The Nation: The Left Owes A Big Thank You To Gibbs

[mmonk]

Progressives should, of course, thank White House press secretary Robert Gibbs for the small favor of distinguishing the Obama administration from the left.

In what he admitted was an "inartful" diatribe, the press secretary unleashed on lefties who have objected to Obama's many compromises on economic and social issues and, above all, with regard to the expansion of the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan.

The "professional left," claimed Gibbs, is just a complaint club that will only" be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon. That’s not reality." (If we are deferring to reality, it is probably worth noting that very few people on the left propose Pentagon "elimination," although many of them agree with Congressmen Barney Frank and Ron Paul on the need to address the abuses and excesses in defense budgets.)

-snip-

Gibbs hit with the left with what he apparently thought was his best shot: "They wouldn’t be satisfied if Dennis Kucinich was president."

Gibbs seemed to be dismissing Kucinich, the anti-war congressman, veteran economic populist and two-time contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, as an example of the extremity within the Democratic camp.

What Gibbs forgot, of course, was that Kucinich played a pivotal role in advancing Obama's candidacy for the presidency. On the day of the 2008 Democratic caucuses in Iowa, Kucinich told his supporters that if they did not have a critical mass of backers at individual caucuses, they should throw in with Obama as the most viable progressive. That was a critical decision, since Obama only narrowly beat former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, who was making a big play for liberal backing.

-snip-

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129125087

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[izquierdista]

2. The two extremes

When conservatives fuck up and leave the country in a mess, it's because "he wasn't conservative enough". When progressives fail,....let's think about that.....when did progressives fail? Social security -- nope, real popular. Medicare? Nope, popular and much more cost effective.

I've got it -- When progressives fail, it's "to get elected".

[EFerrari]

17. Progressives "fail" to be extreme. That is in itself hype

and used by people like Gibbs to sideline us.

[Axle_techie]

105. Federal Reserve

was considered a screw up by the president who signed the act... Later said it was a mistake... That's about the only one, though

[Ichingcarpenter]

3. Kucinich told his supporters

to throw their lot in with Obama in Iowa and then he beat Edwards

AND I DID SUPPORT OBAMA AND WORKED FOR HIS CAMPAIGN.

I STILL LIKE OBAMA BUT THAT COMMENT BY GIBBS REALLY SUCKED ROTTEN EGGS.

[Raster]

4. And don't ever forget: Gibbs is just the mouthpiece. He speaks his master's words.

[station agent]

101. Kucinich saved us a lot of grief that day

If he hadn't thrown in with Obama, Edwards may have actually gotten the nomination. That scandal would have made the Lewinski affair look like Travelgate.

[Pirate Smile]

5. I took the Kucinich comment that people wouldn't be satisfied with him as more of a statement

that even Dennis couldn't get done what he and a lot of his supporters want - because of Congress. Dennis could be President but that wouldn't get Canadian style HC through the Senate.

You can have the most liberal President EVER but it doesn't change Congressional reality. Even Dennis would disappoint the left because of the limits of the Presidency.

[killbotfactory]

8. That's not fair

You're supposed to take Gibbs statement and see only evil and betrayal to all things progressive and pure, of which you must take great offense to (or you are a enemy).

[snot]

9. If that's what he meant, he shd have said something like, "Kucinich couldn't have accomplished more.

[Pirate Smile]

14. I think he was frustrated and just went off. I think everyone being honest would acknowledge that

when we go off because we're upset we say things that mean one thing to us (what we meant) but can be ambiguous in their meaning or easily twisted by people unsure of or questioning your motives or intentions.


I find that one of the biggest issues we have on DU is that one group looks at things assuming the worst intent or motive and the other looks for a positive intent or motive. A compromise on any issue is to one side 1. a compromise to get the best deal possible for people who desperately need help but the other side sees 2. a cop-out, a surrender, weakness or a traitor who actually is siding with the bad guys.

I tend to not assume the worst motives in Democrats because I think we generally have the same motivations and goals but may differ on how to get there or how far to go. I do tend to assume the worst in Republicans. I think one of the big battles on DU is between people who now assume the worst re Obama and Congress and people who generally assume the best motives that then get modified by the political realities of the situation.

