Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

The campaigns have been chugging away for at least 6 months now. Those three terms, who/what we fight/stand for, here's the number of times each of the candidates has mentioned any of them, since the beginning of their campaign, in their emails from either the candidate or their campaign directors (# of emails by the candidates):

                      Democrat    Democratic    Progressive   

John Edwards (26)     0           3             0         
surrogates            2           13            5

Chris Dodd (8)        0           3             0
surrogates            1           10            0          

Hillary Clinton (12)  0           2             0            
surrogates            0           1             0

Bill Richardson(8)    0           0             0
surrogates            4           6             0

Barack Obama(18)      0           0             0           
surrogates            1           1             0   
Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, have all three said the D word. The P word though, is where Edwards laps the field. I find that particularly interesting. Though I'm not on any Republican candidate lists, I would imagine that everyone of them touts their conservative credentials in name much more often than do Democrats their worldview. After all, the conservatives are trying to win the Republican nomination.

btw, here's something silly I'd missed that I'm surprised the dumb news didn't run with mainstream coverage. Clinton's first 8 emails all were addressed from "Hillary Rodham Clinton" and then beginning with May 3rd, they have been "Hillary Clinton"-- in the fwiw column. Maybe they did and I just missed it cause I don't consume trash.

I guess the avoidance of anything that relates to the Democratic Party by Barack Obama is something that speaks for itself-- actually it doesn't and one has to wonder [updated to include two references by a surrogate].

The biggest Obama promoter on this blog currently is probably lovinj, and in a recent diary, Barack Obama, On What It Means To Be An American And Not Just A Democrat, with another big Obamacrat, both newbies here, they had this back and forth in the comments:

In the future, more and more people are poised to get sick of the terms Republican and Democrat, as they quickly becoming synonomous with bickering and corruption. It seems the good Senator sees this coming. And he is right, by the way.
by Todd Bennett

I ask everyone rate this comment with three's. This post speaks volumes about the current state of politics. You are dead on Todd. REC for sure.
by lovingj

I'm sure that Obama would not rec that comment (funny visulization), but I can see, given Obama's avoidance of aligning with the Democratic Party as a partisan, where this sort of thinking comes about, but it's not the way he's going to win the Democratic nomination, I will bet. Let me take another comment, by Iowa poster, desmoinesdem, I think Obama is making a mistake on two levels, to make the point:
I have little to add to Big Tent Democrat's critique, which deals with one of my major misgivings about Obama. Even if Obama were to win the presidency using such a strategy, he would do so by running down the Democratic brand.

Furthermore, I think Obama is miscalculating if he thinks this kind of rhetoric clears a path to the nomination.

I attended a house party for Obama several weeks ago. Talking with some of the Obama supporters and leaners there, it was clear to me that they were drawn to this post-partisan rhetoric. One woman specifically praised Obama for not sounding angry, adding that Gore just sounds "stupid" when he gives an angry speech. (Swallow right-wing frames much?, I thought, but I kept my mouth shut).

One of the Obama field organizers even said to the group that we tried it Dean's way, sounding angry, and that doesn't work and isn't appealing to people. We need to set a different tone to bring people together.

As the party was winding down, I did approach that woman and called her on promoting MSM crap about Dean being too "angry."

Anyway, there clearly is a group of voters out there who think politics are too nasty and partisan, and we need someone to bring people together. I don't know how many people there are like that, but I sure don't think it's a plurality within the universe of Democratic primary voters. Obama picked up a lot of support in Iowa earlier this year, but in the polling I've seen, he's been stuck around 20 percent, plus or minus a few points.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that 20 percent of Democrats like the post-partisan Obama rhetoric, but if he doesn't start sounding like more of a proud Democrat willing to take the fight to the Republicans, I don't think he is going to win Iowa. I don't care how many field offices he has here.

There is something to that notion of there being an appetite for this type of "solve problems together" rhetoric. I saw it in the bit of surveying we did in Iowa with Warner, much more offline than online. Obama, along with Clinton, has spent a slew of money on polling (~$700k each). You don't poll that much for horserace stuff this far out-- that's focus group and message testing, and probably some segmentation polling being done. But there's no definite correlation between some (and it's no majority) voters saying they prefer that 'get along' over 'stand up' rhetoric, and actually voting that way. It doesn't seem to be the poll result that Clinton is drawing, just from viewing her DVD that was sent out to Iowa caucus voters.

Update [2007-7-19 11:51:56 by Jerome Armstrong]:Obviously, there are going to be segmented lists that are sent out to different people. The above chart shows the emails I received(with the noted addition), as someone that had signed up for those lists at the beginning. Results may vary according to how segmented the list is for each campaign.

Tags: Democrat, Democratic, progressive (all tags)



Jerome, I like how you

do things here.  I've not seen this before.  You seem genuinely engaged with the posters.  Nice.

Ok, here's my theory.  I think Obama has made the political calculation that he probably needs to bring in independents to win the democratic nomination over Hillary, hence the non-Democratic id part.  I'm not saying the he's not for "a new kind of politics" but I think we can attribute some of the rhetoric to that.  For me, I've seen this exact campaign before; "new kind of politics", "what a movement looks like" yada yada yada.  Deval Patrick.  He, by the way, also touted a handful of Republican supporters early on to make his case for being more "electable".  Coincidence?  I doubt it.  I think that's why I couldn't get into the Obama movement.  I've seen it before but with a candidate I prefer who was able to make the same case as Obama while also branding himself a Democrat.  

by bookgrl 2007-07-19 02:19AM | 0 recs
I've always stated this fact

What people do not understand is that you will not beat Hillary if only the hard core democrats turns out on primary nights.

Those democrats remember the Clintons years and some of them will undoubetly vote for Hillary because of Bill alone.

People like Armstrong believe that the way to beat Hillary is by being the most partisan guy a la Howard Dean and support immidiate troop withdrawal,but isnt it what John Edwards is doing right now??..What has the Howard Dean rhetorics got him??...Hillary is getting a large slice of the liberal support and they will support her regardless of her war vote,therefore, only a candidate that can appeal to people outside the party would be able to defeat a candidate as popular as Hillary.

Although people like DesMoineDems have tried to convince us only hard core dems will show up for the Iowa caucus, i will disagree with that because this upcoming election will be an historic moment in American politics....How many folks will want to miss that?...The first black man going against the first female potential president.

Look at all the money that's being raised this early and the fact that the top 3 democrats broke all fundraising records..Even Richardson has raised a lot of money for a second tier candidate.....How can you tell me that turn out will not be high?

The fact that presidential fever has started so early is another indication that this upcoming election cycle will be unlike any past elections.

I think the Iowa caucus turn out will be high,specially for Obama because not only will he have an immense army of voluneteers/ grassroots, but plenty of money to blanket the state and do it carefuly.

Obama is hoping to turn out people who has no ties to the democratic party, but at the same time, peel off as many regular democrats as possible..

Although people have stated that independents cant vote in Iowa, i found out this is not true at all and anyone could show up at the caucus,register and caucus on the same night...NH and South Carolina also allows independents to vote on either side.

Obama doesnt have to sound like Howard Dean and if he starts doing that now, it will hurt him more then help because this is just not his style and it wont work for him.

I seriously dont think democrats care about whether Obama is saying 'democratic party" in his speech enough...As long as Obama talks about his plan for Iraq and progressive issues, he will be fine...You dont have to be an angry liberal,really...Howard Dean lost, remember??..People like Jerome seems to forget that.

