The premise of the diary is entirely true. As Dean said, we're living in a time in which unprecedented control of American institutions have been transferred to corporate control. He used the example of media, in America. He said that six companies control more than 85% of everything you see, or hear in America.
As a matter of course, the idea that breaking rank at this point and giving up the progressive revolution - can be rationalized - is moot. What is at stake here - is where to focus the strength of the blogosphere. In this election - because a progressive president was elected (and then, subsequently surrounded by largely DLC and pro-Hillary Clinton support staff that proceeded to embed himwithin corporate control) - we do not have a problem with the president.
What we have a problem with, is the US Senate. This diary accurately poses the ideological question.
The partisan response, is that one party will stand for smart governance, the other - will stand for the lobbyism that has inundated the process. 20,000 page bills. Etc. etc.
And so, the Dems have a chance - by focussing their efforts and rallying behind their president - to take higher ground.
See. Jerome has it wrong. The dems aren't going to lose the house. And they're not going to lose the senate.
And the president has made a great start to his tenure as a two term reformer and is on his way to an historic presidency.
Instead, what's going to happen - is the Tea party and the progressives are going to have their voices finally heard despite corporate media control of the channel.
And lobbyists, the darlings of American corporate interest - and the principal arm of control they wield over our institutions, are going to become ever more covert and ever more well funded. They will pour money into the process.
But ultimately. They will be pouring money down a hole. And they will go the way of the Whig party, just as the Republican party cannot withstand its contradiction - they stand for 'more freedoms' but they are owned and in the pockets of the lobbyists, who couldn't give a damn if it doesn't help their corporate sponsor.
And thats why the Bush Republicans grew the government larger than any administration in the history of the United States.
The contract with America was broken. So now they're giving us a pledge.
Sorry. I have to agree with Jerome. The real debate is not left/right, its corporate lobbyists vs. american voters.
And the real situation is - who should have the power to vote on issues? The American people stood up loud and strong on behalf of healthcare reform. And the lobbyists mutated it into this thing....
I really feel like Jerome has the basis of this diary right. But he then engages in post hoc ergo propter hoc.
But. The quality of writing and expression, and the points made - are golden. He's got it right . Good work.
Hey, by the way, I looked at it too (yes, MyDD is still a good place to hang out) - and it dawned on me slowly that this interview was done chronologically an hour after Elizabeth Warren was appointed.
Jerome started out this blog as a Deaniac a long time ago, and he really wasn't a part of the DC infrastructure.
But now Jerome is a member of the "WebStrong" group, and he's being paid to get people elected. His business revolves around Washington DC, and he is paid to have an opinion.
My Due Diligence became My Direct Democracy, and the web ads went up. The external editor and comment replies went into place so that all comments here can be more easily parsed and dealt with. And Jerome happily blended in with the establishment.
So 2008 rolls around, and Jerome wants a DLC candidate to win. The selfsame institution that invited lobbyists to its inception - the 'pro business' inside the beltway game. And Jerome came up loud and clear on the side of the pro-DLC candidate.
Meanwhile, Obama became the favorite of the progressives, and the insurgent campaign swept the DLC candidate off the map - but only after alot of whining, and back biting - including an almost butterfly ballot moment in Florida.
Obama then went on to win, in 2008, in the General election - and not just by a little bit. But by a huge landslide. Even in the face of an extremely popular and media-friendly blitz by the GOP starring Sarah Palin as "Vice President".
Some people read this post as a Whine session, and they respond to what Jerome wrote here as if Jerome really does write - all the time, whatever he thinks and feels. But this is not the case. Jerome writes strategically - placing his thought and word, in a very careful manner. He was once a very good contributor to this blog, as were Chris Bowers, and Jonathan Singer.
But I read this post a bit more incisively. I am happy that I was able to hear the words of the president, and that he had a message for the progressives - to get off their collective butt and get something done.
And to be honest, if I were in the room with the President - and he came back at me like that, I would be afraid.
This is the most powerful man in America. And for better or worse, the progressive movement is identified with him.
A good friend of the family, Kevin Philips - once wrote that most revolutions dismast themselves after sweeping that which they opposed out of power. The bourbons, he said, were a good example of this.
But what Rooktoven is touching on here is significant. Rahm is already out of the White House, and if someone throws a laurel leaf to Dean, or Grayson - we'd be in good shape. Michael Moore, with his panegyric against capitalism itself - is , to be honest, really too close the the entertainment line ...
Rahm Emmanuel left the White House today. This is a good move. Although he'd like us to believe its so he can run for Mayor of Chicago, I would offer that in the old-boy network of Chicago politics, the fact that our President is a former State Senator and hails from the windy city - might just add up to a badly needed infusion of new blood into the office of chief of staff.
Obama's appointments can be pretty damned good - Elizabeth Warren is a good example. There may be an 'october surprise' in this next appt.
Everyone who is on this thread should remember this.
All the energy, all the wasted time - spent debating whether or not Obama would sign a repeal of DADT - is just that. Wasted time.
Obama is signalling that he's going to let the Military do their job, and that the legislature can get their act together and get the one - count it ONE - senate vote additional, needed - to break the REPUBLICAN stranglehold on the measure and get it to the floor - and they can bloody well give him a bill to sign. He will sign it.
They've signalled, as an administration - that if the legislature passes a repeal, they'll sign it.
In this way, the US Military will have enough time to overturn a policy that's been in place for decades. There isn't really alot of work to be done in the US Armed Forces, to repeal this thing - this is, after all, the 21st century and most people don't give a rats arse one way or another.
I consider the concept that our eternal 'state of wartime' , and the idea that the president can override the legislature on such a sweeping policy change - are equally disingenuous.
It's funny, you know. Jerome - the moderator and designer of myDD, heavily supported Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primary. And how much influence , I wonder - is represented by those factions of the Democratic party that are in line with heavy lobbyism. The Clinton-DLC was remarkable in its formation, as having had so high a concentration of lobbyists at the table - and it continues to be "pro business". Lieberman, a close associate of that group - continues to be the kind of person who keeps turning over the applecart - as are the other 'conservative' democrats.
On this particular issue - it's about the status quo. It's a minority seeking to influence a majority by having their ideals supplant those of the clear majority - the tactics of the bush republicans, are fair game - as far as they are concerned. And they will deal with anyone. Case in point, the log cabins worked hard to kill off the dems in 08 and 04 but on this issue, the LGBT is singing their praises.
But Obama is pointing the way to a solution, not the Republicans. He wants this to be taken up in a legislature that is controlled by progressive thought -
In my view, the LGBT ignores this message at their peril. Obama has signalled strongly and clearly that he will sign the legislation to overturn Dont Ask Dont Tell. All that anyone has to do, to get Don't ask/Don't Tell - repeal - on the desk of the presidenty - is to work hard on the senate and get just one more senator on board.
Please. Think of it. One senator. That's it. There are 59 who voted to bring a repeal act debate to the floor. That will be likely 59 who will vote for repeal.
But they were one shy, and could not get past cloture rules.
Bismarck spoke of 'Realpolitik'. In its essence - you have to put the pressure where it does the most good. The whole Obama thing is a blow-off, let's just do a good set of midterms and then debate this thing in the fall.
P.S. IMHO Obama should throw an olive branch over to Howard Dean - b/c the guy has the POWER to get everyone up on their feet.
I wrote the first diary on this issue, and I happen to think that the issue is very important. My take on all of this, if you want to know - is totally different.
First, let's back up. The political game in America, in the 20th century - was to project our feelings about our father - onto our president. The GOP would back the president whatever he would do, and they went off normally in these christian conservative directions in their home. The actual demographic may have had the republicans at swinger clubs and getting divorced, but hey - that's not my problem. The main thing is, most people projected their feelings about their father onto the president.
This helped the cottage industry of so called 'political experts' take over the 24 hour media cycle - they would ridicule or comment on everything the president said.
The echoes of this type of thing worked to help fuck Obama in the head, when he came into office. But as we have seen with the appointment of Elizabeth Warren, and his distancing himself from Rahm Emmanuel - he's slowly coming to his senses. And let's face it, he's had alot to do in the last 18 months. Jerome criticized Obama roundly for turning everything into a photo op.
But now things are different, and he's sending you a signal.
And that signal is this: it's time to focus on the issues, and to get the legislature secured. The issue was and is a political football - and if you care at all about it - (the way I read this) - then don't let the legislature go to the neo- and theo- cons out there.
And while we're at it, here's something I've been feeling that I want to share. The GOP, for better or worse - want you to make you feel bad about yourself.
I'm serious. That's really their game. The election of Obama in 2008 was a huge win for the progressives. The GOP is so fragmented, thanks to that landslide victory - they were thrown out of Washington on their fat white , corporate ass.
And so, being fragmented - they are doing what they've always done. If they can't win. They want to make sure you don't enjoy winning.
But to support Obama, is to support the flag of progressive political thought that is telling you - come past this November, with the house and senate securely in the hands of progressives, the repeal of Don't ask/ Don't Tell will be complete.
So. I think it's an appropriate move. It's political hardball. They're saying, we're the executive branch, we might make up the message but we're not dictators. IF you want the law changed. That is the office of the legislature.
And oh, by the way - you can bicker and complain about the executive all you want but if you let the control of the legislature go - you'll get what you deserve.
Of course, you might like that. But its not consensual.
There is no Federal Agency known as the Obama Department of Justice. What the administration is objecting to, is the Judiciary's apparent requirement that the executive branch implement a policy change.
However, it does not block that policy change - the ruling last week was pretty clear: Don't Ask, Don't Tell is unconstitutional. The way I read the Obama Administration ( not Dept. of Justice, thanks ..) is that they are saying the DOD already supports repeal of the policy, and that the implementation of a full repeal is either up to them, or the legislature - but not the executive branch.
This really gets down , again, to the whole concept of whether or not we're going to tacitly accept the concept that the Bush Administration was trying to implement - in that we would have a dictator for our country - a president who has sweeping powers to declare war, implement social policy, and institute radical new powers of censorship - spying on our own people, etc.
The Obama administration is writing their position based not on opposition to don't ask/don't tell - it's pretty clear they're opposed to the policy - they're filing their (and its just a position - it doesn't change anything, really) written response to a federal court to throw the ball back in the court of the legislature.
So much was written in the past about Howard Dean's implementation of civil union, in Vermont - as a great victory for LGBT and their rights - but people forget that Dean actually threw the issue back to the legislature several times - he wrote that letting the legislature deal with the issue was the right thing to do.
And it is.
There is no "Obama Department of Justice." And while we're at it. There is also no " Obamacare" . Either.
My vote, Tarheel is that we go and talk to Howard Dean and get him to join up. Rahm Emmanuel was the guy, I think - who bad mouthed Dean to Obama and methinks Rahm will make a deal to keep his bid for mayor of Chicago alive - Rahm wants to leave.
What do you think would happen if Dean got into the game here? And oh. By the way. In APRIL of 2010, Dean was on the Airwaves battling for and winning the House Version of the bill which contained a National Health Service.
In MARCH of 2010, the Senate bill without it ended up making it into law and Dean was on record opposing it - saying, this is real reform and we need to make it right because it will set the tone for reform to come.
March 2010 when the crash of the party happened, after the party leadership brushed off statements like Dean's and ended up paying the price with the Scott Brown Debacle.
What do you think? Can Howard Dean get into this thing, and save it?