[cilla4progress]

23. Really well said, PS

Clarified, true, and I agree with you! Any ideas what we can do about it?

(Following through on your explanation, I might modify #2 by adding, "crossing the line into unacceptable territory -- surrender of fundamental rights, values, or position.)

[Pirate Smile]

25. I think your modification definitely fits in with #2. I think the only way to deal with it is to

point out that sometimes there is a reasonable explanation that isn't nefarious. Some will still believe the worst but some are willing to give the benefit of the doubt or may not have considered that there was a different explanation.

[cilla4progress]

30. Thanks.

The point with my modification was to give that position some credence...that is, there were times when I wavered between these 2 options: accepting the reality leading to the compromise VS. believing caving-in on the public option (for example) was over the line. Position 2 was defensible, legitimate, and not necessarily an immature, spoiled response. I'm not saying that was your implication, just that, some do seem to believe it is illegitimate to hold out for the "lefter" position!

I especially like what you say about giving the benefit of the doubt. I try to apply this in personal relations as well. As you say, we are all dems here -- if we can't find common ground, we truly are in trouble!

[JDPriestly]

66. Pirate Smile. There is a deep disdain in the Obama administration

of genuine liberals, of the pre-Reagan Democratic spirit. That disdain was already present in the Clinton administration, but because Clinton was a good ol' boy, it was not so noticeable.

[Kalun D]

73. Big BS

the White House is right of center. They campaigned and won with the image of being left of center or center. Good luck on that in 2012 cuz it's a big lie.

[TheKentuckian]

74. He's a fucking paid professional spokesman for the President talking to a paper

A paper in Washington DC. The Hill for crying out loud!

This was no accident.

[Enthusiast]

86. It was a calculated insult. nt

[MissDeeds]

106. Yes it was

If he's stupid enough to make a 'mistake' like this, he's certainly too stupid to speak for the WH. He knew exactly what he was saying and did so with the approval of the WH - and it is going to come back and bite them. The left will only overlook so much. If they won't support us, why the hell should we support them?

[Horse with no Name]

110. Thank you for pointing out the obvious.

The guy is fucking paid to talk.
There are NO accidents.
There is NO frustration.
This is obviously THIS administration's words.
Press Sec's do NOT shoot from the hip and flap their jaws in the wind for no reason.
This was a shot across the bow to the "far left" in an effort to marginalize them.
Nothing more. Nothing less.

[jeff47]

91. That would be fine, if he was talking to his friends

This was a PR professional talking to a newspaper reporter on the record. If he 'just went off' in that situation, he should be fired.

[joshdawg]

99. I agree with you.

What with all this hurry, hurry, to get things undone that was done by the bush admin., it's easy to get a little frustrated. Undoing eight years of screwing up is going to take a lot longer than the 20 months Obama has been in office and Gibbs got a little weary of being beaten with the unceasing questions of: "Why is it taking so long?" "It's my country and I want it back now!" "What's the holdup with bringing the troops home?" "Why do you keep pandering to the right-wing?"...etc.
Stuff like that wears on people and Gibbs just got a little tired of it.
Kinda like a nagging wife.

[Winterblues]

10. We will never know now will we

All we know is the cry baby act of Gibbs directed toward a sizable portion of the Democratic constituency

[mmonk]

11. It's much more than just Kucinich. I don't think it has much to do with

the limits of the presidency but self imposed policy limits or divergence from progressivism.

[stubtoe]

12. +1

[gratuitous]

15. Gosh, if only Mr. Gibbs knew how to express himself

I really want to take a moment to thank all the folks at DU who have lectured me on what Gibbs was really saying in his petulant little diatribe. Now I recognize it for what it is: The 21st Century equivalent of the Gettysburg Address. It will be memorized by schoolchildren, lauded by teachers across the nation, and carved in monuments everywhere. "That these dead shall not have died in vain" right alongside (if positioned a little lower - you understand) "Those people ought to be drug tested."

[LostinVA]

18. rofl

[Pirate Smile]

20. Well, at least you never get frustrated and go off. Yes, I see a lot of people comparing this to

the Gettysburg Address.

Don't let anyone tell you any of your criticism is detached from reality.