Anyway,everyone has their style....Obama goal is to appeal to more then just hard core partisan democrats..People that couldnt care less about party label...There are a lot of those folks out there, and the plan is to just get enough of them to participate...Frankly, it's the only way you're beat Hillary....Edwards is learning this exact fact the hard way.

by JaeHood 2007-07-19 04:08AM | 0 recs
Just make stuff up

Although people like DesMoineDems have tried to convince us only hard core dems will show up for the Iowa caucus, i will disagree with that because this upcoming election will be an historic moment in American politics....How many folks will want to miss that?...

Yeah, tell Howard Dean and everyone else that the masses will show up for the caucus because "it's a special time in history". As if 2004 wasn't pivotal? Have you ever participated in a caucus? Do you know what it entails? A heck of a lot more than telling people to show up with your candidate's button on their lapel.

You need to do better for your candidate. A lot better.

by Michael Bersin 2007-07-19 04:44AM | 0 recs
Please Obamaniacs

pick up this theme and do some more bashing of Howard Dean in the blogosphere!

by philgoblue 2007-07-19 05:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive
Interesting that Edwards doesn't himself use the word Democrat much in his emails either and leaves it to his surrogates. I'm not sure I much like the newly invented criterion of number of times mentioned in emails, but regardless I'd dispute the numbers. Maybe I'm reading some different emails:
David Plouffe (July 16th) "Next Steps"
Right now you can do that by making a personal commitment to support Barack Obama every month until he's the Democratic nominee.

This is the first time in presidential politics that so many people have taken an active role this early. If we continue to sustain our growth it will have a huge impact on candidates up and down the Democratic ticket in 2008.

David Plouffe (March 20th) "Iraq"
Today he's got a plan to end it. His plan to begin a phased withdrawal of our troops by May 1st is the foundation around which Democrats of all stripes have united.

Barack doesn't take Bush to task in his emails? How about the recent email appeal with Obama's own signature to supporters to write letters to the editor. It was titled "You Call This Progress?" Some choice quotes:
Meanwhile, George Bush released his administration's report on the "progress" in Iraq. It's another example of how deep in denial he is about what's really happening. The past three months have been some of the deadliest since the war began, and things are getting worse -- not better.

The war in Iraq should never have been authorized, never have been waged, and it must end now....

George Bush just finished a press conference where he tried to tell people that progress is being made in Iraq and against al Qaeda. The press will report his spin and obfuscation -- but you can have an impact on their coverage.
Or you could look at Obama's campaign against 16 Republican senators who were preventing action on the Iraq war, in which he named names of Republican senators in whatever state he was campaigning in. (Louisiana, New Hampshire, Iowa, etc.)

And he's taken other pot-shots at the Republican minority in the Senate for preventing a vote (February 22nd):
In the Senate, the Republican minority has managed to prevent any vote at all.

Obama also worked his butt off in 2006 to elect a Democratic Congress, arguably doing better than any other Democrat short of Bill Clinton on the stump.
by psericks 2007-07-19 02:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive
Part of the reason I think running this kind of test on candidate emails is odd is that they may all simply using off-hand phrases like "competing in the Democratic primary" or "winning the Democratic nomination" or "Check out the Democratic debate last night, we have video on our website." How is that necessarily representative of anything at all?
by psericks 2007-07-19 03:42AM | 0 recs
Where's jerome

I hope jerome responds to your post because he clearly has his facts wrong.

Not that it ever matters to me,but to say that Obama doesnt use the word 'democratic',Progressive" etc etc and then be proven wrong that he does use them, is very embarrassing.

I hope jerome takes back his anti-obama rhetorics and hopefuly apologizes to everyone reading Mydd for smearing Obama with fabricated facts.

by JaeHood 2007-07-19 04:22AM | 0 recs
More evidence that Obama supporters

attack the person.

You accused Jerome Armstrong of " smearing Obama with fabricated facts."

The Obama supporters are Obama's worst enemy on the netroots.  Personal attacks are a favorite.  It so turns off people.

It is this that shows me the flaw in this cult of personality.    

You owe Jerome Armstrong an apology, but I am sure we will never hear one.

by littafi 2007-07-19 05:16AM | 0 recs
Re: More evidence that Obama supporters

He just showed email(s) from the Obama camp that mention Democrat whereas Jerome claims they never do.  That is the definition of "fabricated facts".  

by maddogg 2007-07-19 05:29AM | 0 recs
Re: More evidence that Obama supporters

Why should JaeHood apologize?  Claimng Jerome is "smearing Obama with fabricated facts." is a perfectly relevant argument if it's true.  

It is well known that Jerome likes Edwards and feels the need to disparage Obama.  He routinely posts questionable Obama attacks on the front page and then gives backhanded complements to try and appear somehow balanced.  (Rockstar, anyone?)  

In this instance he sets out to further the idea that Obama isn't partisan enough.  He makes up a utterly ludicrous standard that surprise, surprise, makes Edwards look the best.   Only it turns out that his numbers are wrong.  Obama and his surrogates have, in fact, used the terms that Jerome approves of.  I'd say that is fairly relevant.

Instead of posting silly, and apparently incorrect, numbers, why doesn't he examine why the candidate might be using the rhetoric that they use.  Or, I don't know, listen to a speech or two  to actually see what the candidates are actually conveying to the public.

by BobbyWallace 2007-07-19 05:41AM | 0 recs
Re: More evidence that Obama supporters
Well said.
It's true. I've only seen a couple of Jerome's diary entries but in them he seriously misrepresented Obama's position. He pretends to sound objective but isn't fooling anyone who is trying to understand all the candidates.
by Satya 2007-07-19 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Where's jerome

huh, so you're saying that the statistics about the campaign emails are fabricated?  That's quite a charge!  Can you back it up?!

by philgoblue 2007-07-19 05:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Where's jerome

If you scroll up a bit it was just proven.

by Obama08 2007-07-19 05:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

2 Points

1.  Obama pushed the politics of Capitulation in Iraq and now were stuck with the theater that was the all-nighter in the Senate.  There just aren't 16-18 Republicans to be won over (there just aren't that many that are in trouble of being defeated in 2008).  The Capitulationists like Obama knew this at the time.

2. Obama didn't work his butt off.  How many candidates did he support in person?  How many ballot proposals did he help?  And why, when he was sitting in New York, just a few miles from Conneticut, did he refuse to help Ned Lamont?

by philgoblue 2007-07-19 05:28AM | 0 recs
New York Times article on Obama and the midterms
Sorry to quote a few paragraphs, but this just has to be said:
Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has become the prize catch of the midterm campaign. More sought after than virtually every other Democrat, Mr. Obama was fully booked, long ago, on a schedule to take him across a large swath of the country to help his party try to win control of Congress.

In stops with candidates in Minnesota and Wisconsin over two days at the beginning of this week, Mr. Obama helped draw large crowds and intense news media attention to earnest but otherwise nondescript rallies...
Mr. Obama, who has campaigned for Mr. Ford and plans to do so again, is also one of the top donors to federal candidates from his federal political action committee. He has given $374,000 to federal candidates in this election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That is more than even Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, whose PAC donated $252,500, and Senator John Kerry, whose PAC has given $82,600. (All three of them have also helped candidates in other, sometimes more valuable ways, like headlining fund-raising events and lending lists of donor e-mail addresses.) Mr. Obama has also been featured prominently in the Democrats' direct mail campaigns.

