Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Response to Peter Daou and hippie punching Dems

lizpolaris's picture

Peter Daou starts out with what I assumed was a facetious headline - How a handful of liberal bloggers are bringing down the Obama presidency.

At first describing the Obama team as bashing the left, Daou continues his post by agreeing with them.

With each passing day, I’m beginning to realize that the crux of the problem for Obama is a handful of prominent progressive bloggers...Virtually all the liberal bloggers who have taken a critical stance toward the administration have one thing in common: they place principle above party.

Proudly, he should add.

The essence of their critique is that the White House lacks a moral compass...From gay rights to executive power to war to the environment, the left increasingly believes the Obama White House lacks the moral courage to undo Bush’s radicalism.

Bzzzzttt. Wrong - which of us is naive enough not to understand that the people we are voting for are politicians? It's not about morality. As Peter said above, it's about principle - specifically, governing according to liberal/progressive principles, the ones in the Democratic party platform (the ones Obama has abandoned). Critical bloggers are impolite enough to point out that Obama has the courage to throw almost his entire base 'under the bus.' He's not lacking in courage - it's his goals we don't like. Earth to Peter Daou - Obama is governing exactly the way he wants to. His speeches may be full of civil liberties and gay rights, but his actions are the opposite.

Daou is helping the chorus of people who want to blame someone other than Obama for his unpopularity and likely Democratic losses in November.

Obama could sustain relentless attacks from the right, it’s what everyone expects, but when the left joins in, the bottom drops out. That’s why opinion-shapers in the liberal blogosphere exert inordinate influence over Obama’s fortunes. And from the growing alarm at the White House, it’s clear they know it.

I especially hate it when pundits have to throw in some mushy lump of conventional wisdom in order to prop up their seriousness.

As president, Obama has done much good and has achieved a number of impressive legislative victories.

No, actually, he hasn't. Unless you consider bills which continue to add money to the coffers of large corporations and the rich impressive victories.

His conclusion is especially vapid.

Obama’s answers [in the Rolling Stone article] reveal a man who seems sure of his decisions, confident he is doing the best he can do and convinced that the course he is charting is correct. Of course, most people feel that way about themselves. Actions and results will determine if he’s right. Let’s hope he is.

If, like Daou, you assume that Obama has a liberal agenda, this precisely describes the problem. Obama is not listening to his critics. By doing that, he's governing blindly, without reflection. His responses are not only ineffective but seem unprofessional for a politician. Obama should be using what he hears to improve his communication. If, like me, you assume that Obama doesn't have a liberal agenda, then of course he thinks he's doing just fine and his critics are fringe hippies.

On Daou's last comment, it's already possible to look at results and determine if Obama has been right. To sum up, on every issue, Obama has fallen far short of progressive goals. The economy is still bad, unemployment is up, foreclosures are worse with the HAMP bill, the wars continue (even if they've been renamed), civil liberties less protected than ever before, for most people help with health care is years away if it ever occurs, handling of the Gulf oil disaster was a disaster and continues to include a nifty government cover up.

Net: If it's true that Obama believes he's been doing the best he can do, he's wrong. Voters gave him a large majority in both houses of Congress and expected him to start delivering. Instead, he pretends to be a helpless victim of the obstructionist right. Excuses, which blame others for Obama's failure to use the power he has, are not acceptable. Or the alternative would be that Obama is successfully following the corporatist agenda he believes in - and again, voters are rightly incensed that he's not who he sold himself to be. Either way, he loses.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by lambert on

If the left exerts "inordinate leverage" -- assuming for the moment that Hamsher, say, and Corrente have the same idea of what "the left" might be -- then the obvious response is to give us something. That's how they would do it in Chicago, after all.

Instead, we get "The beatings will continue until morale improves."

It's "exit, voice, and loyalty":

The basic concept is as follows: members of an organization, whether a business, a nation or any other form of human grouping, have essentially two possible responses when they perceive that the organization is demonstrating a decrease in quality or benefit to the member: they can exit (withdraw from the relationship); or, they can voice (attempt to repair or improve the relationship through communication of the complaint, grievance or proposal for change). For example, the citizens of a country may respond to increasing political repression in two ways: emigrate or protest. Similarly, employees can choose to quit their unpleasant job, or express their concerns in an effort to improve the situation. Disgruntled customers ask for the manager, or they choose to shop elsewhere.

Since we have no voice, why should they expect loyalty? The rational response is exit.