[gratuitous]

22. Just as grounded in the reality of folks who want to eliminate the Pentagon

And yes, I do go off from time to time. I try to make sure I'm not the Press Secretary for the United States of America talking to a reporter when I do that, though. But it gets so confusing sometimes. That's why I'm so glad there are all these people here to explain what a professional talker who makes six figures a year with his mouth, no heavy lifting and all indoors, really meant to say. That'll teach me to trust my lying eyes.

[robinlynne]

42. uhh. we are not the president's press secretary. if he had "gone off" about

the terrible push to the right our country is suffering, cool. Canadian health care= GOOD THING, not bad extremist thing.
Canadian health care system is just what we need. for so MANY reasons. It is not an extreme idea. the entire 1st world has it except for one country, ours.

[FedUp_Queer]

75. "1st World"

I think that just about confirms it: the US is not first world...we seem to be in a new class...an UN-developing country.

[robinlynne]

114. oh we are definiteley 3rd world. The ever widening gap between rich and poor is the biggest sign.

[LWolf]

41. lol

:applause:

:rofl:

[leftstreet]

67. LOL

[Enthusiast]

87. Exactly, he only misspoke. nt

[EFerrari]

16. Right. Because the Professional Left has no idea of how legislation is

developed or passed. We're airheads that should be thankful for any attention we get at all from on high!

Thanks, Robert, for settng me straight!

[Pirate Smile]

19. Gibbs obviously thinks a lot of the criticism is detached from reality.

That was his point.

[EFerrari]

27. That was his assertion. He needs a reality check. n/t

[Enthusiast]

88. Fuck him and his point. nt

[mzmolly]

32. That's how I took it as well. It's really bizarre to witness the mass

spin by those who feel jilted.

[EFerrari]

34. There's no spin. Gibbs used Dennis to insult the left

which is doubly insulting because Dennis is up for re-election.

Unless there is a comprehension problem, it should be plain.

So much for supporting Democrats at the polls.

[mzmolly]

45. No he didn't. He compared Obama to a liberal like Kucinich

in saying that no matter who was in office some would lament.

[EFerrari]

76. Exactly and that is insulting. You'd think he was on a school yard

and not advising a president.

[mzmolly]

113. I don't know who he insulted other than those who refuse to acknowledge

any accomplishment on the part of the President.

[LostinVA]

85. You can't feel jilted by someone who never wanted you, so fail

[bvar22]

37. When people here

...have to tell us what the President's PRESS FUCKING SECRETARY really means,
we are looking at MASSIVE FAIL.

If there is ONE person in the WORLD that shouldn't need an interpreter, it IS the President's Press Secretary!
His JOB is to be clear, precise, and unambiguous,
AND in this case, I think he was.

[Enthusiast]

89. MASSIVE FAIL-yup. nt

[eridani]

47. I'd bet good money he could get an amendment that allows states to do single payer

That's how they did it in Canada, anyway.

[MsPithy]

62. Bologna

Obama doesn't even fight for progressive policies, he GIVES THEM AWAY in the first round of the sorriest excuse for negotiating the world has ever seen. And, then time after time GETS NOTHING in return!

[tomp]

63. that may very well be what he meant but i don't believe it is true.

i didn't see obama using his popular clout to advance truly progressive ideas. i know we would have
seen dennis do that. unfortunately, we can't know what would work or what wouldn't in an alternate reality.

personally, i would have preferred real education of the masses on exactly where congress stands in relation to
their best interests instead of crap legislation enshrining unnecessary insurance leeches for the foreseeable future.

the real issue here is that obama is playing the game like it has always been played. no change. kucinich would
almost certainly not do that.

[suzie]

69. The same Dennis Kucinich who said he'd run on a ticket with Ron Paul, old-time

KKKer?

Because a return to the bigotry and race hatred espoused by Ron Paul would be change, you're certainly correct about that.

Not a change that I'd call "truly progressive", but it would be change. Ugly, vile change.

[mmonk]

95. Yeah, sure. Kucinich is a racist and a rightie.

:eyes:

[tomp]

107. i'm not a supporter of ron paul

i like everything about kucinich except his initial stance on abortion and his idea that ron paul would be a good running mate.

frankly, i don't think he was serious about the paul thing. i think he was making a backhanded swipe at the other candidates
and their lack of honesty, which was one of the two things he praised about kucinich, that and his foreign policy.

on the other hand you don't seem to mind obama's kowtowing to miltary/corporate interests and steadfastly refusing to do
anything about the crimes of bush/cheny, inc.

no candidate is perfect.

as for the kkk'er thing, did you kick robert byrd to the curb as well?