While Clinton gathered $10 million in extra cash in her Senate account for her presidential run, Obama ended up with only $50,000 in his Senate bank account for a run.
by psericks 2007-07-19 05:44AM | 0 recs
Link itics/01obama.html?ex=1184990400&en= 166f2f5ca18ed655&ei=5070
by psericks 2007-07-19 05:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive
The 16 Senators number was about the number needed to override a presidential veto, not about the total number of Republicans for the war or up for re-election.
by psericks 2007-07-19 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

I do not have either of those emails from Plouffe no where in my mailbox. Perhaps you are on a select list. I am on the general list. Regardless, I added the nominal numbers.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-07-19 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

Maybe they send general emails to the general list and targeted partisan emails to the donor/supporter list.

by aiko 2007-07-19 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

Besides the fact that Jerome's simply wrong about Obama's use of the word "Democratic," does anyone on the Edwards/Clinton lists want to share

I ran gmail searches for both "Obama" and "Edwards" and "Democraic" (I'm on the Edwards list as well as the Obama) and couldn't come up with anything for either.

Given the fact that none of the candidates has said the word "Democrat" in their emails, and none has said "Democratic" more than 3 times, I'm guessing they aren't employing the kind of red meat rhetoric that Jerome seems to be longing for. If this is indeed the case, it seems silly to single Obama out, especially when the charges leveled against him were clearly false

by Max Fletcher 2007-07-19 07:43AM | 0 recs
JoeBama worked his butt off

to re-elect LIEberman!!! - and they're both DemoRats.

by annefrank 2007-07-19 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

In the future, more and more people are poised to get sick of the terms Republican and Democrat, as they quickly becoming synonomous with bickering and corruption.

Yeah, recycle the "no difference" meme from 2000 and merge it with "they're all alike" so that republicans have another excuse for their bad behavior. How do you like where we are now, eh?

I have to keep reminding myself that candidates and campaigns are not responsible for, nor do they control their amateur fans.

To get the Democratic Party nomination a candidate must get delegates. In the past the delegate selection plan in my state has included delegates elected at the congressional district level (from the people who show up at county/township meetings)  distributed by the percentage of vote the candidate garnered in the primary vote (there is a minimum 15% threshold), delegates elected at the state party convention (again distributed by percentage of the vote in the primary), PLEO [party leader/elected official] delegates elected by the state party committee (also distributed by percentage vote in the primary), and "super delegates" [If the governor is a Democrat, that person is automatically one of these. If a senator or any U.S. representative is a Democrat, they are  automatically one of these]. A caveat about percentage vote in the primary - in my state these tend to be very low turnout elections. The party activists and people with strong party affiliation are the group who can be counted on to turn out in highest percentages - that is, they're over represented in the primary when it comes to the general voting population.

Generally, a majority of the people who end up being delegates have some very strong connections to and a very long history of activism in the party. They tend to take a dim view of people who use republican memes or talking points to disrespect the Democratic Party. Super delegates [those elected officials] are beholden to the party rank and file to get elected [the party and campaign volunteers who spend a lot of time helping candidates do so]. Those "super delegates", when given a close choice, are not going to piss off the rank and file when it comes time to commit to a candidate.

If one candidate has the nomination in a runaway, this reality probably won't make a difference. If it's a close contest for the nomination, it could make all of the difference in the world - after all, the process is for selecting the Democratic party nominee for president.

by Michael Bersin 2007-07-19 03:05AM | 0 recs
Standing up for the Word "Progressive"
If you look through Obama's now well-known speeches to religious audiences reaching out to Christian voters, you'll also see him defend progressives and progressive ideals and use the P word (eight times).
Here's the Call to Renewal Address:
I want to give you an example that I think illustrates this fact. As some of you know, during the 2004 U.S. Senate General Election I ran against a gentleman named Alan Keyes. Mr. Keyes is well-versed in the Jerry Falwell-Pat Robertson style of rhetoric that often labels progressives as both immoral and godless...
And that is why that, if we truly hope to speak to people where they're at - to communicate our hopes and values in a way that's relevant to their own - then as progressives, we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse. all_to_renewal_1/index.php
by psericks 2007-07-19 03:12AM | 0 recs

Funny you should mention the Call to Renewal speech. The first line of the the WaPo article on the speech:

Sen. Barack Obama chastised fellow Democrats on Wednesday for failing to "acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people," and said the party must compete for the support of evangelicals and other churchgoing Americans.

Great job, Obama! You got a front page article on the Washington with a prominent Democrat calling other Democrats irreligious.

by clarkent 2007-07-19 04:55AM | 0 recs
That was one godawful speech

and here's the worst part:

Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands.

Ah yes, don't you hate all those heathen Dems who say they can't talk about religious values because the constitution won't let them. ll_to_renewal/

by david mizner 2007-07-19 05:18AM | 0 recs
Re: That was one godawful speech
While I've already laid out some of the work that progressives need to do on this, I that the conservative leaders of the Religious Right will need to acknowledge a few things as well.

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. That during our founding, it was not the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of this separation; it was the persecuted religious minorities, Baptists like John Leland, who were most concerned that any state-sponsored religion might hinder their ability to practice their faith.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers. And even if we did have only Christians within our borders, who's Christianity would we teach in the schools? James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage so radical that it's doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application? This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
by psericks 2007-07-19 05:31AM | 0 recs
Obama also triangulated

on the flag burning bill.  You will notice that Obama fans stopped criticizing Clinton on that one BECAUSE OBAMA DID THE EXACT SAME THING.

And now Obama is claiming at Blue New
Hampshire that his health care plan covers everyone, when it does not: o?diaryId=1432

"I am the only candidate who will sign legislation by the end of my first term that will cover every American and cut the cost of every family's premiums by up to $2,500 -- the biggest cost-savings that any presidential candidate has proposed."

That is just false.

by littafi 2007-07-19 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama also triangulated
Where do you get this? Obama voted against the Flag Burning constitutional amendment, and the bill went down by one vote. If Hillary had her way, we might be talking about states ratifying right down.
His statement on the Senate floor said he personally disapproved with flag burning but that he thought the fact that the Senate was debating it was a disgrace:
"Today, there are hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops risking their lives for their country, looking to us to come up with a plan to win the peace so they can come home. Across America, there are millions who are looking for us to do something about health care, about education, about energy. The Senate will likely be in session for about 50 more days for the rest of this year. To spend the precious time we have left battling an epidemic of flag burning that does not exist is a disservice to our country.
"As Richard Savage of Bloomington, Illinois wrote to me, "I am a Vietnam veteran and Republican. . . . Those who would burn the flag destroy the symbol of freedom, but amending the Constitution would destroy part of freedom itself." Mr. Savage is right, which is why I will vote against this amendment. Senator Durbin's amendment is a way forward to balance our respect for the flag with reverence for the Constitution."

As for the universal health care, there are been numerous threads discussing that.
by psericks 2007-07-19 07:26AM | 0 recs
Check your facts.

He voted for an unconstitutional statute against flag burning and then against the amendment to the constitution, just like Clinton.  Exactly like Clinton.  People accused Clinton of triangulating, BUT OBAMA DID THE EXACT SAME THING.