UPDATE I love the conclusion, except for one thing: Obama doesn't lose. He wins. He's made for life. We lose.

Submitted by mike flugennock on

If this were five or ten years ago, I'd be enraged over this, and not just because I actually happen to be an actual hippie.

But, now... the only response I can think of to all this is BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I can't begin to express how gleeful I am at the thought of all this desperation gushing out of the Donkeycratic leadership at the idea of real Progressives and real Leftists getting fed up with the Donkeycrats' shenanigans and fakery, figuring out what Barack Martin Luther Aquinas Gandhi Timberlake The One is all about and pulling the rug out from under his ass and his worthless bloody corporate dick-sucking party.

I caught some of Joe Biden and The One himself, telling the Left to "buck up", trying to cite the healthcare "reform" bill as an accomplishment and saying in so many words -- to quote my Dad -- "don't say I never gave ya' nothin'". Jeezus H. Wept, I still can't believe those pikers actually looked us in the eye and told us to buck up! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHHH.

I also caught a bit of Ed "I Know Nothing" Schultz this evening -- purely by accident, as I was getting some ironing done and my wife had him on in the bedroom across the hall. Even though his target was those mean ol' Rethuglicans, as he cited healthcare "reform" and the "stimulus" as evidence of a "progressive agenda". Bitch, please. Pardon me while I laugh until I piss myself.

Anyway... just a thought... just a suggestion to anyone who's actually feeling down or pissed off about this: consider it evidence of how powerful we are. By simply choosing not to vote in five weeks, we'll be able to bring down -- or at least seriously cripple -- a shallow, corrupt, hypocritical, cynical and exploitive institution that dearly deserves to be knocked down a notch or two -- or twelve.

Oh, y'mean the Evil Rethuglicans will take over? Well, based on what I've seen of the Donkeycrats in the past, oh, twenty years, all I can say is, "huh, I'm good with that". I prefer to think of it as "political suicide bombing".

lizpolaris's picture
Submitted by lizpolaris on

the Dem party if we had won in 2000. But with a corporatist takeover of the party, there's nothing left. So, I agree - if the R's win, at least we know what they stand for. We can argue with a position we can see. Liars are a lot harder to pin down.

Submitted by mike flugennock on

P'wah, like hell we could've. I already knew they weren't worth a rat's ass after eight years of Bill Clinton. Hell, I'd already pretty much given up on them after four years of Jimmy Carter, for that matter, but Clinton pretty much iced it for me.

If Prince Albert had actually had the balls to take his own side in a fight in '00, it would've been no different than the previous eight years, only worse -- we would've had that wretched-assed walking slab of pond scum Lieberman as VP... not to mention that the response to 9/11 would've been exactly the same -- because, don't forget that Bill Clinton laid the foundation for the Patriot Act in 1995, right after the Oklahoma City bombing.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

My response to this view is here and here.

Gore wasn't perfect, hell, far from, he is/was after all a Washington Consensus politician (note signature). That said, the differences between Gore and Bush were neither insignificant, nor trivial, and your conjecture about "what he woudda done", is baseless, though convenient for your thesis. Regardless, sometimes the lesser of two evils is actually a hell of a lot less evil.* Bush and Cheney were fucking evil, that is why opposing Obama while he continues their policies is the right thing to do.

*Insert Godwin's Law here.

Submitted by JuliaWilliams on

and then fighting against the inevitable corporatist policies they enact is your answer to our political problems? And where is the guarantee of "much lesser?" It's interesting to read conjectures about how a D politician would govern when they have shown their true colors repeatedly over the past 30 years. And conjecture about how Dems would have governed is just as fruitless coming from anyone, except for the fact they are owned by the same corporate masters. (see MY sig line) Evil that is flagrant is much easier to fight against than the creeping, "bi-partisan" corporatist normalization of neo-lberalism that has captured what was once a more populist party, and is now in bed with the same "evil-doers" that have caused so much misery in this country, and abroad.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Gore is likely to have been a much better president than Bush, and I don't buy the idea that Nader wasn't a notable factor in the final result in 2000. Nader ran against both candidates and hoped to draw votes from them, with Gore's natural base coinciding far more with Nader's then Bush's did.

But I agree with you on the broader themes both of the fruitlessness of the speculative fiction and the clear line of Dems doing little to break the bonds of the corporate masters.

I think it's fair for people of conscience to agree to disagree about 2000 AND to agree that Nader's message of two barely differentiable parties rings very very true right now.