[suzie]

116. Wait, you're here on a thread where so-called "progressives" are lambasting Gibbs,

for what he's SAID. And yet you want to immediately forgive Dennis Kucinich for saying that he'd run for the Presidency and give the opportunity to potentially become President to a real old-time, confirmed racist.

And rationalize that "Dennis really didn't mean it". Even though he brought up the idea of Ron Paul as a running mate and specifically said that Ron Paul is someone "who has integrity, who has vision, who has courage".

I'm sorry, you want to talk about lack of honesty by other politicians than Kucinich and somehow rationalize that Dennis Kucinich is something different even though he talks about the courage and integrity of a politician like Paul, who refused even in 2007 to reject his white supremacist, KKKer, anti-semitic supporters. And Kucinich did this when an African American was running for the Presidency.

As an old southerner, I can remember water fountains with "colored" on them and segregated lunch counters. But Dennis Kucinich continues to praise a man who seems to harken back to those days as having "vision".

Robert Byrd long ago apologized publicly for his actions some 60+ years ago.

Has Kucinich apologized for linking himself with a KKKer in 2008?

[Kalun D]

72. Big BS

Obama worked against public option and single payer

Obama worked FOR the bush boy's $700 billion bailout for the crooked bankers that intentionally caused the problem in the first place.

regardless of the congress

[madokie]

82. Thats how I read it too

Thanks for putting it in easy words to 'cipher

[Historic NY]

100. exactly & sitting back whining instead of pushing forward isn't going to work....onward.

keep the fire licking at their toes.

[northernlights]

102. that may be so, but Kucinich would have tried

I seriously doubt Kucinich would have taken single payer off the table before anybody was seated at it. I seriously doubt Kucinich would have cut a back-room deal with the insurance industry before "negotiations" even began.

I doubt Kucinich would have upped the ante in Afghnistan. I doubt he would have continued rendition. I doubt he would have endorsed assassinating citizens without due process.

Of course, he's not in the hot seat so who knows? Maybe he would have betrayed us all too.

[Steely_Dan]

6. To Some Extent...

progressives should be very grateful to Mr. Gibbs. Nothing that has happened in this administration has done more to solidify progressives and actually given them a voice...even if it is only temporary.

-PLA

[LostinVA]

90. +1

[mike r]

7. Gibbs' real message: You can't call Obama a Socialist. Heck, he's not even a LEFTIST!!!

[corkhead]

13. sister souljah. eom

[geek tragedy]

21. "Only narrowly beat John Edwards" in Iowa.

The Nation apparently likes to make shit up. Obama stomped on Edwards in Iowa.

[unapatriciated]

39. It wasn't a mandate like he had in the general.

Obama-38 percent
Edwards-30 percent
Clinton-29 percent.

"But due to the way Iowa splits its delegates, all three of the top finishers will leave the state having earned roughly the same amount of support at the state's Democratic convention later this year, when attendees will divide delegates for the party's national convention"
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/03/iowa.dems/

Senator Obama thanked Congressman Dennis Kucinich for encouraging his supporters to caucus for Obama as their second choice in the Iowa caucuses. Obama noted that he and Kucinich both opposed the war in Iraq before it started and are committed to reclaiming the American Dream on behalf of families across the country......

"I have a lot of respect for Congressman Kucinich, and I’m honored that he has done this because we both believe deeply in the need for fundamental change,” said Senator Obama. “He and I have been fighting for a number of the same priorities -- including an end to the war in Iraq that we both opposed from the start, reforming Washington and creating a better life for America's working families. I encourage all Iowans to take part in the caucuses this Thursday – not because it will be good for any one candidate, but because it will be good for our party and the future of our country."
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/Cg8l



No it is not making shit up, it was close. Kucinich did help Obama by endorsing him. Gibbs has a strange way of showing respect for him and his supporters . We turned out to donate, canvas, phone bank, registered new voters and drove people to the polls.