The support for Obama here is often "faith-based" and not empirical/reason based.  

by littafi 2007-07-19 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama also triangulated
Typical Obama supporter, no idea what Hillary's record is. She opposed a Flag Burning constitutional amendment and in fact her maneuvers were responsible for defeating it.
by souvarine 2007-07-19 07:42AM | 0 recs
Hillary and Obama

voted exactly the same on that.  Good, bad, or indifferent, the facts are that they each voted for a statute to ban flag burning but against the constitutional amendment.

I have seen Obama supporters criticize Clinton for her votes, without knowing that Obama voted the same way.

At least Senator Clinton identifies herself as a Democrat.

by littafi 2007-07-19 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama also triangulated
As previously stated here by other posters - Obama's role is to cha$e the money and create the illusion of a competitive race - while Obama supporters diss the Progressive and most electable candidate - and Hillary smiles.
Obama waltzed into the prez race with a nude pic on a magazine cover - and lots of hope and motivational speaking skills. No comprehensive policy positions or solutions. Then - Obamamaniacs promote the Obama they "see" - and justify his anti-Progressive history: endorsing LIEberman, sponsoring a bill for the coal indu$try, voting with Repubs for 3 rightwing extremist judges...
by annefrank 2007-07-19 08:48AM | 0 recs
Yep, I did
The word "chastised" came from the Associated Press and like their "Quiet Riot" headline to Obama's speech on urban poverty, it completely misrepresented his speech.
Try reading it.
Quote me a single sentence in the speech in which Obama criticizes Democrats, other than in this joke --
I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology. Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith - the politician who shows up at a black church around election time and claps - off rhythm - to the gospel choir.
-- and in calling on progressives not to cede the relgious vote:
...This is why, if we truly hope to speak to people where they're at - to communicate our hopes and values in a way that's relevant to their own - we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse. Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome - others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.
by psericks 2007-07-19 05:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Yep, I did

I believe David did just up above. Obama says some good things in the speech, but he reverts to this "on the one hand" kind of stuff that's infuriating to Democrats.

by clarkent 2007-07-19 05:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Yep, I did
David misrepresented Obama's section on the separation between church and state. Obama's only criticism is that he's calling on Democrats to step up and fill a void that will otherwise by filled by the other side --- he's challenging their tactics.
(Name me one Democrat on this site who hasn't been dissatisfied with the way Democrats have played the Iraq war debate in the Senate for at least part of this year. Challenging tactics is fair game.)
And he's consistently (and in hostile venues like mega-churches) challenged the assumption that the right has a monopoly on religion and that progressives can be pigeon-holed as atheists.
by psericks 2007-07-19 05:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Yep, I did

Name one Democrat who says he-she can't talk about religious values because the constitution ties his-her hands. That's what Obama said; it's not true.

by david mizner 2007-07-19 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Yep, I did
Hee, I'm sorry if I got carried away with the "Name me one" mantra, it can get irritating --- and you're right to call me on it.
As far as your argument, do you really think the separation of church and state plays no role in the way Democrats have resisted talking about their faith in public? This is absolutely something Dems have struggled with.
A google search turns up hundreds of groups protesting the way Democrats have tried to talk about faith since the 2004 defeat. Here's a randomly chosen example:
If Democratic candidates were to take the lead and stand up for the principle of separation of church and state, as opposed to trying to pick up a few votes by unsuccessfully trying to look like Republicans, they might even win more voters over to their position and pick up a few votes.

John Kerry certainly said things like this:
Kerry has rebuffed pressure from Democrats inside and outside his campaign to talk more openly about religion, aides say, other than making the word "faith" part of the values message he is offering to voters on the campaign trail. He has turned down numerous interview requests on the topic, including several for this article. Aides said Kerry's resistance to talking about faith and personal beliefs is a relatively common trait among Catholic and Protestant politicians reared in the reserved New England tradition.

"I grew up in the same background as a Roman Catholic in New England, and we all have a tradition . . . where faith is practiced inside your religion and it's more of a private matter," said Tad Devine, a top Kerry strategist.
Kerry never said it outright, and he explains it with cultural reasons, but don't you think part of his reason is that he thought it unseemly to talk about faith in the public square because it doesn't belong? (He changed his mind later in the race and gave a few speeches about his faith.)
Also interesting: Did you also notice Obama said "tie our hands"? He was calling it "our" problem, a difficulty that he has been trying to sort out in his own political career. (The bulk of the speech relates his experience trying to deal with Alan Keyes.)
by psericks 2007-07-19 07:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Yep, I did

Still waiting on the one Democrat.

by clarkent 2007-07-19 07:08AM | 0 recs
Crickets are chirping

by clarkent 2007-07-19 01:33PM | 0 recs
Faith in the Public Square
Sorry, too many threads to keep track of. I've been on other threads.
I feel like this is kind of silly. You're really going to argue that Democrats haven't in the last decade expressed unease about using faith-based rhetoric and that this discomfort has nothing to do with the conviction that it is unseemly and against democratic principles for religion to be discussed in the public square --- that democratic (small d) arguments should avoid faith? I think the discomfort grew with the rise of and in reaction to the Christian right.
Obama wasn't necessarily talking about any particular public official, he was offering his explanation for why Democrats (politicians and voters, and he says "our," he means himself too) feel constrained and uneasy in the public sphere when it comes to faith. It doesn't need a politician to admit this publicly for it to be the case. I certainly count myself as a Democrat who thinks that religious rhetoric is often overused and rarely used to make a progressive point --- overused in the ways that Obama mentions in his speech when he complains about the religious right. I think Vilsack and Obama have pioneered a new style of talking about Democratic values in religious terms that I'm comfortable with.
And Obama lays out boundaries in his speech for what he thinks religious rhetoric can and shouldn't do.
I feel like it's not that original or grandiose a statement to say that Democrats have (until recently) ceded faith-based rhetoric to the right and not taken on press accounts that right-wing Christians is synonymous with Christianity.
by psericks 2007-07-19 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Faith in the Public Square

How old are you?

by clarkent 2007-07-19 04:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Faith in the Public Square

I'm not asking in a rhetorical way, but by your statement above, it seems like you've missed even the Clinton years.

by clarkent 2007-07-19 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Yep, I did

Kery talked about his faith, so this sounds like spin by you to me.

by bruh21 2007-07-19 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Yep, I did
Only later in the fall
by psericks 2007-07-19 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Yep, I did
But what if his "on the one hand, on the other hand" is actually right? I'm not remotely a religious person, but having people like Obama who are willing to talk in hostile venues and to religious crowds is good for the party. Democrats have ceded too much of this territory, and Edwards and Clinton agree with this.
All three front-runners --- Obama, Clinton, and Edwards --- showed up to the Sojourners religion and politics forum. And you have Edwards saying things like this:
Mr. Edwards, who has spoken extensively about poverty in moral terms but has shared little about his faith, demonstrated dexterity with speaking the language of Christian belief.
When asked whether he would be willing to discuss the "biggest sin you've ever committed," Mr. Edwards laughed, paused for a moment and said that the "list is too long."
"I'd have a very hard time telling you one thing, one specific sin," he said, drawing applause. "If I've had a day in my 54 years that I haven't sinned multiple times I'd be amazed. We all fall short, which is why we have to ask for forgiveness from the Lord."
Mr. Edwards recalled growing up in the Southern Baptist Church but admitted that he had strayed as an adult. His faith, however, came "roaring back" in the midst of family crises. First was his son Wade's death in a car accident, and then came the diagnosis for his wife, Elizabeth, and the recent recurrence of cancer.
"I've been through a faith journey in my life," he said, adding that prayer "played a huge role in my survival" in those difficult moments.
"It's the Lord who got me through," he said.
by psericks 2007-07-19 06:00AM | 0 recs
Your premise is faulty

...willing to talk in hostile venues and to religious crowds is good for the party...