Submitted by lambert on

On that last paragraph.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

No.

And it's not what I'm doing now. Show me where I have. Plus, if you ask my opinion on it, we aren't dealing with a case of "much lesser of 2 evils". In fact, I'm not sure how much less evil Obama is at all over whatever the Republican alternative is.

I'm sorry (for them) that everyone who thinks there was no difference between Gore and Bush were demonstrably wrong, but that won't change that it is a fact. Can you point to one single piece of evidence that Gore would have pushed to invade Iraq? Would have governed like Bush/Cheney? Put up or shut up.

If anyone started the concept of "11-dimensional Chess", it was Nader voters in and after 2000. If there was an original "Sparkle Pony", it was Ralph Nader. Sorry, the problems that we have now won't be solved by making up fake myths about the past, including the myth that there was no difference between Gore and Bush.

Submitted by JuliaWilliams on

is an impossibility. Nader's campaign served to open a lot of people's eyes to the corruption extant in our legacy parties, and so they voted for him, as an expression of their free will to vote for a person who represented their best choice. Whether or not they agreed with the choice of the Dem party for their candidate rests solely on the Dem's choice, and the campaign that was run. The argument that Greens saw "no" difference is not correct-it is that they saw a "better" candidate than either. To argue that a person, of whatever political stripe, should not run for any office removes the choices that our democracy supposedly gives to us, and wihout a modicum of support, no person could run. To attempt to retroactively, and then presently, disenfranchise through villification and conjecture, a group of people moved to express their political beliefs, because of the lack of a desired (D) outcome, continues to be the running refrain of many Dems. (It also reflects the "hippie-bashing" occurring to this day). I don't "worship" Nader, but I do appreciate his commentary and insights. It is a good thing, IMO, to attempt to move the overton window, and to speak truth to power.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

If you can't provide evidence, then don't conjecture. Because the conjecture was started purely on the side of "Gore would not have been significantly different than Bush". I was pushing back against that, with freaking evidence. Don't try to spin this around, because it isn't honest.

Who I am not "vilifying"

  • people who voted for Nader
  • people who run left of center campaigns
  • people moving the Overton Window left

Who I am "vilifying"

  • Ralph Nader, who ran his campaign squarely against Al Gore, was he "right" that the political parties were corporately run and ultimately needed retooling/dismantling? Sure, but he didn't run his campaign on that, he ran it on "Al Gore is a corporate shill and no different than Bush". It fed into a convenient zeitgeist as well, making Ralph even more "popular". I don't need to redocument it, that is Somerby's job.
  • people who still say now*, without any evidence, that Gore and Bush were the same and it made no difference who won
  • people who try to rehabilitate Ralph Nader, despite the repeated evidence he is worthless.

Did Nader (and/or "Naderites") throw the election in 2000 to Bush? That's unknowable, certainly there were other factors, but it was damn close, and the consequences have been terrible. So yeah, I question the judgement of people who look back, from now, and say, yes, that was a wonderful outcome and I'm proud of my part in it.

And I say that as a person who did not vote for Obama, so don't accuse me of covering his ass.

*While our collective souls as American taxpayers trod on a stack of Iraqi dead.

ms_xeno's picture
Submitted by ms_xeno on

Lose the "and." You'll make more sense that way.

"...So yeah, I question the judgment of people who look back, from now, and say, yes, that was a wonderful outcome and I'm proud of my part in it...

The outcome was not wonderful. It was never going to be wonderful, and we all knew it.

Why would anyone still peddle such a fiction regarding the motives of Nader voters-- endlessly, after all these years? Doesn't it ever get old for you?

OTOH, I see no reason NOT to be proud of a refusal to be suckered by people who never intended to do anything for people like me-- other than use me as a convenience. People like the Clintons and Gore.

It's ridiculous to just point fingers at solely Obama, when he's part of a continuum. He is the logical outcome of what his forbears built on the backs of gullible voters. He is funded by the same oligarchs, he peddles the same agenda, etc.

There's not a damn thing wrong with refusing to be suckered by these people. So far as I can tell from blogs like this one, the main thing people like me did wrong was be correct about the Democrats ahead of schedule. [shrug] So be it.

