Obama shock doctrine
Primary tabs
Submitted by DCblogger on Thu, 07/10/2008 - 1:52pm
Departments:
Thread:
First Obama started moving part of the Democratic National Committee to Chicago. Then he began pushing to prevent Clinton's name be put in nomination, contrary to all precedent.
Then he arranged to replace Iowa Democratic workers with his own staff and now he is taking control of the DNC voter files for North Carolina.
All this is keeping with the shock doctrine of hitting people with so many radical changes all at once that they don't have time to take stock of what is happening and respond.
Why did he vote for the FISA bill, because he caved? Or because he wants police state powers when he is president?
- DCblogger's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
I'm gonna guess
It's all about preparing us for Obama's grand "Urban Renewal" plan.
*shudder*
Presidents Always Want Power
This isn't just about Obama.
Most people with egos big enough to think they should be President are just sure whatever power they get will be used wisely and justly and they almost always want more. This is why the idea that Obama will voluntarily relinquish the power if he becomes President is a joke. Presidents don't give up power unless they are forced to do so.* The same leadership that put forward the FISA bill is not later going to force Obama to give up the power he has from it.
My new donation strategy is to support any independent base of power within the party. People or organizations that aren't being assimilated.
* My prediction is that there will be a big "scandal" about how the Obama Administration is spying on Americans. In one fell swoop, the GOP will be able to welcome back the conservatives driven from the fold during the Bush years, discredit "big government", shift what should've been a GOP scandal onto the Dems, and rewrite history of the early 1970s so that now it wasn't only the GOP who spied on Americans for political reasons. The Democrats will look weak for having caved to the GOP on this issue now and then will look weak again when it is revealed that they, unlike the GOP, were unwilling to stand up for the Constitution because they've been "abusing" their new powers.
I've been trying to figure out why the GOP wants this when we may soon have a Democratic President with these powers. The only thing I can figure out is that it absolves the GOP of its responsibility by continuing the Bush cover-up (telecom immunity) and lays the groundwork to go after Obama through his use of the expanded powers.
You wait, this is all going to come back and bite the Democrats in the ass. I'd feel bad for them if they hadn't basically signed on to take the fall yesterday.
BDBlue--
My new donation strategy is to support any independent base of power within the party. People or organizations that aren’t being assimilated.
--got any specific suggestions?
We ought to put together a list. This sounds like a terrific approach.
My Recs So Far
Help retire Clinton's debt. She's a centrist, but probably the most powerful force, especially when combined with her husband, outside of the Obama/Pelosi/Dean/Brazile group and her vote yesterday makes me think she intends to keep some autonomy. She has her own database and supporters.
Emily's List. Not going to help in a lot of ways since they have a narrow mission of electing pro-choice democratic women and not, say, FISA. But they are one of the largest, most influential PACs in the country and I can see no way that they would allow themselves to become one with Obama. At the state and local level, in particular, they are helping to bring new people into Government and given the need for new blood, I think that's a good thing. And they provide a source of funding to candidates separate from those controlled by the party or the Obama campaign.
Feingold. He's not perfect (his Roberts vote, for example), but he's got his own base and I don't see him turning it over to Obama lock, stock and database.
I'd love to have some more ideas. Those are what I've come up with in the last 24 hours. I'm sure there are more. In addition, there are issue-oriented groups like the ACLU, EFF, and Healthcare NOW! (as opposed to Healthcare for America Now!, which appears to have Obama's fingerprints all over it and, in any event, doesn't seem to support single payer).
Atrios
Atrios predicted the same thing.
Link On the Efforts to Not Have Clinton on the DNC Ballot
There's a WSJ article that Alegre excerpted (it was behind the firewall). Donna Brazile is her usual helpful self. Are we sure she's not workiing for Karl Rove?
all this state stuff really hurts downballot races--
i cannot believe they're letting his team do all this--what are the state party orgs getting in return for giving up all local control and actions?
They know their voters and districts--Obama doesn't.
On Open Left, NC 11 CD
put it very succinctly in his response to a comment on the post Lambert linked to, on his unease about the Obama campaign taking over the party apparatus in North Carolina:
"Ultimately the 50-state-strategy isn't just about allowing the presidential candidate to compete in a few more states, but about allowing state parties to take the steps they need to take to make themselves stronger."
Good luck with that...
The 50-State Strategy
never made a lick of sense for the presidential campaign anyway (at least so long as we have an electoral college).
Where it makes sense is in efforts to run strong House and Senate candidates and state legislature and governor candidates. Turning states from red to purple to blue isn't done with one presidential nominee I don't care who it is. It's done one state district, one congressional district at a time. If Colorado goes blue this year, it won't be because of Obama. He will be merely taking advantage of work that's been done on a local level there over the course of years (changing the legislature, defeating Coors, etc.). Same thing in Virginia. If the Democrats manage to capture Virginia, it will have more to do with Mark Warner, Jim Webb, and Tim Kaine than it will have to do with Obama.
In that way, presidential nominees could in the future benefit from the 50-state strategy, but it's silly to have them BE the 50-state strategy, IMO.
my list
First on my list would be Corrente Wire and the blogs I think are doing good work.
I am going to try to put together a list of the supporters of HR 676 who are challengers. Most of the co-sponsors look like they are running unopposed, or I would support them. Even if you don't have any spare coins, link love is useful.
other than that, Accountability Now
Not Blue America, I don't trust netroots to recognize a better Democrat when they see one.
A Good List, DCB
I look forward to seeing your HR 676 supporters. I think the key is to ensure that funding is never controlled by any one body or coalition of people because, even if they were better than the current leaders, such a borg-like system inevitably stifles dissent.