The Emergence Of The Dem Blogosphere: The Celebration Of Triangulation

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:58:12 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Here is a dkos diary that really exemplifies the transformation of the once Left blogosphere into the Democratic blogosphere. It riffs off of quintessential Beltway insider Al Hunt's article that equates Left wing criticism of President Obama with the irrational teabagger hate:

Obama Transcends Ideology by Riling Both Flanks

Barack Obama, charges former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, is “the most liberal president” in modern times, pursuing “an agenda that really is foreign to mainstream America.” Other Republicans routinely talk about the president’s “socialist” agenda. Simultaneously, the left wing says he’s a traitor to their cause. Liberal bloggers regularly accuse him of selling out to corporate interests, claiming that he has failed to keep his campaign commitments. Former Democratic Party Chairman and ex-presidential candidate Howard Dean has echoed some of these sentiments. A left winger who betrays left-wing causes? Ideology isn’t the ideal prism to evaluate the Obama presidency.

This vapid Broderite Beltway analysis would have once been mocked in the Left blogs. It means precisely nothing, other than the typical Beltway Media "if both sides hate you, I must be dong something right" silliness. Today, it is the height of insight in the ~~Left~~ Democratic blogosphere:

Albert R. Hunt has a fascinating piece up at Bloomberg. The lede is that Obama transcends ideology by pissing off both sides and then he goes through a list of issues on which Obama is blasted from the right and left with equal vehemence.

Yes, fascinating. The celebration of triangulation by the Beltway Media. Never seen that before. Sheesh.

This is the "Left" celebrating the triumph of triangulation. This is actually, as Professor Darren Hutchinson pointed out last December, very unpragmatic:

Commentators who laud Obama as a pragmatist almost uniformly condemn his progressive critics as ideological and impractical. Unlike Obama, who is a good, pragmatic progressive, liberals who criticize the President are politically inflexible ideologues whose rigidity, if widely followed, would preclude the implementation of helpful policies.

[. . .] With respect to [. . .] pragmatism, depending upon the goals of progressives, criticizing Obama could operate as a highly pragmatic political tactic. President Obama has several items on his agenda -- including reelection. These goals, however, might cause him to act in a way that is inconsistent with progressive political agendas. Progressives can only influence Obama and other elected Democrats if they express their discontent. If they can also reveal that Obama is betraying his liberal base, then they can possibly make him more vulnerable from a political perspective. In order to cure or avoid this vulnerability, Obama may have to act in a way that addresses the concerns of progressives. If progressives never complain or engage in advocacy or mobilization, then politicians will have very few incentives to address their concerns.

By criticizing Obama, progressives are modeling the behavior of social movement participants as diverse as the abolitionists, suffragists, civil rights advocates, feminists, and proponents of GLBT rights. Progressive movements have never achieved their goals by peacefully acquiescing to the will of politicians. While successful progressive movements have undoubtedly made and accepted compromises, they have also condemned politicians -- even sympathetic politicians -- when doing so was appropriate. The election of Obama does not provide a reasonable basis for abandoning this tried and tested historical approach to social change.

I used to think this was an obvious point. Not so obvious anymore apparently.

Speaking for me only

< Moscow: Women Suicide Bombers Kill Dozens at Metro | Monday Morning Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Emergence Of The Dem Blogosphere: The Celebration Of Triangulation | 105 comments (105 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Sometimes I just can't help but love you (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:14:36 AM EST

the differences... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by jeffinalabama on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:34:09 AM EST

Well, the left blogosphere, this site and FDL inter alia, are liberal sites. The others are transmogrifying into tools or parts. My question, though-- cult of personality or cooptation by the center-right of the democratic party?

I think a good argument could be made for cult of personality.

I'm not really liberal (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:40:47 AM EST

I am a semi-progressive with very hawkish foreign policy tendencies.

Heh. I remember when liberals were liberal (none / 0) (#14)
by jeffinalabama on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:59:07 AM EST

about the USA, but not necessarily other areas. Scoop Jackson comes to mind. Neocons like Richard Perle got started working for him... admittedly not a point in his favor in my estimation, but not a major point against. Jackson died long before the neocons emerged as a power bloc.