Hmmm. Democrats speaking - juxtaposed with "hostile venues" and "religious crowds"

Yeah, great way to frame the discussion about the Democratic Party. I like your candidate, I really do, but you need to do a whole lot better for him.

by Michael Bersin 2007-07-19 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Your premise is faulty
You wouldn't call Saddleback Church, for example, a hostile venue to Democrats? Sam Brownback spoke before Obama, citing his discomfort coming at the NAACP convention and saying that Obama at Saddleback is now in "my house," i.e. Republican territory. Obama had a sharp response and went in and talked to them about the need to accept contraception in fighting AIDS.
by psericks 2007-07-19 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Your premise is faulty
Video of the exchange: LA
by psericks 2007-07-19 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Your premise is faulty

Your original phrasing was unclear - equating generic "religious crowds" with "hostile venues." Saddleback Church isn't just any old religious crowd; it's a very conservative evangelical Christian congregation.

by clarkent 2007-07-19 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Your premise is faulty
Gotcha, sorry, I didn't mean to equate them, I meant to be listing them.
by psericks 2007-07-19 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Your premise is faulty

they buy into the false frames and the top being : good for the country is somehow separate from being a good Democrat. Not sure what this means in their minds since we are competing in the market place of ideas, and we are saying our ideas are the best for the country.  I would like to know, say on healthcare, with whom are they trying to have consensus. The only ones left who dont want govt involvement at this point are hardcore conservatives and insurance companies. The thing is I don't even thik obama means what his supporters here think he means. The danger of his rhectoric is that it canb e coopted and filled in anyway the listener pleases. That's dangerous becase the GOP can redefine it later, and we have the standard Dems as flip flopper meme again.

by bruh21 2007-07-19 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: OTOHism

Do you honestly think we did a good job of reaching out to faith communities in the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections?

We were destroyed by the Republicans amongst people who go to regular church services. Like it or not, a lot of people in this country draw at least partially on their religious beliefs to define how our government should act toward its people and toward the world at large. It's important that we reach out to such people. Are we going to win the Focus on the Family crowd? No, we aren't. But we can win the faithful Catholics and mainline Protestants who are waiting for the conversation on faith to start. To not acknowledge that we've been awful at this in the past is ignore a major weakness in our party's strategy and communications.

We should also be reaching out to Unitarian Universalists, UCCers, and other liberal church members to make sure everyone is on the voter rolls and find out what issues these people care about in the same way the GOP does with its voters.

by Max Fletcher 2007-07-19 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: OTOHism

I agree with you completely. As a party we do need to start reaching out to the religious community.

by DoIT 2007-07-19 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: OTOHism

No offense intended, but...

Saying that we need to start reaching out to "the religious community" is about like saying
we need to start reaching out to "the political community."

This is exactly the kind of reductionist language that has kept many "secular" Democrats from
seeing that there are, for example, moderate and liberal Christians who are inspired by the ethical
example of Jesus but who do not subscribe to the supernaturalism that these Democrats nervously
associate with the religious right -- and that there are Christians who do believe that "Jesus is coming
soon" and are looking forward to their "heavenly reward" but are realistic enough to understand that
one need not believe that to work for a better world.

These people also are more likely to understand that a better world will come only when Muslims,
Buddhists, Hindis, and Wiccans, too -- as well as those who exercise their Constitutional right to
believe nothing at all -- all are putting their shoulders to the collective wheel.

What I understand Max to be saying is that, before we "reach out," we have to understand the
religious diversity that exists in the country, partly to target our efforts toward those "people of faith"
who are more likely to be receptive to a progressive/Democratic "gospel"; but also to see that reaching
"out" inevitably will be reaching "in," since many of these people -- including those "faithful Catholics
and mainline Protestants who are waiting for the conversation on faith to start," as well as Unitarian
Universalists, UCCers, and other liberal church members -- already are Democrats.

by horizonr 2007-07-19 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: OTOHism

I will not take offense by your remarks. But I do not agree with your characterization of my statement.

I know for a fact that for decades that politicians of the Democratic party have been shy about embracing their "faith" publicly. The Neocons have labeled us godless and baby killers and much worse. I happen to believe that Democrats should not allow the Neocons to plant that label on us again, regardless of what a person believes or not. I don't parse off which religious groups that believe what, like you do. I have more respect for individuals than that. I am not a political operative and I see no reason whatsoever to give ground on faith to anyone.

by DoIT 2007-07-19 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: OTOHism

You completely misunderstood me.

by horizonr 2007-07-19 02:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

Every four years Democratic candidates run away from seeming "angry" or "partisan".  Every four years Republicans are unapologetically partisan, at least in the primary season.  Clinton excepted, every four years the Democratic candidate loses.  

You would think by now that people would stop copying a losing strategy.

by RickD 2007-07-19 03:29AM | 0 recs
Excellent post

Or as I like to say Democrats keep bringing a knife to a gun fight.

by dpANDREWS 2007-07-19 03:31AM | 0 recs
I will say

That Rahm and Chuck really changed that in '06.  I hope the figth that we saw then is a sign of more good things to come.

But the fact remains that in past Presidential elections Democrats have too often tried to take the high road (or look like they were) and they ended up getting beat.

You have to fight to win.

by dpANDREWS 2007-07-19 05:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

Obama is employing a general election strategy to the primaries.   The primaries are dominated by partisans, many states even ban Independents from voting in the "partisan" primaries.   It is an interesting strategy that has been turning many partisan Democrats off.   I think the Obama campaign is betting that he can strike post-partisan tones early, then start becoming more partisan as time goes on, thereby shoring up a Democratic base late.   The problem is that a lot of Democratic support is lost early that way, primarily to Clinton, who has built a base that appears to be with her for the long run.  By employing this upside-down strategy the Obama camp is hoping that they can win over just enough Democrats by striking partisan tones late in the process to create a couple of early-state primary wins and creating a wave of support.  

The problem is that many of us have been around politicians for a very long time, and we are Democrats first and foremost.  We can sense those politicians who are using the party as a vehicle, but would not hesitate to leave the party (and become an Independent) if it furthered their goals.   With Clinton (and Edwards as well as Gore) you KNOW they are lifelong Democrats.  With Obama one can't be sure.

by georgep 2007-07-19 05:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

I disagree that it's a strategy.  I read something about his days at Harvard Law and at the Law Review where he was all about consensus -- NYTimes Mag maybe.  And then, there's the story about his dad in Kenya or something that I read here a few days ago.  The post-partisanship os what he's all about (for good or bad).

by philgoblue 2007-07-19 05:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

But his campaign people know that this is a losing strategy in the primaries (they have been around campaigns for a long time plus they can read polls) so they must be telling him that it is not working with the people who are most important in the primaries, partisan Democrats.  What good is post-partisan rhetoric if you don't win the election to put the rhetoric into action?

