Corrente: Obama, political economics and the harmful strategy of conciliation

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

This is an extensive piece that expresses why some intelligent, sincere Democrats cannot stand Barack Obama's political philosophy and sense of history. He seems to have no understanding whatsoever of the nature or history of the conservative movement, or of any other aspect of how this country has gotten so screwed up.

This critique, which is disqualifying of a Democratic candidate, has nothing to do with Donnie McClurkin or Oprah or the color of Barack's skin. Senator Obama is temperamentally center right and willfully ignorant of the true state of American politics and economics. Some of us understand that what has gone down in these United States is a plan, not a misunderstanding. And that's why some of us don't support him.

The excerpt below excerpt is just four paragraphs from the middle of a much longer piece.
http://www.correntewire.com/obama_stump_speech_strategy_of_conciliation_considered_harmful

Obama presents himself as post-partisan, but partisan politics are needed. The “food fight,” obviously a partisan food fight, is purest Equivalation. The Democrats didn’t break the world record for filibusters when they were in the minority; but the Republicans just did. And when the press covered the (very few) Democratic filibusters, they called them “filibusters.” And when the press covers the (never-ending) Republican filibusters, the word “filibuster” gets magically transmuted into the “60 votes needed to pass.” And last I checked, Democrats were allowing anybody to come to their election rallies, but Bush was screening his to make sure only Republicans attended. This is the Conservative Movement in action. Sure, there’s a “food fight,” but most of the food that’s in the air is coming from one side of the cafeteria!

So why on earth would Obama think that “tearing down” the Conservative Movement and “lifting this country up” are opposites? They’re the same! And we need the kind of politics that treats them that way. When the Swift Boat guys smeared Kerry, Kerry should have “torn them down.” Beating Bush in 2004 sure would have “lifted up” the country! Back in the McCarthy era, Margaret Chase Smith “tore down” Joe McCarthy with her Declaration of Conscience, and that sure “lifted up” the country! Sam Ervin “tore down” Richard Nixon and got him impeached. That lifted up the country too—‘til Gerald Ford let us down, anyway.

More importantly, we’ve given some idea, in the short history above, of how powerful, and how entrenched, the Conservative Movement has become in official Washington (the Village).*** If an election is held in 2008, and if an Democrat is elected, and is allowed to take office, and that Democrat is Obama, the Conservative Movement, and its billionaire funders, are not going to change their playbook. Why would they change what has worked out well for them? They will go right back and run the same plays that they ran when the last Democrat was elected (see Appendix I). The day that Obama touches a hair on the head of some Regent University grad who’s rewriting the work of a NASA scientist on climate change from a Christianist perspective, the howls of outrage about “hatred,” and “liberal fascism,” and “authoritarianism of the left,” and — bless their hearts — the separation of powers are going to begin, the howling is not going to let up, and the Conservative Movement and the press are going to amplify it until Obama either caves or figures out the state legislature in Springfield was Triple-A ball, not the show, grabs a bat, and gets their attention by administering an old-fashioned beat down. (Meanwhile, the Christianist will be all over the teebee, and if they pass, they’ll get a book deal. You know the drill.)

Progressive policies — this election, health insurance, above all — will be vehemently opposed by the Conservative Movement and the winger billionaires because progressive policies are not in their economic interests. In fact, they’ve been working for 30 years against progressive policies, and have been well paid to do so. They won’t change. Why would they? So, there’s going to be a food fight. Don’t we need the kind of politics that’s going to win the fight, rather than deplore it?

[Jim Sagle]

1. Time to rip off his Democratic mask and reveal the true face of another stealth Republican.

[niceypoo]

4. Of course he is a republican

Thats the general rule around here. If you don't support a candidate, he is automatically a stealth republican.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

5. clearly

reverse McCarthyism is rampant around here.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

2. Admittedly, I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing

But how is Obama different than any of the others, save Kucinich possibly, when it comes to this? Clinton, Edwards, Biden, and Dodd have been known to cave and compromise in the Senate, and which one of them will come out roaring like a tiger to take the conservatives down?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. self kick cause the corrente piece is an interesting read

[Scriptor Ignotus]

6. you're starting off with a false premise

because I've seen and heard dozens of Obama speeches and he most certainly has correctly diagnosed the problem with this country and with the conservative movement. His remedy is what you really disagree with, and that's fine. That's part of the debate. But it's simply untrue to say Obama doesn't know the problems with the Right side of the aisle.

Did you forget Obama's speech at Rick Warren's church? You really think Obama didn't know about the controversy surrounding his visit there?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1565076,00.html
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2006/11/19/why_is_obamas_evil_in_rick_warrens_pulpit


The fact is Obama knows more about our "adversary" than Hillary or Edwards does, and is in a much better position to "conquer" them. I know you and many other DUers are itching for a fight with the Right, but that's not necessarily the progressive movements best move.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. There is very little he hasn't said at one time or another.

But I know Broderism when I hear it, and I hear it. And I do not hear it because I don't like Obama, I don't like Obama because I hear it.

I have seldom given a politician the chance I've given Barack, but it's no sale.

We disagree, that's all.

It is common for two different people to hear a message differently. Makes the world go 'round.