A site being liberal doesn't mean that all of its commetators are, or that liberalism means being a dove, IMO.

I consider myself a liberal domestically. Foreign policy is different. I am not a knee-jerk hawk, but I'm far from an isolationist.


While I am a liberal with semi-hawkish (none / 0) (#73)
by oldpro on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:52:15 PM EST

foreign policy tendencies...

So, in '68 would you have been in the LBJ camp? Doesn't seem possible that you could, then, have signed up with Bobby, Gene, or George...


Have to be old enough to vote in '68! (5.00 / 1) (#78)
by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:27:49 PM EST

: Not really, although I was. (none / 0) (#97)
by oldpro on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:43:06 PM EST

You just have to be old enough to have an opinion, go with your mom to hand out leaflets, etc. etc.

You are not "very hawkish"... (none / 0) (#101)
by NealB on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:16:02 PM EST

...by any historical standard.


Hooray for Centrism! (5.00 / 17) (#7)
by david mizner on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:51:14 AM EST

Coming next hour to the Daily Kos Dreck List:

"Joe Klein Nails It Again!"

"Why Hippies Smell So Bad!"

"Get out of Your Pajamas and Get on the Obama Bandwagon!"

Coming soon? (5.00 / 3) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:57:12 AM EST

"Joe Klein Nails it Again!" or better yet, "Jon Chait Nails It Again!" is already a staple.


You're right, actually (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by david mizner on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:02:16 AM EST

Whoops, hit publish too soon (4.00 / 3) (#22)
by david mizner on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:03:54 AM EST

The most popular pro-Obama propagandist, Blackwaterdog, writes diaries that cite praise of Obama from centrists and conservatives, Peter Beinart, David Brooks, without a hint of awareness.


: If they write someting cogent (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:06:56 AM EST

That is ok with me.
But Chait is particularly funny to me because he was a confirmed blog hater for years.

asdf (5.00 / 4) (#30)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:17:16 AM EST

"When I'm driving down the center of a two-lane windy road, everyone better get out of my way."

That's all this is. Smug, arrogance from the "center".

The "tut tut" pat on the head - we know best - and often a not so subtle "STFU" is meted out to anyone who recognizes a flaw in the proposed plan. You know, a flaw like "You might be on a collision course".

Interestingly, I think that the centrists are more ideological on some level than either of the two extremes of thought - certainly more inflexible than the left has always been. Funny, how there is no love and gratitude directed at all of those House progressives who yielded to the centrists quite early in the HCR process. Instead, their criticisms are called "shallow".

One of the identifiable mistakes in the Clinton era was that the bullying and derision of the left from the DLC types took a big toll - it gave Nader his shot, imo. Unfortunately, the emergence of the blogosphere could easily amplify that problem if the DLC types do not learn to give a little from their side - and do not figure out that alienating any portion of the base can result in serious problems at the ballot box.


For Obama to "transcend ideology" (5.00 / 7) (#8)
by Cream City on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:51:54 AM EST

-- per the diarist -- would require having an ideology.

Rewrite that to: Obama does an end-around on ideology. . . .

so much triangulation, so little reason (5.00 / 4) (#13)
by TeresaInPa on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:58:22 AM EST

Clinton had to compromise. Obama to this point should not have had to. His view of himself as a Uniter of both sides is all about his ego and is also his prime motivation. That's my opinion. Haven't seen any proof that I am wrong.

don't most of the people commenting on dkos actually blog from the white house in an office in the steampipe trunk distribution venue?

Actually, this part if quite right (5.00 / 10) (#18)
by david mizner on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:01:37 AM EST

Here is a dkos diary that really exemplifies the transformation of the once Left blogosphere into the Democratic blogosphere.

It's transformed into the Obama-sphere, and yes, there's a difference. Many of the people who loyally support Obama support anti-establishment insurgents in lower race, Brunner, Halter, etc. and they blast Harry Reid and triangulation and centrism in other contexts. And if Obama got hit by lightning and became a progressive, they'd dig that too. They're like AiPAC is with the Israeli government, they support and justify whatever Obama does.

: Yeah (5.00 / 4) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:03:49 AM EST

I pulled my punch a little bit.

: It would require a thunderbolt (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Salo on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:08:01 AM EST

At this point. Obama knows he's got opinion leaders in his pocket now.

Funniest line from that dkos diary? (5.00 / 7) (#23)
by Anne on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:04:00 AM EST

And it just so happens we have heaps of progressive candidates to get enthusiastic about this fall.

And, I cannot take seriously any diary that ends with "Yes, we can!" unless it is clearly marked as snark.

Heaps of "progressives"? (none / 0) (#31)
by Salo on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:23:08 AM EST

Stick em on a pallet and I'll bring the forklift truck around to dispose of the rotten lot at a landfill. They will be massacred at the polls come November anyway, the process may as well be expedited.


: Bring out ... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by Yman on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:21:21 PM EST

... your dead!

: Crumpled heaps (none / 0) (#46)
by ruffian on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:20:25 AM EST

is more like it

Not A Problem at TL (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:24:37 AM EST

Here we have a condemnation of triangulation by those who once hailed it. Pretty much the opposite of your examples.

But I guess, opposition is good as long it is coming from democrats, even if they wind up recycling the same talking points as the GOP.

Wierd. (5.00 / 10) (#33)
by Salo on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:35:27 AM EST

Im going to Wade into what you appear to be refering to. Though with no specifics I could be misunderstanding you.

Triangulation in the 1990s refered to Clinton's improvisations in the face of a hostile court and congress after the 1994 election defeat. Clinton was more identifiably liberal before he had to face the hostiles. Obama has a friendly congress right now and he's bowing and scraping before people like Hanlon, Snowe and Broder. His majority in the Senate may well disappear in a few months. And the Dems will be trimmed down in the house. What's Obama going to be like then?


No Idea (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:47:41 AM EST

I couldn't say what Obama would be like had he the same conditions of Clinton, which is your more full disclosure question, I imagine.

But I do not think that we will see that happen, no matter how much the rabid anti-Obama folks wind up repeating the talking point that Obama wants a GOP controlled congress.


WTF are you talking about? (5.00 / 8) (#36)
by Salo on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:58:18 AM EST

You are creating an internal conversation in your head and expecting others to be able to follow your thoughts.


Really? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:12:41 AM EST

Maybe you need a diagram:

Obama + Dem Congress=Triangulator
Clinton + GOP Congress=Triangularor

Therefore Clinton had to use triangulation, while Obama just does it because........
1. He is really a Republican, (or something like that, feel free to fill in the blank)

So you ask what would Obama do regarding his penchant for triangulation if he were in the same situation as Clinton.

Obama + GOP Congress=?

Let's see what you are trying to get at here. Since Obama is already a triangulator for no apparent reason, he will more than likely just become a shill for the GOP if they become a majority in congress.

Is that what you are getting at?


Because he is wrong to do so (5.00 / 13) (#44)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:18:12 AM EST

WTF Squeaky? Now we can't criticize Obama without you telling us we are spewing GOP talking points?

You are bringing a whole load of nothing to this discussion it seems to me.

If you want to defend Obama's actions on this, then effing do so. As I read you, the only thing you want to do is attack the critics. Weird stuff.


Well (none / 0) (#50)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:36:41 AM EST

That is not what I said. What I said is that there is a big difference between dkos and TL. Many commenters here appear to be polar opposites.

I have never had a problem with your criticisms of Obama. I do have a problem when it is as kneejerk as dkos shills for Obama.

And mindlessly repeating GOP talking points, seems absurd to me.

As regards Salo, seems to me calling out Obama for being a triangulator when he does not have to, is a more honest position, and I would agree.

He or she did not do that, imo.


Excuse me (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:42:27 AM EST

"I have never had a problem with your criticisms of Obama. I do have a problem when it is as kneejerk as dkos shills for Obama. And mindlessly repeating GOP talking points, seems absurd to me."

If you could point me to my "kneejerk" criticisms of Obama that use "GOP talking points," I would much appreciate it. I fully deny both accusations.


My Poor Writing (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:52:07 AM EST

Should read:

I have never had a problem with your criticisms of Obama.

I do have a problem when [some of the commenters here are] as kneejerk as dkos shills for Obama. And [when thoses commenters go on] mindlessly repeating GOP talking points, seems absurd to me.


Ah (none / 0) (#59)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 11:02:40 AM EST

Thanks for clarifying.


Clarification: comment did not refer to (5.00 / 3) (#63)
by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:35:41 PM EST

BTD. GUess the rest of us are on our own here.


The Rest Of You? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:47:34 PM EST

Glad to see that you acknowledge that there is a group who appears to be on "its own" here. Any interest in clarifying who the "rest of us are".

Guess not.

Must be a trick question.

But, apart from your passive plea for protection, this may answer any questions about being on your own here:

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. This is an opinion site. The material posted by TalkLeft or left in the comments section may or may not be accurate.

As far as I can tell, you have free reign (5.00 / 2) (#67)
by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:20:41 PM EST

here if you don't personally criticize the people who run the blog.


Yes, that has been clear (5.00 / 2) (#81)
by shoephone on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:59:22 PM EST

for a long time. Few can figure out why, but there it is.


: I'l bet Talex is curious! (none / 0) (#94)
by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:20:00 PM EST

Yes, and the pathetic result is that, (5.00 / 2) (#91)
by Dr Molly on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:55:18 PM EST

for the exact same positions and kinds of comments, the people who run the blog are complimented and the disliked commenters are insulted and attacked.

It's amusing to watch.


"Sucking up." (none / 0) (#93)
by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:19:21 PM EST

lol (none / 0) (#95)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:44:42 PM EST

The queen of sucking up speaketh...

and almost a crush, if not one...


Not working with J. (none / 0) (#98)
by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:46:16 PM EST

Never Has (none / 0) (#99)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:52:40 PM EST

As you once put it, you only are here because of BTD... or something like that.


He just ignores me. I should stay out (none / 0) (#100)
by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:56:39 PM EST

of the criminal law/procedure post threads. For example, given J's support of gun rights, what to make of today's post re arrest of religious zealots with guns and alleged plots to kill law enforcement officers?


: Nah (none / 0) (#104)
by squeaky on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 08:27:58 AM EST

He does not ignore you, he has a soft spot for you, it is obvious.

"Sycophant" (none / 0) (#103)
by Dr Molly on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 07:45:13 AM EST

in that particular case. A classic combination.


OK (none / 0) (#69)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:27:09 PM EST

Is that a non-sequitur or just tactics 101: evading the question by attacking the questioner aka subterfuge.


Speaking truth to power. (5.00 / 2) (#70)
by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:27:52 PM EST

: Ah (none / 0) (#71)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:29:51 PM EST

You flatter yourself. And the unintentional irony is dripping...

The triangulation doesn't matter. (5.00 / 4) (#56)
by Salo on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:44:06 AM EST

The nuts and bolts of the policy are actually disturbing to anyone paying attention from a leftist view point. It's like a healthcare enron, in part because of concessions to jackasses like Baucus and Lieberman.


Apparently you need the diagram (5.00 / 3) (#52)
by Salo on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:38:03 AM EST

There's a good chance that such a occurence would pave the way for him to drift ever rightward. It strikes me as being an ovbious outcome. What wouold he be then? An honest to god centrist?


What GOP talking points? (5.00 / 4) (#34)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:43:01 AM EST

And if you mean my belief that Clinton's triangulation after the GOP took over Congress in 1994 was understandable, then I plead guilty.

But then I also say the Left (which really does not include me if you think about it, I am a free trader, FP hawk) should have opposed Clinton's triangulation, it is worth noting that THEY DID.

You should address specific points if you can.


It'll come to nothing (none / 0) (#37)
by Salo on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:04:36 AM EST

But I understand Obama is considering revisiting trade picy with china. Must be an election year right?


Responding to Salo (none / 0) (#75)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:09:59 PM EST

In that the implied reason that Obama was using triangulation when he did not have to was because he wants to have a GOP congress. This is a GOP talking point, imo:

That leads me to my theory. He wants the Republicans to win in 2010 so he has someone to demonize in 2012. He can shun actual governance (OK - he basically has already) and go into full campaign mode against his enemies in Congress for 2 solid years. The media will be willing accomplices for him.

freerepublic

I have no problem with your belief that Clinton's triangulation was understandable, nor the left's criticism of him for doing it, I was in that camp.


Except that Salo didn't say that (5.00 / 2) (#88)
by sj on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:07:36 PM EST

It seems that you implied that all by yourself.


True (5.00 / 1) (#92)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:12:58 PM EST

Although other's here have... I took liberty to connect the dots..

And going by my initial comment, I was speaking generally about some commenters here who use much the same language as the wingnuts, when referring to anything Obama.


: I think your dot connector ... (5.00 / 2) (#96)
by Yman on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:41:55 PM EST

... is broken.

Just because it's a GOP (none / 0) (#76)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:13:01 PM EST

talking point doesn't mean that rational people can't have the same viewpoint.

Not all GOP viewpoints are radical.


Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:17:36 PM EST

And one sure sign of kool aid overdose is when liberals or progressives, which ever one you are identifying with these days, start believing crazy GOP conspiracy theories, and then defending them because they are rational.


I think what Obama has learned is (4.00 / 3) (#84)
by Anne on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 03:19:52 PM EST

that with or without a Democratic majority, he can get legislation he finds acceptable; with no Republicans supporting the health legislation, it was, nevertheless, a bill that could easily have come out of Republican-led committees. I think this is pretty obvious to most everyone, it's just that some are choosing to minimize that aspect of it, and have decided to call it "just the first step." I think there's also a saying about the road to hell being paved with good intentions, but, whatever.

So, should the Dems lose their majority in 2010, what would the downside be for Obama? Is there one? Would the Democrats end up being more liberal as part of the inevitable - let's hope it would be inevitable, anyway - pushback against Republican legislation? Or would they be about as irrelevant as it is possible to be, powerless to prevent sending Obama legislation he would be okay with signing?

Maybe we'll be finding out, which could be "interesting" in a kind of "oh, so the light at the end of the tunnel IS a train coming the other way" kind of way - there just won't be anyone to save us.

So, I don't think Obama has to actively work, or openly wish, for a Republican Congress, when it seems to me he gets what he wants no matter what.

Ah, the joys of a right-of-center Democrat, eh?


I find it difficult to believe any HCR (5.00 / 1) (#85)
by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 03:31:25 PM EST

would have emerged from GOP-chaired Congressional committees at this time.


Didn't say it would have. (5.00 / 1) (#87)
by Anne on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:00:35 PM EST

I have said for a long time that I thought the legislative process kabuki that brought us health reform would be the template going forward for a lot of other legislation; it was one reason I wanted it to fail, because in addition to there being a lot of garbage in the legislation itself, I didn't want any process victories that might repeat themselves.

No, the same Republicans who have managed to fight tooth-and-nail to prevent extensions of unemployment and COBRA subsidies because of "the deficit" would never have taken on health reform in any meaningful way, but then again, I'm not sure there's going to be much help for people in what Democrats passed, so are we any farther ahead? Maybe marginally, for some people - which is not to say that help isn't needed - but I think the bottom line is going to be an overall net negative.


What does this mean? (5.00 / 1) (#89)
by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:10:49 PM EST

it was, nevertheless, a bill that could easily have come out of Republican-led committees.

: "Easily" in the sense that it is (none / 0) (#90)
by Anne on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:29:03 PM EST

GOP in framing and ideas, not "easily" in the sense that they would have chosen to do it on their own if they were in charge; if you didn't know this was a Democratic bill, it could easily BE a GOP concoction.
And the fact that Obama could get the bill he wanted all along, one that looks remarkably like the GOP put it together - well, how bad would it be for him if he had to work with a Republican Congress?