 They are trying to make him more partisan, thereby appealing to partisan Democrats, while still maintaining the post-partisanship aura.  It is a tightrope walk, for sure.  

by georgep 2007-07-19 05:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

Obama leave the Democratic Party?

Are you out of your @#$% mind?

Is there nothing that you won't insinuate in order to further Hillary's campaign?

by Sam I Am 2007-07-19 10:40AM | 0 recs
Well ...

One, I don't know how you could characterize someone who is admittedly "leaning towards Hillary" as a "newbie Obamacrat."

Secondly, Obama has been quite liberal with the "progressive" and "Democrat(ic)" labels in speeches, debates, etc. Your choice to use one communications medium (email) as necessarily representative of all statements Obama has made in regards to the "partisan" subject, is mystifying.

by jforshaw 2007-07-19 03:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Well ...

You actually bought into Todd's thing here?   I noticed early on that he was not a Clinton supporter, but pretended to be to have more "clout" to be "very concerned" and experience an Obama epiphany.  

by georgep 2007-07-19 05:42AM | 0 recs
missed his latest diary somehow

ok, Jerome wins that point. too-shay.

by jforshaw 2007-07-19 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive


by BlueDiamond 2007-07-19 03:51AM | 0 recs
Let's say Obama is the nominee

and the GOP starts portraying "Hussein" Obama as a cocaine abusing ultralib with no zero foreign policy experience and ties to a radical black separatists, how long before he starts appealing to the sphere and other "progressive" and "Democratic" constituencies to help him engage in some deeply partisan warfare?

But hey, for now those indies in NH really dig him, and, in any case, "to know him is to love him."

As for Armstrong calling out loving j, the Edwards supporter in me likes it, the bleeding heart in me wants to call the fight before loving j gets massacred.

by david mizner 2007-07-19 03:52AM | 0 recs
Hmm. Reminds me of the calculation

Democrats in Iowa made, fretting about how their candidates would be framed, and they ended up selecting possibly the worst candidate of them all because his security credentials were "unassailable."

Don't even get me started on potential worst-case Edwards frames.

Anyway, I don't think "Hussein" is that bad of a tag for Obama. It reminds everybody remotely engaged in politics of Obama's Iraq call, which others failed to make.

I love it how the rationale for the Edwards candidacy is rapidly boiling down to "He's southern and white, so he can't be framed like a certain, er, awesome African-American candidate can. We are all anti-racists, but we have to take the racists' opinions into account, even if they wouldn't vote for any Democrat."

by jforshaw 2007-07-19 05:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Hmm. Reminds me of the calculation

Anyway, I don't think "Hussein" is that bad of a tag for Obama. It reminds everybody remotely engaged in politics of Obama's Iraq call, which others failed to make.

Wow, this really cracks me up. Talk about the how clueless Obama and his supporters are. I guess next time he'd better print out 'Obama Hussein' or something like that because it reminds us of the failure in Iraq. LOL.

by areyouready 2007-07-19 05:49AM | 0 recs
Strange response

You could not have misunderstood my point more completely. My point was not that Obama alone would be subject to smears. On the contrary, any Dem would be. Edwards would be a ambulence-chasing faggot who wants to steal from the rich and surrender to terrorists.

There's no escape from politics or partisanship, and the best way to stand up to GOP smears is to run as a proud Dem.

by david mizner 2007-07-19 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Strange response

That and pre-emptively smear.  I'm serious.

by Trond Jacobsen 2007-07-19 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

I think this is an Edwards meme.
Or maybe it's a Republican meme.

Here's how.  

Conservativism is about impeding progress.
Impeding progress is easy in a divided electorate.
It's also easy when liberals-Democrats-progressives divide.
Democrats can attract support in three ways.

  1. Ask people to be liberal.
  2. Ask people to be Democrats.
  3. Ask people to join us in solving our problems and getting important things done.


  1. Compromise on policy (triangle).
  2. Hope that people who've rejected our way in the past finally "come to their senses (traditional adversarial message)
  3. Convert people by establishing and making good use of human connections, getting skeptics to see who we are / what we stand for as the normal, obvious, "right" place for people of goodwill to be (subversive shift-the-political-culture-left message).

Compromise when you can do better is selling out.
Number two is nice in theory but it's a failing strategy except when things are so bad people are looking for a reason to change (Civil War, Great Depression, Watergate, Iraq).  Even then, it's highly dependent on circumstance and is pretty superficial (i.e. were Dixiecrats more Democratic or Republican?).  Number three is radical and lasting.

For example, we are not winning over young people on gay rights by saying come be Democratic or liberal; we're doing it by saying "how can we be any different?"  

We aren't denying that we are Democrats and that we are better than the Republican party ... but that is not the essence of what we want: real progress toward a truly humane, inclusive society.

We are the party, the people that will make that happen.  But there's no way we can do it alone.  We need some help.  Knowing how to relate well to people who are "other" than us, who are different, who are often afraid of us or who are prejudiced against us ... that is where real progress will come from.  


by chicago jeff 2007-07-19 04:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

Whats with Jerome, all we get is nit picking pieces on Obama.

Why doesn't he do a piece of substance such as their positions for getting out of Iraq AND THE AMOUNT OF RESIDUAL FORCE THESE CANDIDATES ARE TALKING ABOUT LEAVING IN THE COUNTRY.

by BDM 2007-07-19 05:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive
I don't know.
I do think that there's a certain disconnect and perhaps rivalry between the elite of the blogosphere progressive movement and people who aren't so blogocentric.  And Obama, though he uses the internet, is really building his movement around actual face-to-face activity.  
by chicago jeff 2007-07-19 05:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive
Nice try with maybe it's and Edwards or maybe is's a republican meme. What a joke - trying to slyly tie Edwards and republican junk. You should be looking more closely to Obama - he is the bi-partisan across the aisle so we can say we got something done candidate - doesn't matter that it might not have been the best thing for the working people - but oh yea - we can at least say we got something done!
by dk2 2007-07-19 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

The rhetorical analysis is fair but I think Jerome just makes too much of it.  Clearly, John Edwards is trying to brand himself as the Progressive (which has a meaning that often lies in the beholder).  Clearly, Obama is running to a wider audience.  Both are good strategies, though Edwards' is much more tailored to the good folks who vote in Iowa Caucuses.  Any great campaign, in the long run, needs to bring in independents and newbies to the process to back the nominee oif the Democratic party.  That is what it is all about.  Both Edwards & Obama are doing it in a way that does not divide.  Both Edwards & Obama will motivate the "base".  The question for me then is: who will do more to expand the base?   Obama is black enough and he is Democratic enough.

by howardpark 2007-07-19 05:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

At t his point in time, you pull in independents with economic populism than you would with some naive notion of purpleist post-partisanship.

Read this: diary The Way Down South: Johnny Populist & The Born Fighter

by philgoblue 2007-07-19 05:23AM | 0 recs
Excellent post, Jerome.

Exactly right.

I am a Democrat and have been for a long time.  I am looking for a real Democrat to be our nominee.

I am a Democrat for a reason: we care about ordinary folks, middle class, poor, working people.  These are core Democratic values and they are not Republican values.

I am not looking for a post-partisan candidate.