Submitted by lambert on

... is that Nader looks prescient on the issues, and that he did the Green Party no good. (My personal view is that if Nader made any difference in 2000 at all, it was only because of a long train of errors by the Gore campaign, including the refusal to challenge the theft of an election, which is a clear pattern for the Ds from at least that day forward. That's why "Naderite as a term of abuse isn't in my vocabulary).

So, shrug away about "blogs like this one."

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

One can argue with the efficacy, but they took it to the Supreme Court, last I heard, the highest court in the land.

That Michael Moore Senate footage was interesting, but hardly damning of Gore. I don't even know if he had legal standing to pick up the challenge that not a single Dem Senator would rise to bring forth, but in any case, it would have been seen as the height of illegitimacy for him attempt to retry his case on the Senate floor.

ms_xeno's picture
Submitted by ms_xeno on

...millions of people, myself included, didn't even know that the United States HAD a Green Party. I fail to see how changing that was a bad thing.

I get that Nader doesn't play well with others, long-term, but the vitriol against him merely for pissing in the punchbowl during Gore's supposed rightful ascent to the throne will never make sense to me. Never.

Gore was and is a DLC patrician, and as far as I'm concerned, the tragedy is that 10% or more for the Greens might have been seen as the backhanded slap he and his cronies had coming for YEARS at that point. It also might have placed the Greens on better financial footing.

People can curse out Nader until the cows come home if that really makes them feel better. Nothing I can do to stop them. However, I didn't see anyone else at the time who was willing to stick their neck out like Nader did. For whatever reason. Fine. He's an asshole. But all those nice, docile "progressives" of that election cycle and those before and after: what did their NOT being assholes get us? So far as I can tell, the answer is: jack. Well, they got themselves perks and book deals and a chance to stand in the winner's circle, I guess. But that still left the rest of us up shit's creek in 2000. And it's the same story now.

nihil obstet's picture
Submitted by nihil obstet on

not to mention that the response to 9/11 would've been exactly the same .

One thing I am convinced of is that the attacks on 9/11 would have been thwarted under Gore. Clinton/Gore had prioritized anti-terrorism very highly, and if you remember, government agencies were actually pretty well run under Clinton. Immediately after his election, Bush moved the anti-terrorism agents to combat porn and prostitution. Richard Clarke, the government counter-terrorism chief, was running around government all through 2001 with his "hair on fire" about the threat from Al Quaeda. I can't see the wonks in a Gore administration responding to a memo entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." with a simple, "O.K., you covered your ass."

Generally, I think Gore was a corporatist, but I am fairly sure that the speed and completeness of the corporate takeover of the U.S. government was made possible by the success of the 9/11 attacks, and that's due to Bush's incompetence.

Submitted by mike flugennock on

...is how much the Donkeycrats' fuming reminds me of the big abortion-rights mobilization -- basically a thinly-disguised Donkeycratic GOTV event -- held here in DC in the spring of '04. Speakers included Whoopi Goldberg (still not funny), '70s sitcom has-been Bonnie Franklin and, believe it or not, Madeleine Albright. Yeahhhh, man... when you're mobilizing for abortion rights, who better to have on your speakers' list than a real-live baby-killer?

But, aa-aaaanyway... as I recall, the day's speakers -- especially Bonnie Franklin -- unveiled an amazing, revolutionary, outside-the-box strategy for roping in the Progressive vote: openly insulting Progressives, Green Party voters and Nader supporters to their faces on a public stage. Yessir, being slapped around and called names over a massive sound system and a pair of twenty-foot Jumbotrons really made me want to run right out and vote for Senator Lurch for El Presidente. Uh huh.

Crash and burn, muthafuckas. BWAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHH.

Submitted by Hugh on

Peter Daou used to due some good commentary on the nature of the blogosphere, but then he went to work for Hillary Clinton's campaign. You would think that this would have given her an edge, but Clinton had a massive tin ear where the blogosphere was concerned. It was obvious that she didn't get it and worse, didn't want to get it. After that, Peter Daou fell off my radar.

What he is writing here is uninspired schlock. Healthcare showed us there is no such thing as an elected progressive in Congress or the White House. So it is both funny and lame that Daou talks about our inordinate leverage. We don't have really any leverage at all. What we can do is express the anger and disgust that many voters feel toward Obama and the Democrats. We did not create it. It was the failures of Obama and the Democrats that did that. And we warned them, as in for more than two years, since before the Inauguration, as in before the 2008 election. This is a classic case of shooting the messenger.