And can you imagine if Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 8) (#38)
by masslib on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:05:21 AM EST

were President? It would have been Daily Hillary. Endless diaries relishing in the glory of Hillary's ability to transcend stuff. Marveling at Hillary's ability to slap the Left on substance while smacking the Right on tone. Blog posts brimming with praise for Hillary's ability to please both David Brooks and E.J. Dionne at the same time. Can you imagine? ;-)

: That was funny. Really funny (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by MO Blue on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:07:33 AM EST

: You have quite an imagination! (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by ruffian on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:21:17 AM EST

: Seriously funny, but that takes one hellluvan ... (5.00 / 2) (#60)
by Yman on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:10:42 PM EST

... imagination.
... or a whole lotta mushrooms.

Political styles (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by lilburro on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:06:59 AM EST

Some of this goes back, to me, to the primaries and the 08 election. My basic feeling when we were watching Obama go around with the Unity Shtick was that it was a shtick. However, it seems to be much more than a Shtick after all.

Beyond being p*ssed about political style though, you look at the health care debate and ask yourself if great political skill on the part of the Obama Administration was used. Conservadems seem to have led them by the nose all along, which led to many compromises. It's not like they got anyone on board by giving them one big present near the end (with the exception of Nelson although that turned out to be a mess). This bill is mostly center-right as a whole, not center-left with a few right wing concessions thrown in. Of course circumstances are different today and the GOP is more insane than usual, but imagine if Obama had baited Olympia Snowe or some GOP members with tort reform or whatever small thing they needed in the bill. Anyway it seems worth asking if the triangulation was even done well.

"one big present near the end" (none / 0) (#72)
by MO Blue on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:36:49 PM EST

No the big deals were made in the summer

Public Option (1)

Public Option 2

Prescription Drugs and hospitals

Prescription Drugs (2)

Prescription Drugs (3)


well, (none / 0) (#74)
by lilburro on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:02:13 PM EST

they were able to get various interest groups on board, this is true. But what I meant was getting Republicans on board. Olympia Snowe was in the driver's seat this summer. What did that result in?

Certainly, Obama has fully embraced the triangulation style of politics. The Unity Shtick sticks.


IMO it was more than merely (none / 0) (#79)
by MO Blue on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:31:51 PM EST

getting various interest groups on board. It was gutting making health care affordable and workable with massive give aways deals with the industries.


Do you think we will ever know? (none / 0) (#80)
by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:47:03 PM EST

Headline awhile back sd. GOP made FOIA request for WH docs re HCR mtgs. Haven't heard if any of the docs have been released.


So is it your opinion (none / 0) (#82)
by lilburro on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:59:50 PM EST

that this was all more or less decided behind closed doors last summer?

I think that view can be supported. Am I mischaracterizing you?

Although I think that view is more scary than mine...I know it is in style now to carp about how Congress doesn't work, the filibuster, etc., but if the only way to deal with interest groups is to give them what they want at the beginning of negotiations, that's something that removing the filibuster won't necessarily change, and in light of the various ways the legislative process could've gone down (the Schumer Plan, for ex.) but didn't, much more frightening. Sorry that sentence is comma HELL.


Yes (none / 0) (#83)
by MO Blue on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 03:07:52 PM EST

It is my opinion that this was all more or less decided behind closed doors last summer?


: Ok (none / 0) (#86)
by lilburro on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 03:54:11 PM EST

I'm not quite sure if I agree with that or not...but it seems a likelier story every day.

Despicable Sell Out-ism VS. tricentprag-ism (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by seabos84 on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:09:09 AM EST

IF the health care bill hadn't been a serious piece of crap,

IF the wall street bail outs hadn't been disgustingly slanted towards those who made the BIGGEST thieving mess in history,

IF the dims hadn't worked with Phil Gram et al to enron-ize and goldman-ize the financial markets,

who'd care if someone triangulated the centrists and beat up the DFH's and the moderates weren't scared so they voted Dim ... blah blah blah ???

The results suck, except for the aristo-fascist pigs at the top taking the most cuz they're on the top - so celebrating and advocating the tactics of these sucky results ... yeah, where are my pom-poms.

rmm.

This has most definitely (5.00 / 2) (#48)
by robotalk on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:31:37 AM EST

become the direction of DKos since O's "victory" on healthcare. Because he capitulated on that, this is the behavior they will support on everything from this point forward.

The thing about hero worship (5.00 / 2) (#66)
by Cream City on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:58:47 PM EST

is that it only makes sense if it enshrines a hero.

For those who think that the health insurance bill is the biggest thing since "the" (there have been many) Civil Rights Act -- or even bigger (!) -- I disagree but have no problem with their wish to engage in hero worship.

However, what makes them silly is that he was not the hero in this one. So then it is just more Obama worship -- and hardly constructive of them toward encouraging more heroic measures by him or others. And there remains much need for heroic measures ahead.

Yes, that was a truly bad diary. (4.50 / 6) (#65)
by TomP on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:55:40 PM EST

There is a group on Daily Kos that is organized and even has a "secret" facebook group dedicated to destroying progressive Democrats. It does not take much to get a diary on the rec list. Cedwyn (the author) is part of it.

Kos does not buy it. But there are people who use thuggish tactics (the Clinton supporters clearly remember) to try to suppress all dissent.

Others continue to fight cedwyn and her gang. There are left critics and some, like me, who support Obama generally but also push on issues.

Godo post, BTD. Dkos is not at all like it was when I first got there.

Well, this is the battle (2.00 / 1) (#9)
by andgarden on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:51:54 AM EST

Some people like PPUS and triangulation, and some people don't. I presume that there aren't many converts one way or the other.

I don't really think you've identified any kind of "transformation."

Come on (5.00 / 11) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:55:57 AM EST

many of the same people embracing triangulation now HATED it before.

I've actually tried to make a more nuanced point about triangulation - to wit, in the mid 90s, it was a necessary evil. After all, the GOP took over Congress.

NOW it is awful and unnecessary.

And in any case, the Left should be against it always. That is the important role the Left plays.

You are just plain wrong about this.


regarding HCR (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by TeresaInPa on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:00:52 AM EST

"just pass anything and we will declare victory".

Too bad he didn't wear scrubs or something, like bush wore a flight suit when he declared Victory in Iraq.


Most of the public there are Eisenhower (none / 0) (#17)
by Salo on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:01:14 AM EST

Republicans with a smattering of neoliberal foreign policy boffins thrown in the mix.


: They are to the right of Eisenhower. (none / 0) (#102)
by dkmich on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:34:09 AM EST

I read that ridiculous diary. I left this comment because I couldn't believe how shallow it was.
What else would the msm say... Every time they get called out for not doing their job, they say having both sides disagree with them "proves" they are doing it right. Since they are suppose to be impartial, it is an argument for them - even if lame. Since Obama is suppose to be a Democrat, it doesn't work for him at all - unless he's laying claim to being an independent and having no allegiance to any party. Come to think of it....
The dailykos we all knew and loved doesn't exist anymore. Kos isn't even particularly interested in his blog nowadays.

You're not identifying any specific (none / 0) (#42)
by andgarden on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:09:36 AM EST

individuals. But to the degree anyone hated it before and loves it now, it could only be because at one time or another, there was no understanding (or care) about what it meant.


I see (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:19:01 AM EST

You want me to say Markos' name? There. I said it.


Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by andgarden on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:36:08 AM EST

He's flown off the handle more than once, but I think he's been pretty nuanced since the election in his Obama support (which seems to be what we're really talking about).


To each his own I guess (5.00 / 2) (#51)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:37:07 AM EST

Nuanced is not the word I would choose at all.


I don't think he's hitched his ride (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by andgarden on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:41:15 AM EST

to the Obama train, if that's what you're saying. He's been pretty critical in some obvious ways over the last year.


I think he has (5.00 / 3) (#55)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:42:47 AM EST

: OK, well, maybe we're not looking at (none / 0) (#57)
by andgarden on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:49:16 AM EST

the same things.

Yeah, but if you think about it (none / 0) (#61)
by Kimberley on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:19:46 PM EST

It makes sense.

Markos is Daily Kos now.

I don't know what his private thoughts on the people who inhabit his site are but so long as they're there operating as an extension of the site's raison d'être, there's no practical impetus for him to think too much about who those people are, how they arrived, or what kind of effect they're having on the Democratic Party because Daily Kos is still working like it's supposed to (no matter how he feels about it).

The site is designed to accommodate an ever-changing tonal quality. As long as the site serves to ensure electoral victory for Democrats, my guess is that Markos' personal views will remain largely enigmatic and, as site owner, he'll refuse to put a philosophical foot down in any direction because Daily Kos is fulfilling its promise.

Mind you, I don't share this insight with any degree of enjoyment. It's a bitter pill for me.

I spent considerable time there for nearly ten years, only to be badly burned by the design--and very near my heart. But I can't blame Kos. I should never have allowed the site to be of ideological comfort to me. It's not built for that.


awful and unnecessary? (none / 0) (#68)
by Manuel on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:20:47 PM EST

I thought so briefly just after the election. Events since have more or less convinced me that the public mood and our institutions will result in triangulation for some time to come. Obama's current political strategy seems to be to blame the Republicans for the failure of the PPUS. Who knows, it may be a winning strategy.

As you suggest, the role of the left should be to push relentlessly for issues. Didn't Bill Clinton suggest as much when he said he wished the left had pushed on him more?


It think that diary was revelation though (5.00 / 3) (#15)
by Salo on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:59:26 AM EST

Let the mask slip. It was promoted to the recc list instantly. I think the general public there have changed. It's mainly about hero worship now. That's nature.


True. 'Twere as it ever 'twas. (none / 0) (#10)
by Cream City on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:53:17 AM EST

This was the depressing diary ever (none / 0) (#2)
by Salo on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:29:36 AM EST

Seen on DKos. It's as they feel they need to be Obama apologists. As if the guy isn't already set for life.

The most depressing. (none / 0) (#3)
by Salo on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:30:39 AM EST

Doesn't that diarist frequent talkleft?


I doubt it (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:40:03 AM EST

And in a way, I am a but unfair in using this diary as an example of what has happened to the Left blogs, but I think it does demonstrate it to a great extent.

This is not an unusual thought process, though that diary was certainly pretty extreme in its celebration of triangulation.


There was another telling trend... (none / 0) (#25)
by Salo on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:06:01 AM EST

... Setrak. But you probably agree with him policy wise. I found him to be an able pentagon mouthpiece though.

The bashing of Kucinich was surreal. I don't rate kucinich highly but at least he was willing to speak up about single payer and the PO.

As of now I'd say the recc list is a Whitehouse Organ.


Most of the FP is now (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:07:39 AM EST

imo.


: I have a confession (none / 0) (#29)
by Salo on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:10:00 AM EST

I can't recall the last time I read an FP there. I like randomness of the diaries much more. Now they are getting monotonous in their praise of O.

Yes, it's an ongoing debate. (none / 0) (#20)
by Susie from Philly on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:03:40 AM EST

Which is, where should the interests of the left diverge from the Democratic party? From what I've seen, the corporate bent of the current leadership makes it downright silly for leftist bloggers to put party above policies. And yet, almost invariably they do.

Sometimes it's as simple as the lesser of two evils. And sometimes it's a matter of offering a blogger a consulting gig, or a more prestigious platform. (I've said from the beginning that the blogosphere would one day be the Villagers.)

That's because even bloggers have to eat. Unfortunately, except for the giant blogs who survive off advertising, the Beltway establishment organs are pretty much the only blog patrons out there. And if you don't have a politics-proof day job, you don't have much choice.

Which is why I keep telling readers to support blogs with donations. It's really the only way to preserve their independence.

: I try not to discuss motives (none / 0) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:05:01 AM EST

As you say, everybody has to eat.
I am not going to preach to anyone about that. It's easy for me to write precisely what I think. Not so easy for everyone else.

Demand nothing, get nothing (none / 0) (#106)
by Caro on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 04:51:04 PM EST

>>Progressive movements have never achieved their goals by peacefully acquiescing to the will of politicians.

I tried to tell this in 2008 to the people who decided to vote for Obama without demanding anything of him.

Unfortunately, we all get what they deserve.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com