I am a Democrat because we are right.  Here we have a great chance to transform politics, and Obama (as well as some of his supporters) reject the brand in favor of a person.  It is the antithesis of what you and Markos are trying to do with the netroots.  We need to create a strong party based on shared beliefs, a real movement, not a cult based on following a "hero," a hero who is bound to fail because he is human.  It is the opposite of empowerment.

My God, the Republican Party is in a shambles.  Iraq has doomed them.  We can win.  And Obama runs from the Democratic brand.

This is one of your best posts.  Thank you.  

by littafi 2007-07-19 05:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent post, Tom

Exactly correct.

At this point in time, because of the war, the economy, Bush's general idiocy, and the corruption, Republicanism lays prostrate before us.  I mean think for a second, a US President in the time of war is at 28% in the polls.  That means even some of the wingnuts have given up on him and we've got a chance for 80-90% of independents.

Now is not the time for purple post-partisanship, but a rare opportunity to get some of the things that we've been fighting for for years -- universal healthcare, serious energy plans to address the climate crisis, better union rules, a serious struggle to help the working poor and the entire middle class, etc.

by philgoblue 2007-07-19 05:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

Chris did a similar study before he left on the number of times "progressive" was used on candidate websites and Edwards had like 5,000, next was Kucinich with a few 100, and near the bottom were Hillary and Obama with maybe 18ish.

Anyone got the link.

by philgoblue 2007-07-19 05:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

by maddogg 2007-07-19 05:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

This might be worth talking about if Jerome had his facts right.  As was shown above by psericks, Democrat and Democratic have been used in Obama e-mails.  In other words, this is bullshit.

by Obama08 2007-07-19 05:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

The larger point is absolutely valid.  Democrats have indeed been taken to task by Obama as too partisan.  We were told to stop the bickering and that the other side is not "the common enemy."  I submit that "the other side" at this point simply does not warrant such trust and such accolades, that the clean-up job will have to come despite them, not with them (at least at this point in time.)

 Most of his supporters admit that his rhetoric is less partisan than other candidates'.    Primaries are by definition partisan, so this could easily hurt his chances of winning the nomination.

by georgep 2007-07-19 06:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

In actuality, we MUST work with the other side right now to get anything least until we can assemble a majority that can overcome parlimentary tactics.

by Greg The Wisconsin Democrat 2007-07-19 06:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

No in actuality we do not. If for not other reason than your assumption is wrong- you assume they want to work with us, we point out the facts say they do not. Hoping doesn't change that.

by bruh21 2007-07-19 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

by the way- this is just conjecture on my part. go look up some of the legislation over the last few months that the GOP has threatned to block through fillabuster or did fillabuster and look at whats been veto'ed etc. No 'reasonable' (which is what I think all this about) could ever conclude we could or should work with them.

by bruh21 2007-07-19 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive


by BDM 2007-07-19 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

1. Please don't shout.

2. It is a discussion.  You can't be seriously suggesting that discussion should be shut down on issues important to partisan Democrats?

by georgep 2007-07-19 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

I really don't think that George or any of the rest of us non-Obama supporters want to destroy his candidacy. I would like to see Obama act more like a Democrat seeking the Democratic nomination. And I would like to see him take on the Neocons rather than play nice and pretend we can all just get along. And I would like to see some specific proposals to guide the country forward rather than the nicely worded empty platitudes that define his campaign.

by DoIT 2007-07-19 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

Having worked as a precinct captain for Dean in Iowa and now volunteering for the Obama campaign, I can tell you that the voice of voters in Iowa does not support some of the arguments here.

What I hear from the people I talk to is not a desire for a firebrand Dem, but a visionary leader. People want to be inspired again by a leader and have trust and faith in that. The primary voters are not telling me that they want a fierce Democratic preaching the Democratic gospel. They want someone that has the vision of what the Democratic party should stand for.

The follow point is that the voters here are still wholly undecided, but when you start to talk about vision and passion, they are not mentioning Edwards or Clinton...they are mentioning Richardson and Obama.

by Greg The Wisconsin Democrat 2007-07-19 06:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

He is neither a leader nor visionary. He is just a Paris Hilton candidate.

by areyouready 2007-07-19 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

I think many would beg to differ, and a leader is defined by those that would follow him/her, so to lump him off is to lump off a huge section of Democratic voters and even "progressives".

by Greg The Wisconsin Democrat 2007-07-19 06:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

Obama is a Independent Democrat, just like that guy from CT. Why the fuck is he running away fro his own party? Politics is about holding hands and everyone in agreement with your positions. I don't know what pages Obama is going to turn, but he is going to end up turning a lot of pages and by the time he is done, his campaign will be over or he will lose the election.

"In actuality, we MUST work with the other side right now to get anything least until we can assemble a majority that can overcome parlimentary tactics."
 --We have bent over backwards to owrk with Republicans in both chamber of Congress, but the assholes dont want to work with us.

"Now is not the time for purple post-partisanship, but a rare opportunity to get some of the things that we've been fighting for for years -- universal healthcare, serious energy plans to address the climate crisis, better union rules, a serious struggle to help the working poor and the entire middle class, etc."-- FUCK YES!  

by bsavage 2007-07-19 06:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

Okay, fine, but show me the electoral map that is the path to doing that in 2008 for the Senate and the House. We elect a partisan, fierce fighting Dem, who still at best has a 55 seat majority in the Senate and a minority coaliton that is still not afraid to obstruct. So we still continue to spin our wheels as the American public continues to be disenfranchised by a majority party that is not able to get things done.

Progressive is going to be someone who can pull those moderate Republicans into a governing coalition that can achieve universal healthcare, global climate initiatives, etc. Obama is skilled at working in the middle without pulling his values to the middle.

by Greg The Wisconsin Democrat 2007-07-19 06:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

Now the question is, Who are the moderate Republicans?  If you can't get even get Republicans to vote for stem cell research or minimum wage, you can't call yourself a moderate.

by bsavage 2007-07-19 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

IF Obama is avoiding the labels Democrat, Democratic and Progressive and you think that will fail to win him the nomination, why do you sound so angry about it?  Clearly Obama is NOT the candidate you want to win the Democratic nomination, so if his rhetoric and phrasing is doomed to turn off primary voters, I would think you would be celebrating this gift to your preferred candidate's chances rather complaining about it. Your posts about Obama sound so bitter and negative, if he's shooting himself in the foot, I would think those supporting other candidates would be pleased.

by jg40 2007-07-19 06:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

because we have seen it before and it hurts the party brand- even if its just one candidate doing this. name one gop nominee doing this? just one.

by bruh21 2007-07-19 07:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

I really don't see anger expressed in Jerome Armstrong's diary post.  

by georgep 2007-07-19 09:53AM | 0 recs
Thanks for the post J.

My answer to Jerome Armstrong

I wrote a diary in response.

by lovingj 2007-07-19 06:22AM | 0 recs
And I am sure the

Obama fans will recommend it, but I think Jerome is right here.

by littafi 2007-07-19 06:33AM | 0 recs
No he is not.

The first allegation was proven wrong by psericks and the overall claim that Obama is not a progressive is proven wrong by the video I attached to the diary.

by lovingj 2007-07-19 06:39AM | 0 recs
talk versus substance

Your video illustrates the point. He talks about not compromising on principles, he talks about winning over Republicans to the Democratic party, but then he does it by compromising Democratic principles.

This is the real substance critique of Obama. He talks goo-goo post-partisanship generally, and principled progressivism to partisan audiences, but when he is forced to address specifics it becomes clear that he is willing to compromise on progressive principles.

The 1992 Clinton campaign was similar in the post-partisanship, but, because his campaign was more substantive, Clinton was clear about what Democratic principles were up for compromise.

by souvarine 2007-07-19 06:54AM | 0 recs
Name one

policy of Obama's that compromises on progressive principles?  You are just spitting out anti-Obama talking points.

by lovingj 2007-07-19 07:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Name one

Some examples:

1. a "Universal" health care plan that is not universal.

2. an "anti-war" candidate who is not anti-war, and isn't even pro-total withdrawal from Iraq.

3. an "environmental" candidate who supports CTL.

His policies are defendable, and democratic politics is compromise, but the contrast between Obama's rhetoric and his specifics is pretty jarring.

by souvarine 2007-07-19 07:24AM | 0 recs
The word is "smackdown."

by jforshaw 2007-07-19 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive


I have one direct question for you:  what have all the "democrat" spouting dems actually done that is truly progressive?

On the other hand, show me a substantive time when Sen. Obama has been like a Rethug in deed?

NOTE:  both questions are only about deeds, not words.  At some point, when the rhetoric and the actions do not match up, your cognitive dissonance should be deafening enough even for an irresponsible frontpager like you (of course there are many others, mostly on the "left") to recognize it.

All of you with this suicidal fascination with johnny/hilly-come-lately-to-the-progress ive-rhetoric folks who were Rethuggian in their actions, when the actions actually had deadly consequences, you are no better than the corporate stenographers with a narrative to spin to.

They are vying for the Democratic primaries, for heaven's sake.  Why would they need to keep mentioning the tag now, when we are supposedly talking amongst friends?  Or are the others so insecure in their identities (with reason, I might add) that they need to label themselves to be seen as one, for their actions point elsewhere?

by DraftChickenHawks 2007-07-19 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

Right. And on a related note: You don't get emails from any candidate, unless you sign up for them. Apart from
the relative handful of Republican campaign operatives and enthusiasts who, presumably, are culling the emails
of Obama et al. for strategically useful crumbs, the vast majority of voters who are sufficiently engaged at this point
to have signed up for emails from Obama or any other Democratic presidential candidate are registered Democrats
who signed up for the emails in the first place precisely because this or that candidadte is a Democrat.

No one who gets Barack Obama's campaign emails is looking to the emails to remind them of his party affiliation.

by horizonr 2007-07-19 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

For some strange reason, they do not like logic and reason where Obama is concerned.

The peevishness and snideness of the "critiques" against Obama are just inexplicable to me...

by DraftChickenHawks 2007-07-20 05:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

I usually like your diaries, but, what is this??  For one thing, where are you getting the number of emails that are sent out by the candidate/campaign manager??  I get emails from Dave Contarino or "Bill Richardson" once or twice every week.  I just got one last night that uses Democrat, Democrats, or Democratic 6 times:

Bill Richardson is the only Democrat calling on Congress to take a different path: end the debate now by de-authorizing the war and bring all the troops home.

That's just one example, but it's an example in which not only is the word used, but it's used as a direct label for the candidate!!

Regardless, I think there are so many other ways to measure candidates' aversion to or friendliness with the "D", "L", or "P" words.  Looking around the website, reading press releases, listening to stump (and non-stump) speeches, that sort of thing.

I'm really disappointed in this diary.

by CNYAlison 2007-07-19 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

Why is this guy taken seriously anymore? Jerome's obsession with Obama borders on the pathological. It's not funny anymore. To be honest, I'm a little bit worried about Jerome.

by bode78 2007-07-19 07:05AM | 0 recs
Another personal

attack by an Obama supporter on Jerome Armstrong.  It exposes the weakness of your position.  It looks to me like you cannot defend Obama's stategy of running from the Democratic Party, so you attack anyone who talks about it.

by littafi 2007-07-19 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

I want a partisan Democratic nominee. I do not buy into the "post partisan" feely touchy direction that the GOP will be nice if we just hold their hand (while they stab us in the back with their other hand). Lieberman, Unity, etc. all have elements of that type of theme and most of us can see what they really are.

by robliberal 2007-07-19 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

Quite amazing, though not surprising.  People think it's more important to say the word, than live the word.  It's like asking please pander to me.  People object to Obama running a general election strategy in the Primary.  I guess people are happy with the normal style of running to the left in the primary and then running to the center in the general.  Please pander to me and have no principles.  Please just say the word, don't live it.

The question should be which candidate has registered the most Democratic voters?  Which candidate has raised the most money for Democratic candidates?  Which candidate has energized the most people to become active in politics?  Which candidate has shown the most consistent dedication to Democratic/Progressive issues and values?  Former self-proclaimed Centrist John Edwards?   Former DLCer Hillary Clinton?  Or Barack Obama.

MyDD's new slogan: Words, not Actions.  

by Doug Tuesday 2007-07-19 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

Hey Doug, it's Thursday.

by clarkent 2007-07-19 07:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

No in a way it fits- he's never quite in the same reality as most so why should his name be any different

by bruh21 2007-07-19 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

This is amazing. We agree on something. Cool!

by DoIT 2007-07-19 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

I think there is a point when we all have to agree to disagree. Suffice to say I think that many times Jerome's criticisms of Obama are actually what I think are Obama's strengths.

We must just look at the same candidate thru very different lens.

I like his thoughtful and non-partisan approach. I like that he seems real, down to earth and even reads Harry Potter. I am encouraged by his career history and think it speaks volumes about his progressive beliefs and vision. I don't care how many times Obama uses certain words in his emails.  It is not relevant to me.

by aiko 2007-07-19 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

So your analysis is- you don't want to talk about it by saying things like we agree to disagree. No, give historical analysis, anecdotes, and other things to prove yoru position. If you can not do that, then question how you think. This isn't a place, I hope, where people just come to talk pass one another, but instead to have active real debates.

And I love how you talk on about you. What about what's effective for the rest of the country?

by bruh21 2007-07-19 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrat, Democratic, Progressive

This is utterly pointless. You take a word that Edwards mentioned 5 times ot make him look like the one who is not calculating.

by RandyMI 2007-07-19 07:39AM | 0 recs
I have also noticed this.

It bugs me when candidates from my party do not seem to want to be in my party.

by kevin22262 2007-07-19 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: I have also noticed this.

Obama was the most sought after democrat for campaigning with democratic senators and challengers in the 2006 election cycle.

He went all over the country working to bring a democratic senate. That is more than what Clinton did with her stack of money and cream puff opponent.

If he was not a democrat as implied here, than why did all of these senate candidates clamor for him to campaign with them. He did answer the call.

by BDM 2007-07-19 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: I have also noticed this.

none of which answers the question as to his presidential run strategy.

by bruh21 2007-07-19 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: I have also noticed this.

"The most" sought after? Are you sure? Because I have heard the same about Wes Clark and I believe I heard this from Howard Dean.

by kevin22262 2007-07-19 04:49PM | 0 recs

I think it's a little silly to try to derive any meaning from this at all. There could be any number of reasons why a candidate did or did not use a specific term in an email to supporters.  This does not equate to any of the candidates either embracing or rejecting any particular philosophy or ideal.  I'd prefer to judge them on their policies and ideas, not whether they used the word "progressive" in their emails.

by Denny Crane 2007-07-19 08:46AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads