• HWC. No, that's not what I'm doing, as you well know, since first you quote me ("...with the very same VRWC type...") and then proceed to mischaractize what I said. Anyhow, Quote:

        In the first month of the Clinton presidency she joined a women's prayer group whose members included Susan Baker, the wife of Reagan-Bush chief of staff/sec. of state James Baker, as well as the wife of the Washington Redskins chaplain who was also the minister of the McLean church where Kenneth Starr and other conservative Republican luminaries worship.

       These women sent Hillary scripture readings, came to the White House to pray with and for her, and generally were a welcome source of strength and friendship for her throughout the White House years, and especially as the Lewinsky ugliness moved relentlessly through her life.

    And she's still doing it:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200611/gr een-hillary

    She's definitely a candidate the Beltway can live with. And while I definitely vote for her in the general--In the same way that I'd pick, say, Tiberius over Caligula--let's all be aware of who we're voting for, eh?

  • comment on a post Clinton Strategy: Dual Hurdles for a Woman Candidate over 7 years ago

    What's Hillary's plan to restore Constitutional government?

    When she has one, I'll look at her.

    Meanwhile, IMNSHO, I look see her as having identified with her abusers, in classic Stockholm Syndrome fashion. Joining a prayer group with the very same VRWC types who were staging the coup against Clinton  is a little bit much, I think.

    And having identified with her abusers, she's become their candidate. Hillary won't change the Beltway one iota. That's why Rove is attacking her: He wants what he believes to be the base to rally round her.

    Of course, I'd vote for Hillary in the general in a heartbeat. I'd rather be ruled by a sane emperor, like Marcus Aurelius, say, than by an insane one, like Caligula, which is what we have now.  Nevertheless, I don't want to be ruled by an emperor or a monarch. I want to be governed by a President.

    So, it's because I think Hillary will to little or nothing to arrest the trend of the country toward authoritarianism that she's not my candidate, nor ever will be.

    After all, if she wanted to get some cred on restoring Constitutional goverment, it would have been very simple: She could have brought the Senate to a halt to prevent the passage of the Orwellian "Protect America" Act, preventing FISA from being gutted, along with the Fourth Amendment. Instead, she went on vacation, which I guess was more important to her.

    Too bad. Maybe she's learned from her health care disaster in the first Clinton administration. And it would be great to have a woman as President. But I put not gender, but the Constitution first, and I don't believe that Hillary does, either in words, or in action.

  • comment on a post Why It's Obama's Time to Lead over 7 years ago

    Or is that issue not even on his radar?

    Note what Elizabeth Edwards had to say:

    http://www.correntewire.com/elizabeth_un der_john_the_constitution_returns

    Where's Obama on this? (Hillary being a lost cause.)

  • comment on a post It's the Preparation, Stupid! over 7 years ago

    ... to restore Constitutional government?

    Does she have one?

    Or does she not think there's a problem?

  • comment on a post MyDD Ad Watch: New DSCC/DCCC Ad over 7 years ago

    After capitulating to Bush on FISA, gutting the Fourth Amendment in a midnight vote, and then scampering back to their districts?


    Reach me that bucket, wouldja hon?

  • comment on a post Survey USA: 60% Opposed to Commutation over 7 years ago

    So you can call them.

  • Certainly Olberman agrees.

  • No, it's not. These are hard problems.

  • Chris:

    I'm going to assume that you were as full of pain as I was last night, and ignore the parts of your comment that I think came from that. That said:

    1. I'm glad that you're the co-author of the "Betrayal by Elites" post, because it's excellent and perceptive. However, since Matt Stoller is the only author listed in the heading of the post, he is the single author that I cited.

    2. It's possible that the shorthand "all we have to do is elect more Democrats" distorts your  position in a fundamental way; it's certainly a position taken by many other large blogs, and perhaps that distorted my reading.

    3. "Electing more Democrats" may also be the exact right thing to do; did I say that it wasn't?

    Nevertheless, how else am I to interpret the following:

    The <u>biggest meta-issue</u> for progressives after this phase of the fight ...  is how we move from a solid base of about 160-175 progressive votes in the House, and 25-30 solid progressive votes in the Senate, to <u>number far closer to a majority</u>. Where can we make improvements in solid blue open seats, in primary challenges, and in seats currently held by Republicans? Further, where we are unable to replace members of Congress with new members who would vote better, how do we improve the voting behavior of current members of Congress, both Democratic and Republican?

    I don't see another way to handle "the biggest meta-issue issue" than by "electing [a "solid base" of] more Democrats." Surely, you are not advocating electing progressive Republicans, if such an animal were to exist? Or a third party? Or
    I agree that my shorthand doesn't capture the qualifications that follow "Further," but shorthand doesn't capture qualifications.

    3. To your point that "contemporary power lies in other sources" (from your comment): Yes, we are well aware of that. Our shorthand for what we need to do is shove the Overton window left. Which I think we both would agree desperately needs to be done.

    4. Since the paragraph on the "overall issue" of, if not "electing more Democrats," achieving "comprehensive answers to all of those questions" -- those answers seemingly destined to accomplish little if, in fact, more Democrats are not elected -- follows the paragraph on "other sources," my reading of the post was that these sources were instrumental to the "biggest meta-issue" rather than ends in themselves.

    5. On rereading the post (again) I see this -- with which I also agree (see links above):

    Clearly, securing a majority of public opinion and a Democratic majority in Congress simply are not enough.

    And is not a larger, more effective Democratic majority the "biggest meta-issue" here?

    It should be enough, but it isn't. Even if we have the trifecta, it might not be enough on a whole range of issues. Beyond public opinion, and beyond elective office, we need a majority in terms of political power as well. Right now, we just don't have that.

    I see the distinction between political and electoral power here, but only in electoral power is there the notion of a "majority" -- votes that are counted. If political power flows from these "other sources," I don't see what a "majority" means in operational terms. What would a "majority" of think tanks mean? And surely the overall architecture (see links above) of the "other sources" is just as important as a "majority" of any single source?

    In conclusion, I still see competing narratives, and I note that this issue, the subject of my comment, is not addressed by your response:

    1. Betrayal by elites, where betrayal is active and complete by the Republican Party and the authoritarian movement generally, and partial and complicit by the Democratic Party.

    2. Elect more Democrats (and make them better)

    with a third, and subsidiary narrative, of

    3. Shove the Overton window left (your "other sources")

    #3 we can do "ourselves alone." But #2 and #1 are in deep conflict. How do we resolve the conflict?

  • comment on a post Public Opinion and Political Power On Iraq over 7 years ago
    Much as I would like to believe Chris's narrative that all we have to do is elect more Democrats -- OK, OK, "progressives" but pragmatically that's going to come down to Democrats -- tonight I'm feeling that this alternative narrative, by Matt, is the more powerful one:

    The basic narrative is that the story of the open left is the story of betrayal.

  • comment on a post the power of the long tail blog over 7 years ago

    Interesting and true. At Corrente, we're a B or C list blog, so we're not at the peak, like Kos or Atrios, but with a Technorati rank of 4000 or so, we're not part of the "long tail," I would say, but rather on the "shoulder." (Readership follows a power law, and the drop off from the peak blogs to the tail is a steep, and very hard to climb, curve, not a straight drop off).

    That said, we are a hybrid of the listed characteristics:

      1.  We are Google-friendly because Drupal (the CMS we use) creates very SEO-friendly URLs)

      2. Titles are long and informative (at least the ones we wish to propagate

      3. We're balanced in the sense that Progressive Democrat is as far right as we go

      4. We definitely write for the long haul (though we always try to see the big picture in today's story; we got warrantless surveillance right, for example, very early on)

    5. We make very heavy use of "authority and trust-building" links, and do original research and interviews

    6. We definitely assume an outsider's point of view -- we are "peasants with pitchforks"

    We are, however, not "local" in at least three ways:

    1. We have contributors from LA, Maine, Philly, Texas, Tennessee, Chicago;

    2. We also cover politics more broadly conceived -- food, for example, as well, where what is local is to be encouraged ("slow food") but the perspective that encourages the local may not be local;

    3. We are also into developing "micro-rhetoric" -- honing the words and phrases used by our cohorts. Such language is not local, a dialect, but, really, a weapon for all and any to use....

  • comment on a post More On Diversity: Blogging Is A Niche over 7 years ago

    One reason to move this statement from the Not Essential Catgory to the Essential Category:

    Making certain that the progressive, political blogosphere as a whole looks like America, or even all progressives.

    In a word, History ("the archives"). I've noticed in Googling from stories I remember two or three years ago, that most have disappeared behind pay walls, but that often the "money quote" will be available from a blog.

    Making the not unreasonable assumption that blogs NOT written by white dudes will be selecting different money quotes from the ones that you, or I (Chris) would select, that makes diversity in the blogosphere essential to maintaining an accurate historical record.

    And if we can't record our past, what about our future?

    There are probably many other good reasons why diversity is important, but I'd like to make one other point. Let's play the old word substiution game, removing "progressive blogosphere":

    Making certain that the _____ as a whole looks like America, or even all progressives.

    If the blank were filled in with, say "library usage" or "literacy rates" or "access to an audience," wouldn't we all be saying "Of course"?

  • comment on a post The Open Left over 7 years ago

    Shystee made another one of his diagrams on the Overton Window that defines the boundaries of acceptable discourse at any given time, and makes these points, which I think are profoundly right:

    Definition and discussion of the concept is below. The main points I want to convey with this image:

    - There is, or there should be, a constant tug-of-war on the edges of the Overton Window on any issue.

    - There is a place for everyone and anyone along the Left side of the rope, as long as we're all pulling in the same general direction.

    - The current location of the Overton Window is so far to the right of any objective political spectrum, that what are now considered Extreme Left Positions are really not extreme at all.

    In particular, there's a place for, er, the extreme:

    The way to shift the Overton Window is by moving the edges, by pushing ideas that are even more extreme than what is actually desired.

    Chait doesn't get any of this.

    Chait's "lockstep" notion is particularly silly. (Not even Big Orange does this). It's silly because it's not true, and it's silly because it would be a bad idea if true. To reiterate:

    - There is a place for everyone and anyone along the Left side of the rope, as long as we're all pulling in the same general direction.

    Exactly because ideas matter, we don't want everyone marching in lockstep. Our ideas have to bubble up from the citizens, since our--make that "our"-- elites have betrayed us in the realm if ideas in the same way they've betrayed us everywhere else. We need the ferment.

  • ... that I think Dean is great, and that Dean is neither weak nor whiney.

    But the demand for an apology is a standard Democratic tactic, and we just need to let go of it.

    Why not demand that Guiliani contribute to, say, a fund for armor for the troops? Or an anti-forced pregnancy group?

    "If Giuliani is truly capable of showing remorse, he could show it by..."

  • Never ask for an apology for a Republican!

    It just makes us look weak and whiney, and why would anyone believe a Republican whether they're apologizing or not?


Advertise Blogads