[tomp]

64. and that was with kucinich's backing. nt

[karynnj]

112. The fact is that a 8 point victory was MAJOR

and if you remember it really gave Obama momentum. Hillary Clinton had been sitting on a 20 point lead in NH and her campaign was being run by Senator Shaheen's husband. They were known to have an excellent get out the vote machine. Hillary did eke out a narrow victory.

CNN was very pro Clinton in 2008 and this was a case of playing down a massive Obama victory. Had Edwards or Clinton won NH, Hillary would have almost certainly won the nomination. (I posted the entrance poll results - and Kucinich had only about 1.5% of the caucus goers. Additionally, Edwards gained nearly twice as much as Clinton or Obama from the caucus process. Obama started with 35% to Edwards 23.4%.

[Javaman]

24. One would think that a smart press secretary would have thrown us

under the bus, AFTER the election or during Obama's second term.

I certainly don't expect the WH to suddenly start sucking up to us, after gibbs halfassed remark, but I will be amused from this point forward to see how all of this plays out in the slow drip to win back the "professional left" for 2012.

[mmonk]

26. Maybe in 2012, the campaign can run on change.

:sarcasm:

[Javaman]

29. I laugh, because I'm tired of crying.

Cheers!

[FiveGoodMen]

38. Yes, I think they'll have to.

Sad but still very funny comment there.

[amborin]

28. K&R

[eleny]

31. K&R

[bvar22]

33. And Mr Gibbs wants to be my Latex Salesman.

FAIL

credit "Seinfeld"

It is a relief to KNOW what most of us only suspected.
Why hang around at a party when you aren't wanted?

---bvar22
proud member of the fringe, drug addled wing of the Democratic Party that wants "Canadian Style Health Care".

[Divine Discontent]

77. LOL..... so true. thanks for the reference to the show about nothing! :)

and yes, Gibbs wanted to be my Latex salesman!



sheesh.... Lloyd Braun is my man, now!

[old mark]

35. Obama to left: Fuck You, and don't forget to vote in November because

the Democrats suck, but the republicans suck even worse...



Are we Fired Up yet? It seems like it is getting hotter......


mark

[mmonk]

36. Fired Up!

:sarcasm:

[rhett o rick]

40. I feel the Obama administration is trying to make those on the center-right know for sure

that he doesnt align with the left. He no longer needs our votes. We are more useful as an enemy.

[fogonthelake]

46. umm.....whow.

[rhett o rick]

56. how do you feel? nm

[fogonthelake]

57. Guess I was

reacting to this comment you made below. It took me back. But there may be something to that comment. Sad, very sad.

.............We are more useful as an enemy.

[rhett o rick]

58. I agree. But the consistant attacks from the WH on the left is for a reason. nm

[glitch]

48. "We are more useful as an enemy." there's that, plus the DLC really does despise progressives.

Part of their nature. Plus it makes good business sense, courting corporations and all.

The enemy of my master is my enemy, or something.

[dreamnightwind]

65. exactly

nailed it

[LostinVA]

92. You stated this very well, ROR

That is exactly how I see it, too.

[rhett o rick]

103. Thanks.

You and I started off a little rocky but I find that a number of posts that I agree with have your name on them.

NGU

[robinlynne]

43. exactly. the Democrats suck but the Republicans suck worse. That's it in a nutshell.

I am not being sarcastic. I agree. That is the sad state of our union.

[BootinUp]

44. Kucinich? a two-time contender for the presidential nomination?

the author made a joke. :rofl:

[mmonk]

84. Sadly the joke's on us.

We do as the media instructs us to.

[donheld]

49. 100 k & R

[Sparkly]

50. Ouch.

:thumbsup:

[karynnj]

51. Revisionism on Obama's Iowa win

He got 38% of the vote, Edwards got 30% - this is not "narrowly beating" Given that Kucinich never polled anywhere near even half of that 8% difference and because caucus goers do not have to listen to their first choice - that is complete bunk.

John Nichols was one of the reasons (but not the only one) I cancelled my subscription years ago to the Nation. It would seem that before publishing this, he would spend 2 minutes using google to get the Iowa results - rather than going from memory. I have seen enough misinformation that I frankly can't see why anyone considers him reliable.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

68. But those caucus counts are not straight percentages of participants

You have to break 15% to get a delegate out of a caucus in Iowa. Kucinich getting 3% doesn't mean that he got 3% of the votes. It means that he got 3% of the delegates and may have scored under 15% but still somewhere between 1-14% in an unknown number of other caucuses.