It is as others have noted too a cop out. They have done exactly what they wanted to do. If Obama and the Democrats had wanted to investigate Bush era criminality, they could have. If Obama had wanted to end the wars, reject the war on terror, and dismantle Bush's surveillance state, he could have. He could have administratively ended DADT. He could have investigated and prosecuted the banksters and the corps. He could have closed Guantanamo, not waited a year not to. Democrats in Congress could have forced Republicans into real filibusters. They could have changed Senate rules back in January 2009. After all, McConnell had publicly announced his policy of obstruction just after the 2008 election. They could have had a real Pecors commission. But they didn't. They didn't do any of it. Now they are just looking for convenient scapegoats. The problem is the people they want to scapegoat reflect the views of a majority of the country.

lizpolaris's picture
Submitted by lizpolaris on

to reach the blogosphere. I recall him valiantly posting at dkos amid the obots. Paid to do so but I liked reading his comments. I find this surprising from him. Shooting the messenger is spot on.

Submitted by lambert on

I think the "creative class" were going to go for Obama no matter what. But maybe I'm biased ;-)

That said, I agree with the poster and this comment that they're doing exactly what they want to do. "Lacking moral courage" is a more sophisticated version of The Incompetence Dodge.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

And I'm not buying it here.

It may be true that the kewl kidz have a secret protocol one is supposed to "get," or be square. But dancing to that tune is no way to elect a president.

Obama pissed on the blogosphere in any number of ways. The more generous treatment he received once Edwards dropped out of a race wasn't a function of an opponent's tin ear, but a bullying, truthy "creative class" wave that leveraged misogyny, ageism, and racial guilt.

twig's picture
Submitted by twig on

... reveal a man who seems sure of his decisions, confident he is doing the best he can do and convinced that the course he is charting is correct.

Wasn't there another guy recently who couldn't recall making any mistakes, did the best he could and insisted on staying the course, no matter what? The name escapes me ...

Submitted by lambert on

I do think there's some insiderism on Obama's "accomplishments." But check this out:

As president, Obama has done much good and has achieved a number of impressive legislative victories. He is a smart, thoughtful and disciplined man. He has a wonderful family. His staff (many of whom I’ve worked with in past campaigns) are good and decent people trying to improve their country and working tirelessly under extreme stress. But that doesn’t mean progressives should set aside the things they’ve fought for their entire adult life. It doesn’t mean they should stay silent if they think the White House is undermining the progressive cause.

Case in point: the extraordinarily disturbing case of Anwar al-Aulaqi...

I don't buy the "moral authority" frame at all, but that's the frame he's using, and if you want to use that frame, Anwar al-Aulaqi is horrific, and then Dauo goes on the quote the posts on it.

So, no, I don't see shooting the messenger as part of this post.

Submitted by Hugh on

Yes, although I think the White House is orchestrating this weird campaign of getting relatively friendly bloggers to pitch its case to progressives and independents. The problem is that if they are at all honest their efforts come across as really weak. And if they aren't, well that speaks for itself.

It is all made more difficult by Obama, Biden, and Axelrod stepping all over their attempts by acting like out of touch, entitled assholes.

ms_xeno's picture
Submitted by ms_xeno on

...they really don't get that beating and kicking a dog will eventually make it turn mean.

I should only live long enough to see them get bitten and bitten hard. They've been deserving of it for years now. >:

gizzardboy's picture
Submitted by gizzardboy on

As lizpolaris says, "Obama is not listening to his critics. By doing that, he's governing blindly, without reflection." So, after the election results prove to be dismal, Obama and Team Obama will need to do some soul searching (or something like that since there are no souls involved). They could look in the mirror and ask themselves how they fucked up so badly. Hey, it could happen!

They could look back on the last couple of years, and realize how they could have twisted a few Blue Dog arms (or maybe it would be front legs), and got some decent shit done. They could see that the attempts to compromise produced nothing worthwhile. As they look forward to two years of nothing but political gridlock, they could think about how hope and change could have been more than a catchy slogan, and how they fucked it up .

Or they could continue to blame the awful leftist bloggers, and go to bed with all those wonderfully bipartisan Republicans in a post-partisan love fest.

Either way, it is one term for the Big O. The only difference is how many vetos vs. how many give-away-the-farm compromises. Is it time for Howard Dean (without the Yeeeehah) to start getting ready?

Submitted by libbyliberal on

And the media can't begin to find the True Left, which would be funny if it weren't still so very very insulting. Hey, vast, every time someone says public option, take a drink of koolaid, right? Lawrence O'Donnell had a good little public option progressive on his show tonight ... blanking on his name.... darn... who explained how hard they are all working and calling for Obama in the campaign and he knows of no one in progressive leadership position advising not to vote for Dems. And he explains how they want Obama to fight, I thought as far as he went ...limited... he did make a point... but once again... the real true left ... they won't let them get near a mike. Single payer medicare for all ... as if there weren't enough followers of that movement to shake a stick at ... and some of us were hippies ... most of us dare I say it weren't. Disinformation by the carload. And Obama will spout in his petulant generalities as will Biden ... they don't dare address any specific issues of the left. And stenographer media oblige of course. Lawrence O'Donnell, Olbermann, Rachel, et tu???? Yeah, so it seems.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Misses the point, doncha think?

As I've said, the journey of a thousand miles starts with facing in the right fucking direction.

I'd just as soon Obama didn't fight, so long as he continues fighting for the empire and the moneyed elite.

votermom's picture
Submitted by votermom on

the dynamic of a bully slapping around his underlings (or family) when faced with a bigger bully. The bully is afraid of the bigger bully, so to not lose face when the bigger bully confronts him, he lashes out at the ones who are powerless against him.
So basically it tells me the WH is p*ssing its pants in fear and lashing out.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

/drumroll, dancing girls, music/

Gore did not lose.

it really makes these "nader is evil!/nader is a hero!" discussions boring to those of us who don't focus on them as central or relevant. Perot had an "impact" on an election. Nader? not so much and anyway, the guy everyone is accusing him of "stealing" it from... won. we all agree about that, right?

this is classic Overton, pipplez.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Yep. You beat me to the punch.

Nader was well within his right to run and do so however he wanted to, even if it meant vilifying Gore. He was within his right to vilify Kerry to, that's how the game was played. I don't agree with his assessment in either 2000 or 2004, and he clearly didn't convince many other people he was right in 2004 as even some pretty big supporters from 2000 ditched his ass. But he should be free to run. What I don't think is right is to be such a clear tool of the GOP like he was in 2004, receiving a lot of $$$ from big GOP donors. Like they *really* were genuine Nader supporter. Right.

Submitted by JuliaWilliams on

is that Nader was a "clear tool" of the GOP See these:

http://www.counterpunch.org/wire10192004...
http://www.factcheck.org/radio_ad_attack...
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/10/26/n...

and to get the facts, you need to go to unbiased sites. What also got conflated with the total $23,000 (that's twenty three thousand) that was donated by republicans, was the very sneaky and well-done co-opting of his campaign by right-wing groups, that pushed for his ballot access (while he was fighting his own battles agianst the Ds for ballot access). The repeat of those dirty tricks can be seen happening right now in Texas and Arizona, among others.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

fantastic piece. as good as the bit i just read over at Crabby Old Lady's place. simple, direct, correct, unpolemical. results, not words. sorry to see Peter choose the dark side (again).

mass's picture
Submitted by mass on

The bloggers have nothing to do with Obama's weakening support. This is when yet again bloggers think too much of themselves, much like the MSM. What's bringing down Obama's approval rating with core constituencies is Obama. The teachers don't like serving as his punching bag as he privatizes education. The latinos don't like that Obama has not even tried to produce on immigration. The gays don't appreciate his justice department fighting tooth and nail every step toward progress made in the courts. The women don't like having their reproductive rights bargained away so Obama can achieve his "legislative accomplishment". And, more than anything, the working and middle class, don't like his god awful handling of the economy. It's got nothing to do with the bloggers.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

Obama is losing support because the policies he is so proud of are seen by most people as screwing them over, screwing them over right now in real time (no matter how these policies are characterized). People see it this way because they are being screwed over, they know it through their own experience and they are desperate. He is losing support because people (especially his former supporters) no longer have faith in the words that come out of his mouth. Obama is losing support (especially among his former supporters), because people no longer believe that he has got what it takes to change their lives for the better, whether it's the smarts, or the drive, or the inclination. He just hasn't shown that much interest in it. This is regardless of whether he is "perceived" as too liberal or too conservative or too moderate.

I talk to a lot of people across the political spectrum. I can actually pull my head out of the echo chamber in this regard.

Submitted by lambert on

"What's bringing down Obama's approval rating with core constituencies is Obama."

Another way to look at these bloggers is as opportunistic infections attacking an already weakened immune system...