As the W.O.R.M. turns
For all I know, RJ Eskow is a super guy and a great thinker. But for the second time, I run across his byline at HuffPo, and he's screwed the pooch again.
To wit, this counterattack to defend Obama's Ronnie love, straight from the Department of They Got Mirrors Where You're From?
Some of us have been begging the Clinton campaign for a long time to stop trying to reach out to independents and disaffected Republicans with GOP-lite triangulation.
The next line, wait for it...
Here's what Obama was really saying....
What Obama Really Meant was...
Conservatism was nearly a dead ideology until Reagan came along and brought it back into dominance. Obama was also saying that Bill Clinton managed to be elected by triangulating and "splitting the difference." But by failing to articulate for an ideology, he didn't reverse the Reagan transformation. He served only himself, while Reagan served his movement.
There is the small matter of Obama writing the book on triangulation and building his own cult at the expense of the rest of his party. But in a chill, post-Boomer, inspirational way, so it's teh awesome!
Sure, there's the entire campaign where Obama has hung progressives out to dry every chance he gets. But, hey:
What progressive wouldn't want a "progressive Reagan"? That leader could alter the political landscape and allow progressive ideas to dominate the political landscape. The progressive agenda appeals to the basic values of most Americans, but hasn't been articulated well enough to create a transformational movement.
Wait a minute, wasn't it wrong for the Clintons to pursue this with post-partisan "third way"? Oh, right. He's talking about when Obama does it, so it's Rainbow Glitter Sparkle Ponyfuckingtastic!
Honestly, how could one possibly better win hearts and minds to the progressive viewpoint than to say things like "For progressives, I think we should recognize the role that values and culture play in addressing some of our most urgent social problems… I think progressives would do well to take this to heart...." and "...the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms."
And what Democrat wouldn't want to win disaffected Republicans and more independents? That's all Obama was saying....
Remember how Ronnie rallied Republicans with red-meat, hard-right politics? That's how Obama's going to rally Democrats, not with red-tofu, hard-left politics, of course. That's what the Republicans would want us to do.
Instead, Obama is just kneecapping progressives at every turn, merging church and state, and white-washing the ruthlessness, corruption, incompetence and valuelessness of the Conservative Movement.
Obama was right. When faced with a choice between a triangulator and a potential "progressive Reagan," I'll take the Democratic Ronnie any day. It's not too late for the Clintons to change tack and get on the right road on this question, but the hour's growing late -- and they're moving in the wrong direction.
I really could have saved super guy / great thinker Eskow the trouble of all that typing. A simple "Obama rulz / Hillary sux" would have done the job, and he wouldn't have had to strain all that credulity.