Say that Obama and Edwards are tied in Caucus A with 30% of the delegates each. Kucinich has 10%, not enough to win any delegates on his own, but enough to put Obama ahead of Edwards. In Caucus B, Obama and Edwards are also tied, and Kucinich's 6% of the vote again puts Obama ahead.

Unless you are privy to the records of each individual caucus, you do not know what percentage the candidates got who won fewer than 15% of the delegates. They may have won 0%. They may have won 14%. Either way, they were not counted in the official totals.

It is therefore mathematically possible that DK contributed to 8 points of Obama's win by telling his supporters to vote for Obama in the Iowa caucuses.

[karynnj]

108. Kuchinich had about 1.43% of the entrance poll

I was speaking of his highest polling numbers over the time he was running. Here's a link to the entrance polls - http://election.cbsnews.com/campaign2008/exitPoll.shtml?state=IA&race=P&jurisdiction=0&party=D There is no way that that 1.5% was converted to give Obama 8%. (I do know that could create a case where these are strategicly in places Obama is below 15% - which would make them worth more than their numbers - but that didn't happen there are a few counties where Obama is less than 15, but Kucinich is zero in all of them. http://election.cbsnews.com/campaign2008/county.shtml?state=IA&race=P&jurisdiction=0&party=D)

In your example, where Obama and Edwards are both above the threshold - the impact on the FINAL percent is only roughly the percentage of Kucinich voters represent times the weight of that caucus.

In addition, Kucinich telling his first choice voters to vote for Obama does not mean they do. If I were an Iowa caucus goer, I would not feel bound by it if I felt another candidate was better. There were threads here at the time that suggested that some would do as I say that I would.

This shows - DK had slighly less than 1.5% You might also notice that Obama was even MORE dominant in the entrance poll than in the final results. He started with 35%. Edwards started with 23.43%. Clinton started with 27%, Given that Obama came in with 35% and had few areas where he was below 15%, it is hard to see how Kucininch's votes making up the difference. What this also shows is that the one who gained most by the caucus process was Edwards - who had nearly twice the gain the other two had. (I do realize this is a poll, but it is generally pretty accurate.

[karynnj]

52. self delete - duplicate

[saltpoint]

53. A weak piece. I've seen no evidence that would

suggest that Obama's winning percentage in the Iowa caucus was owed to a Kucinich endorsement.

The citation of Kucinich's "pivotal role" in Obama's (eventual) nomination is baseless.

[jeff47]

93. You should probably look up caucus rules

A candidate that doesn't break 15% can't get any 'real' votes. In a closely-contested caucus, a candidate that consistently gets about 10% of the vote is the kingmaker.

[saltpoint]

97. All candidates for the nomination knew the rules, as

you and I do, long prior to the January night when the caucuses are held.

Kucinich's maneuver was marginal against the winning arithmetic Obama already had in place. The writer suggests that Kucinich should be morally elevated as a significant strategic boost for Obama when in fact that was not the case.

[karynnj]

111. Kucinich had only 1,43% of the entrance polls

Therefore, he was completely unlikely to be a knigmaker - especially when Obama came in with 35% in the entrance polls, In fact, Obama was MORE dominant in the entrance poll than in the final results. Clinton had 27% in the entrance poll and Edwards 23.4%.
http://election.cbsnews.com/campaign2008/exitPoll.shtml?state=IA&race=P&jurisdiction=0&party=D

You could make a stronger case for Kucincih elevating Edwards in 2004. He had 4% of the entrance poll then. Dean had about 20.5% and Edwards 26%. Imagine that Kucinich told his people to go to Dean, not Edwards. It is somewhat possible that this would have put Dean either in second place or close enough they could have been considered tied. (Starting at 20.5% average across the state, Dean likely lose all credit in places where he didn't have 15%)

Intrestingly, Kerry was also more dominant in the entrance polls vs Edwards. There may be some dynamic that causes the people who need to find another group to avoid the one that is winning - maybe in the hopes that your candidate will still be the state wide winner - or if not the winner keeping the totals as close as possible. ( 2004 - http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/IA/index.html )

What I would love - but don't think exists - are transistion matrices showing where they start and where they end up.

