roots effort to support Obama's agenda. We know from the New York Times that the Bill Daley White House shut down an effort by OFA to back the Wisconsin protests.

Angry Black Lady and Walsh get into heated tweets about the white and black base. The truth is Obama won't win without either. In Florida, blacks and young whites sat out the midterm elections. Republicans won the Florida Cabinet and the U.S. Senate races. Divisive racial arguments between the base will produce President Michele Bachmann or some other nightmare scenario.

Joy-Ann Reid attacked Glenn Greenwald, Dahlia Lithwick, and Jane Hamsher because they disagreed with President Obama's detention policies of terrorists and Bradley Manning. I seriously doubt Reid would defend these policies if George W. Bush was still in office. Reid even accused Greenwald of not being a progressive. Greenwald and Hamsher were critical of Bush's detention policies. It is not surprising they would be equally critical of Obama. The greater issue is the Fifth amendment. We are either a nation of laws or we are not. The damage done to civil liberties extended beyond Bush's tenure and will likely go on beyond Obama's.

There are two camps. Democratic supporters of Obama and progressives. Obama supporters will defend Obama. Progressives would toss Obama aside if they found a more progressive Democrat that was electable.

Reid hysterically exclaimed Obama's lame duck session was "less horrible than advertised." I noted that it is getting harder to put a better spin on Obama's policies. If the economy was booming, Osama bin Laden was captured and employment was at record numbers, there would not be this infighting with progressives and Team Obama Democrats. Angry Black Lady and Joan Walsh aren't racist or the problem. The problem is a decade of bad governing. A second term of Obama or a Republican administration isn't going to change that.

I do wish is Team Obama Democrats stop defending the President violating the Fifth amendment. If Obama is your guy then more power to you. You might feel differently if you are shackled and hooded in Gitmo. You are aware that Obama has the power to declare anyone a terrorist and detain them indefinately. Obama also supports warrantless wiretapping.

Team Obama Democrats remind me of Andrew Sullivan spending years supporting the GOP. Part of what pushed Sullivan away from the Republican Party was the Bush administration torturing detainees. The Obama administration ended the practice of torture. Obama did keep several legally questionable policies.

The role of citizens is to actively question the policies of government. Rooting for political parties or politicians, as if they were a sports franchise, will lead to heartache. Voting for the lesser of two evils is understandable. However, let's not kid ourselves that we will be voting for a Democrat who sold himself out to the Chamber of Commerce. Change only happens when people are engaged in the political process.

Bipartisanship At It's Worst

Salon editor Joan Walsh tweets this fun fact about Senate Democrats attempts at bipartisanship to Republicans.

Sen. Health Committee included 160 GOP amendments on the #hcr bill, but no Repubs, including McCain, voted on it.

Eric Alterman makes the argument President Obama is feigning bipartisanship in order to win public support. I have misgivings with Alterman's thesis. Mainly, it isn't working and Obama is still making bipartisan overtures. Public support for Obama has been eroding. What we do know is Obama negotiated a secret deal with the pharmaceutical industry. Blogger Glenn Greenwald suggested the White House only floated the public option to appease progressives.

In this context, it appears likely that the “public option” was never a serious White House commitment, but merely a bargaining chip to string along progressives, one which would be ultimately sacrificed to secure industry and Blue Dog support. Either that, or the president failed to use to his substantial institutional weapons to compel party support for his plan (note how, in the past, Rahm Emanuel was extremely aggressive, even threatening, in pressuring defiant House progressives to support legislation the White House favored).

Obama seems more interested in a political victory than true health care reform. A bill with no individual mandate, guaranteed issue, minimum package or public option would not be reform. Progressives have to be concerned about Obama signing a bill that would mandate every American buying private health insurance. The insurance industry would have less incentive to lower prices. The pharmaceutical industry is a sign Obama may go in that direction.

Quote of the Day

"My Constitutional right says I can say what I say. You say what you say, as vile as you say it you can say it. And I would never condemn you you for saying it."

Bill O'Reilly, teling Salon.com editor Joan Walsh he would never condemn her free speech after condemning her speech.

O'Reilly is on the defensive over his so-called reporting of the late George Tiller. O'Reilly brough Walsh, on his show, to demonize Tiller from the grave and tell Walsh, "You have blood on your hands!" So much for not condemning Walsh's free speech.

Walsh blogs about her experience on O'Reilly's show.

It was a kaleidoscopic nightmare, a TV acid trip, and I don't do acid. It almost seems like O'Reilly does, but I don't think so. The man is driven by demons. God bless him and save him.

Hitchens Hulk Smash

Christopher Hitchens forms at the mouth with Hillary Clinton hatred. Hardball, The Hitch debated Salon's Joan Walsh about Barack Obama's national security appointment. The Hitch could let go of his Hillary hatred.

HITCHENS: Is it left or right for Hillary Clinton to get her husband, after a huge Pakistani fundraiser-I'm speaking about something very important to us right now-a few years ago-huge Pakistani fund-raiser in New York, organized for her by Lanny Davis-she got him to change his plan to visit India and to build in a visit to Pakistan on the way, in return for a huge campaign donation. Everyone in Pakistan knows she's open for business. This is not a left-right question. It's a matter of integrity.

WALSH: I think this is ridiculous. I think...

HITCHENS: Do we want such a person as secretary of state?

WALSH: Christopher, your views...

MATTHEWS: Joan, your turn.

WALSH: Christopher, your views on the Clintons' integrity are well-known. I consider them eccentric. I believe that you cherry-pick...

(CROSSTALK)

WALSH: I'm not going to say that they are perfect, but I believe you cherry-pick the worst possible interpretation, as well as facts that aren't necessarily facts, and come up with this analysis.

Hitch has Clinton hatred aimed at Eric Holder for the Marc Rich pardon.

HITCHENS: The actual date doesn't matter once you start talking about that. an I just add, though, that I thought Obama's answer just there was incredibly cheap and evasive. I mean, he was right the first time to say this woman doesn't, in fact, have foreign policy experience, and he could have added, which also came up in the campaign, that the experience she has claimed, such as in Bosnia, was fake, was fabricated. And he could also have added that she, like his other nominee, for the attorney generalship, main qualification in politics is being a friend of Marc Rich, which I don't think has changed.

I voiced my own displeasure about the Holder nomination and Hillary's Bosnia comments. Holder was Deputy Attorney General at the Justice Department. Clinton served on the Armed Services Committee and spent debate decades meeting world leaders. They have experience. What Hitchens doesn't understand is he questions their judgement. I never argued that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld lacked experience. My complaint was their ideas are batshit insane.

Media Matters asked why MSNBC keeps bringing Hitchens back. For the same reason people watch professional wrestling and reality television. It's show business, baby!