[Beacool]

54. One more proof that caucuses should have been eliminated long ago.

They might have been a good idea in the 19th century, but they sure as hell are not a democratic way to choose a nominee nowadays. They disenfranchise too many people who for various reasons (work, infirmity, being out of the state, etc.) cannot caucus.

I have thought for years that states should have only primaries. The party should have also gotten rid of the super delegates. How about letting voters decide by simple majority which candidate they prefer, as opposed to the party trying to game the election.

;(

[Sebastian Doyle]

59. I'm fine with dumping the superdelegates

But as long as votes are "counted" by Diebold machines, I think I'll keep my state caucus.

[lfairban]

55. If you haven't read the link in the OP:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129125087

. . . you really need to do so. It gets real good later on. :)

[davidthegnome]

60. Wow

I'm just amazed at those of us who think Gibbs is a real stand up guy. I don't really care what brand of democrat, progressive, inedependant or whatever else you are - insulting the "professional left" (a label I still don't quite understand, is it like the old "Latte drinking, granola eating sissies" label?) really was a very stupid thing to do. Granted, we all occasionally do stupid things, but it's probably not great that someone in his position did so in front of a reporter. That kind of puts him on a different level of stupid. Whatever his reasoning for saying what he said, the man is bloody moron and we need a replacement.

[Enthusiast]

94. Yet he remains unrepentant and arrogant.

I'm finding myself growing more angry by the minute after reading these defenses of Gibbs on DU.

[Robeson]

61. You're quoting The Nation. They have a left-wing viewpoint. They're not viable...

...that's at least what I was told on this "progressive" site, when I once quoted from The Nation. Go figure.

[myrna minx]

70. K&R n/t

[Goldstein1984]

71. It was difficult to know what flag to fly

My principles are intact, but the labels seem so nebulous.

Along comes Gibbs. We are the "Professional Left;" or maybe call us the "Principled Left;" or just PL; but don't call us for contributions.

[meowomon]

78. His job is to represent the message of the white house. Message received.

I am taking the Obama sticker off my car today. That "hopey changey" thing is looking to be another load of crap I fell for. I can't stand Palin, but I want to mock the hope and change slogan now too! I don't know where to turn. Seems most people I know aren't even paying attention to politics. They're just trying to pay bills and raise their kids. The only ones who seem to care around these parts (the south) are the crazy right wing religious nut teabaggers.

[nightrain]

79. thank you Mr Gibbs for clarifying the WH's view of lefties and for

clearly distinguishing the Obama Administration from the left. That message seems aimed at both the left and the right. Bullseye! No more pretense.

[quaker bill]

80. At least DK learned something from 2004

Where he threw his Iowa caucus support to Edwards. Had he instead thrown his support to Dean, the country might have been in a very different place.

I do agree that thanks to Gibbs is more appropriate than condemnation. I support Obama, but do not agree with him on all things. We should keep pressing him from the left. I find the generalized Bush analogy to be over the top. However, I can support the notion that he has not moved far enough away from Bush on the named issues.

[madokie]

81. I didn't hear him say it but I can tell he hit a nerve here at DU

And theres lots of nerves to be hit here at the DU, if you get my drift :-)

Recommended

[democrank]

83. K & R

[NorthCarolina]

96. Excellent article, truly a Must Read. Thanks for posting. eom

[Fleshdancer]

98. THIS is a great article

and I highly recommend everyone click the link and read it in full.

My 2 favorite parts:

Just as sincere conservatives objected to much of what Bush did, sincere progressives should object to much of what Obama does. Indeed, they should do so more loudly, more aggressively and more consistently than they have up to this point.

Principles should trump partisanship and personality.

and

This administration's agenda has suffered because of the compromises made by the president and his aides with Wall Street and Republicans on Capital Hill — especially during the first stimulus fight but also during the bank reform fight. That has harmed people in the United States, just as the administration's choices with regard to Afghanistan have harmed some of the poorest and most disregarded people in the world.

:applause:

[TheKentuckian]

104. K&R

[Better Believe It]

109. K & R

[Ignis]

115. Too late to R, but here's your K.

:kick: