Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIt's on. MoveOn's endorsement primary began Thursday, as hundreds of thousands of activists are expected to cast virtual ballots deciding whether the netroots group will formally back Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. The ballots ask people to pick a candidate; share reasons for their vote; state whether they will support the Democratic nominee -- "whoever it is" -- and then direct visitors to a fundraising appeal for MoveOn.
This week, over 200,000 MoveOn members voted in favor of conducting the endorsement primary, which MoveOn would only convene with majority backing from its membership. The actual primary requires a supermajority of 66%.
On Thursday, netroots activists discussed the vote at the blog OpenLeft, which has coordinated lobbying and political campaigns with MoveOn. Blogger Matt Stoller, who recently penned an article on the "new organizers" for The Nation, agreed with the MSNBC prediction that this race is Obama's to lose:
I think it's likely that Moveon members will go for Obama, simply because Hillary Clinton has failed to account for her Iraq vote and has failed to lead on any progressive issue in the Senate. Obama has a tribal pull on Moveon members, both generationally and culturally, but this could have been offset by an ideological argument from Clinton, one she didn't make. If Moveon goes for Obama, Clinton will be reaping her own harvest.
Two commenters responded by touting Clinton's vote against the Republican censure of MoveOn, a vote that Obama did not attend. But John Stauber, a veteran liberal activist who clashed with MoveOn over how to end the Iraq war, said the entire endorsement approach revealed what's wrong with MoveOn. "A year ago MoveOn and and its allies like Matt Stoller jumped all over me for pointing out that they let the Democrats off the hook on the war by following Pelosi's lead," he told The Nation. Stauber continued:
That should now be obvious in the position that MoveOn and AAEI just took to stop pushing for Congress to try to end the war... Look at how MoveOn is moving the bar on whether or not to endorse a candidate supported by a majority of their members. They want to be thought of as the leaders of a progressive movement. They have become instead cautious cheerleaders for the Democratic Party's mainstream. Ironically, the Right continues to vilify them as wild eyed Leftists. But the reality is they are undermining any real opportunity to build a progressive movement and are just a mainstream Democratic money, marketing and election tool.
Another campaign source criticized MoveOn for raising the endorsement bar to 66%. Voting is open until 11am Friday.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
ALL PROGRESSIVE UNITE BEHIND OBAMA TO DEFEAT HILLARY AND THE DLC AND GAIN CONTROL OF OUR PARTY!!!
Posted by Metteyya at 01/31/2008 @ 1:28pm
I think it's likely that Moveon members will go for Obama, simply because Hillary Clinton has failed to account for her Iraq vote and has failed to lead on any progressive issue in the Senate. Obama has a tribal pull on Moveon members, both generationally and culturally, but this could have been offset by an ideological argument from Clinton, one she didn't make. If Moveon goes for Obama, Clinton will be reaping her own harvest.
When Hillary had a chance to STAND UP for progressive change, she stood with the DLC and the conservatives!
1. Exempt US War Crimes from International Courts (HR 3338)
Hillary: Yes Feingold: No
2. Help America Vote Act of 2002 to Increase Voting (HR 3295)
Hillary: No Feingold: Yes
3. Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HR 1904)
Hillary: No Feingold: Yes
4. Bush's No Child Left Behind (Bill Number: HR 1)
Hillary: Yes Feingold: No
5. Prescription Drug Benefit for Medicare (Bill Number: S 1)
Hillary: No Feingold: Yes
6. Military Force in Iraq (Bill Number: H J Res 114)
Hillary: Yes Feingold: No
7. Patriot Act (USA Patriot Act of 2001)
Hillary: Yes Feingold: No
8. Kyl-Lieberman Declaring Iran Military Terrorists (S Amdt 3017)
Hillary: Yes Feingold: No
Posted by Metteyya at 01/31/2008 @ 1:33pm
METT, since we are now down to basically the two candidates, how about posting the votes of Obama v. Hillary?
Posted by FritztheCat at 01/31/2008 @ 1:39pm
Obama is the man with the prgressive record. Vote for Obama...you have until 11AM tommorrow morning!
Posted by BerkTown at 01/31/2008 @ 1:45pm
Well, I guess if it's MEMBERS and not another useless "online poll" it might have some merit, but the spin will be obvious.
As noted, Move On is now "Establishment" according to some others in the "netroots"...so if Hillary wins, the spin will be "Typical! They are supporting the Insider!"
If Obama wins, the Hillary folks (you know who here!) will say "So what? Lotta hard-core lefties" and "Let Obama win endorsements, Our Dark Goddess is winning primaries!"
Posted by Mask at 01/31/2008 @ 1:45pm
a vote that Obama did not attend.
how many times have i read this?
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/31/2008 @ 1:46pm
Posted by FRITZTHECAT 01/31/2008 @ 1:39pm
FRITZ, he can't do THAT.
and you, me, and he....know why!
Posted by Mask at 01/31/2008 @ 1:46pm
from qwiki:
MoveOn started in 1998 as an email group, MoveOn.org, created by computer entrepreneurs Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, the married cofounders of Berkeley Systems. They started by passing around a petition asking Congress to "censure President Clinton and move on", as opposed to impeaching him.
oh, the irony.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/31/2008 @ 1:48pm
FRITZ, he can't do THAT.
and you, me, and he....know why!
Posted by MASK 01/31/2008 @ 1:46pm
the two headed monster of the Demographic Party.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/31/2008 @ 1:50pm
I moved on from MoveOn.org ever since they endorsed the military spending bill and framed an "online poll" that failed to mention the option of supporting the stronger anti-war amendment put forth by the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
The problem with MoveOn.org is that it is a top-down organization using their "members" to garner political clout rather than actually trying to represent those interests with integrity.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0310-35.htm
Posted by srjenkins at 01/31/2008 @ 1:54pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/31/2008 @ 1:48pm
John Stauber has a point (from his view). Move On was and continued to be a wholly owned subsidiary of BillCo.
If their members vote for Obama, it'll prove that She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed is getting into a bit more trouble than we thought.
Posted by Mask at 01/31/2008 @ 1:54pm
Pity MoveOn hasn't run a similar poll aimed at endorsing impeachment hearings. It won't matter who wins in Nov, if the office remains an unaccountable imperial perch. Legal precedent must be set by the People's reps & they sit in Congress. In ignoring this key issue for the past year of a Dem Congress, MoveOn supports those who wish to maintain the imperial project & keep the lid on Pandora's boxes like 9/11, the Iraq war, the flood of signing statements that shred the Constitution.
Posted by sloper at 01/31/2008 @ 1:55pm
Posted by FRITZTHECAT 01/31/2008 @ 1:39pm
Aside from the Iraq war vote and Kyl-Liberman, both opposed by Obama, it is difficult to tell where they differ because Hillary started gaming her votes to "appear" not to be different than Obama.
But the Washington Post did an excellent piece in which they analyzed 40 different votes where Obama and Clinton differed, and some were serious issues.
For example, Hillary supported offshore drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, and Obama opposed this; Hillary voted against raising CAFE fuel efficiency standards, and Obama voted for this; Hillary voted for travel systems for the Pentegon, and Obama opposed this; Hillary voted for funding for an anti-Castro TV station, and Obama opposed it; and, HIlary voted for a watered down ethics bill that took out full disclosure of the source and recipent of pork-barrel earmarks (many of which go to the defense industry), and Obama opposed it for that reason.
So on a number of substantive issues, Hillary sides with the defense and oil industries, and "old" us vs. them cold war policies, whereas Obama stands against these interests.
Here is an excerpt from the Washington Post article:
In August, Clinton supported a bill to expand oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico, while Obama voted against it. During the 2005 energy debate, Obama backed an increase in vehicle fuel-efficiency standards, which Clinton opposed. Clinton voted against the energy bill itself because it was stuffed with oil industry incentives. But Obama supported the legislation because it included language that would double ethanol demand by 2012.
Another fault line is spending. Obama sided with fiscal conservatives on several high-profile measures to strip funding for pet projects, including a widely criticized Pentagon travel system and the relocation of a railroad line along the Mississippi Gulf Coast that was part of a Hurricane Katrina redevelopment project. Clinton voted in favor of the projects.
Sen. Barack Obama left himself open to tax-raising accusations by voting against extending certain breaks.
One budget-related vote with broader political implications would have stripped funding for TV Marti, which beams television programming to Cuba, though the Cuban government jams the signal. Critics in Congress complain that the United States has spent almost $200 million on the failed effort and have targeted the program year after year.
Obama twice voted to cut off TV Marti funding, while Clinton supported maintaining it. Those votes will have resonance in Florida, which is a key primary state and may reschedule its 2008 primary date from March to February.
Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said the senator's opposition to TV Marti was primarily about cost. But within Florida's large Cuban exile population, one of the most powerful voting blocs in the state, Clinton's and Obama's stances ally them with distinct groups: the older hard-liners and a younger, more progressive group of second-generation Cuban Americans and more recent immigrants whose numbers are growing. Clinton "is going with the status quo," said Sergio Bendixen, a Miami-based pollster who specializes in Hispanic voters. Obama, he said, "is with the position of change."
The senators differed on a July 13 vote that would prohibit the confiscation of legally held guns during natural disasters -- a response to seizures by law enforcement officials in the New Orleans area after Hurricane Katrina. Obama voted to ban confiscations; Clinton was one of 16 senators opposing the restrictions.
In late 2005, Obama allied with Republicans to support creating an exception to Senate rules to allow Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to continue practicing medicine on a not-for-profit basis. Clinton opposed the change, an aide explained, because she believes that senators should not have a second source of income. Gibbs said that Obama, as an author of two best-selling books, was sympathetic to Coburn's request.
In several instances, Clinton and Obama voted against measures that they supported in principle, because the bills were not strong enough. Clinton opposed a restructuring plan for the Federal Emergency Management Agency that Obama and 86 other senators backed, because it did not restore the Cabinet-level status that FEMA had attained under President Bill Clinton, her husband. One of Obama's chief interests in the Senate has been ethics reform, but he was one of eight senators to oppose a bill aimed at tightening lobbyist rules because it was not strong enough. Clinton supported the initiative. - By Shailagh Murray, Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, January 1, 2007
Posted by Metteyya at 01/31/2008 @ 1:56pm
Unless there are more than a couple Frankgritz's over at MoveOn, I'd bet on an Obama landslide.
Posted by MATTMAN at 01/31/2008 @ 2:00pm
Middle America Will Not Elect Hillary Clinton
Reading and listening to media reports over the last few weeks, most Americans probably buy the ‘inevitability' argument being sold by the Clinton political machine. Many establishment democrats also try to lend credibility to this contention, but does this line of reasoning really hold water? Answer: Not if you're talking to Middle America. Now I realize that it may be true that the larger states such as New York and California will likely play the biggest role in determining who will win the democratic party's nomination. For this reason, it may seem that Middle America is pretty insignificant in the primary process, but believe me when I tell you that democrats across the country should think long and hard before nominating Hillary Clinton. The bottom line: Middle America will not elect Hillary Clinton. Interestingly, the latest Clinton spin (with a little help from their friends in the media) suggests that Barack Obama is the ‘black' candidate, capable only of winning the African American vote and lacking the broad appeal needed to win the general election. Let's examine this argument for a minute. The first state in the primary process was Iowa, made up primarily of white, middle class Americans. Who won? Barack Obama. He won, not only among democrats but also was able to attract many independents and republicans to the democratic caucuses. New Hampshire was touted as Hillary's big surprise comeback, despite the fact that she had a double digit lead in the polls just a couple of weeks before the primary. This state, also made up of primarily white, middle class Americans was nearly evenly split between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. And yet the inevitability claim continues and is barely questioned by those in the media. Back home again in Indiana, I am still waiting to talk to a democrat who supports another Clinton presidency. It is true that Indiana democrats are not representative of coastal democrats in other parts of the country, but with the exception of Senator Evan Bayh, who has disappointed most Hoosiers that I know by his endorsement of Senator Clinton, I have yet to speak to an Indiana democrat who wants Hillary Clinton to be our next president. In fact, despite the conservative ‘red state' nature of Indiana, I am amazed to see "Got hope?" Obama bumper stickers everywhere I go. Even more astonishing, many of my republican friends as well as members of my own family have indicated that they are considering voting for Senator Obama, if given the chance, in the general election. Perhaps this is due to the fact that Indiana republicans, not unlike the rest of the country, are not happy with their field of candidates. Perhaps it is also true that they see something desirable in Barack Obama that they do not see in any other candidate in either party. Something that may only come along once in a lifetime…something that they want to be a part of…something that transcends party politics as usual. In talking with my other friends throughout the Midwest in states like Iowa, Illinois, and Ohio, they tell me that the Indiana experience is not unique. Explaining this phenomenon is complicated, but one thing is certain. These same republicans, who find themselves in the unlikely position of supporting Barack Obama, would NEVER in a million years consider voting for Hillary Clinton. And yet the Clinton machine moves on, creating new spin to mow down the hope that Obama built, no matter what the cost. The latest tactic of referring to Senator Obama as a ‘slum lord' who rigged the Nevada caucuses and thinks that republican ideas are the greatest thing since sliced bread seems to be working. Bill Clinton rants and pouts and the mainstream media runs the story over and over and over again. Interestingly, the Clintons also appear to be getting a little help from the likes of Pat Buchanan and Newt Gingrich who surely believe that their chances of beating Hillary Clinton in the general election are much greater than their chances of winning against Barack Obama. So with the Clinton swiftboat tactics in full swing, Americans (democrats, republicans, and independents) have two very important questions to ask themselves in the coming weeks. One, do we really want four to eight more years of the divisive politics of the Clintons? And perhaps more importantly, do we really want four to eight more years of the cutthroat, mudslinging politics brought to us by George Bush, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney? The latest Clinton tactics, while appearing desperate and self-absorbed to some, suggest that either Karl Rove is secretly on the Clinton campaign payroll or that someone deep within the Clinton campaign was able to steal a copy of the Bush character assassination playbook. Either way, I am sure Mr. Rove is very proud.
Posted by DRS at 01/31/2008 @ 2:01pm
...regardless of MoveOn's own agenda.
Posted by MATTMAN at 01/31/2008 @ 2:02pm
But the Washington Post did an excellent piece in which they analyzed 40 different votes where Obama and Clinton differed, and some were serious issues.
METT, do you happen to have a link to the piece? This is the kind of information that's relative to this election.
Posted by FritztheCat at 01/31/2008 @ 2:05pm
MoveOn.org - Conduct the poll! Let the chips fall where they may.
Signed,
MoveOn.org Member
Posted by oraibi1952 at 01/31/2008 @ 2:10pm
Posted by FRITZTHECAT 01/31/2008 @ 2:05pm
The article can be found by Googling ("washington post", obama, clinton, "voting record"), or you can try this link [tinyurl.com].
Posted by Metteyya at 01/31/2008 @ 2:13pm
Here are the results I found on www.votechooser.com regarding the differences between Hillary and Barack. Out of 10 questions:
1. Was invading Iraq a mistake? Obama: Yes Hillary: No
2. American troops in Iraq should be withdrawn within 1-2 years. Obama: Yes Hillary: No
3. The people that need tax cuts most are: Obama: Lower and middle-class Americans Hillary: Middle-class Americans
4. Government spending should increase or decrease? Obama: Decrease Hillary: Decrease *Frankly I don't see how with their proposals but hey, that's what they say.
5. The government should offer affordable healthcare to all Americans: Obama: Yes Hillary: Yes *See what I mean about decrease spending?
6. Illegal immigrants living in America should be given a path to citizenship. Obama: Yes Hillary: Yes
7. Abortion should be legal? Obama: Yes Hillary: Yes
8. The No Child Left Behind Act has flaws and needs reform. Obama: Yes Hillary: Yes
9. The best way to improve the American economy is to have favorable trade policies and more high tech jobs. Obama: Yes Hillary: Yes
10. The best way to save the environment and achieve energy independence is to develop alternative energy sources.
Obama: Yes Hillary: Yes
Posted by FritztheCat at 01/31/2008 @ 2:15pm
Posted by METTEYYA 01/31/2008 @ 2:13pm
Thanks METT. The article is over a year old but is still pretty interesting.
Posted by FritztheCat at 01/31/2008 @ 2:20pm
2. American troops in Iraq should be withdrawn within 1-2 years. Obama: Yes Hillary: No
Sorry folks. The answer to this one should have been: Obama: Yes, Hillary: Yes.
Posted by FritztheCat at 01/31/2008 @ 2:23pm
Posted by FRITZTHECAT 01/31/2008 @ 2:15pm
But Hillary VOTED FOR No Child Left Behind, VOTED AGAINST raising CAFE fuel efficiency standards, and VOTED FOR offshore drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico.
When you combine these votes with her VOTING FOR war in Iraq, saber-tattling with Iran, the Patriot Act, and the Bankruptcy Bill, she is CLEARLY TO THE RIGHT OF OBAMA!
She is only trying to "appear" to be the same as Obama to get the nomination!
Posted by Metteyya at 01/31/2008 @ 2:24pm
Well METT, out of the 10 questions on the votechooser website, Obama matched me 7 out of 10 and Hillary matched 5 out of 10. For the record, McCain was 3 out of 10. Ouch!
Posted by FritztheCat at 01/31/2008 @ 2:31pm
mask and frosty, please go read my post at "obama from butte"
Posted by LOVELOKI 01/31/2008 @ 2:30pm |
thanks
Posted by loveloki at 01/31/2008 @ 2:34pm
Here is an excellent piece by Christopher Hayes at The Nation:
It's gotten to that time in the primary contest where lines are drawn, camps are solidified and conversations around dinner tables grow heated. My friend Dan recently put it this way: "You start talking about the candidates, and next thing you know someone's crying!" The excellent (and uncommitted) blogger Digby recently decided to shut down her comments section because the posts had grown so toxic. The recent uptick in acrimony is largely due to the narrowing of the field. While once the energy was spread over many camps, it is now, with the exits of Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards, concentrated on just two, leaving progressives in a fierce debate over whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would make the better nominee, and President.
According to polling data as well as my conversations with friends and colleagues, progressives are evenly split or undecided between the two. This is, to me, somewhat astonishing (about which more in a moment), but it also means that at a time when other subgroups within the Democratic coalition are leaning heavily toward one candidate or the other, progressives are at a moment of maximum leverage.
Insofar as the issues discussed during a presidential campaign are circumscribed by the taboos and pieties of the political and media establishments, they tend to be dispiriting for those of us on the left. Neither front-runner is calling for the nation to renounce its decades-old imperial posture or to end the prison-industrial complex; neither is saying that America's suburbs and car culture are not sustainable modes of living in an era of expensive oil and global warming or pointing out that the "war on drugs" has been a moral disaster and strategic failure, with casualties borne most violently and destructively by society's most marginalized and--a word you won't be hearing from either candidate--oppressed. And yet, this election is far more encouraging (dare I say hopeful?) than any in recent memory. The policy agenda for the Democratic front-runners is significantly further to the left on the war, climate change and healthcare than that of John Kerry in 2004. The ideological implosion of conservatism, the failures of the Bush Administration and, perhaps most important, the shifts in public opinion in a leftward direction on war, the economy, civil liberties and civil rights are all coming together at the same time, providing progressives with the rare and historic opportunity to elect a President with a progressive majority and an actual mandate for progressive change.
The question then becomes this: which of the two Democratic candidates is more likely to bring to fruition a new progressive majority? I believe, passionately and deeply, if occasionally waveringly, that it's Barack Obama.
Had you told me a few years ago that the left of the Democratic Party would be split between Obama and Clinton, I'd have dismissed you as crazy: Barack Obama has been a community organizer, a civil rights attorney, a loyal and reliable ally in the State Senate of progressive groups. For the Chicago left, his primary campaign and his subsequent election to the US Senate was a collective rallying cry. If you've read his first book, the truly beautiful, honest and intellectually sophisticated Dreams From My Father, you have an inkling of what young Chicago progressives felt about Obama. He is one of us, and now he's in the Senate. We thought we'd elected our own Paul Wellstone. (Full disclosure: my brother is an organizer on the Obama campaign.)
That's not, alas, how things turned out. Almost immediately Obama--likely with an eye on national office--shaded himself toward the center. His rhetoric was cool, often timid, not the zealous advocacy on behalf of peace, justice and the dispossessed that had characterized Wellstone's tenure. His record places him squarely in the middle of Democratic senators, just slightly to Clinton's left on domestic issues (he voted against the bankruptcy bill, for example). As a presidential candidate, his domestic policy (with some notable exceptions on voting rights and technology policy) has been very close to that of his chief rivals, though sometimes, notably on healthcare, marginally less progressive.
But while domestic policy will ultimately be determined through a complicated and fraught interplay with legislators, foreign policy is where the President's agenda is implemented more or less unfettered. It's here where distinctions in worldview matter most--and where Obama compares most favorably to Clinton. The war is the most obvious and powerful distinction between the two: Hillary Clinton voted for and supported the most disastrous American foreign policy decision since Vietnam, and Barack Obama (at a time when it was deeply courageous to do so) spoke out against it. In this campaign, their proposals are relatively similar, but in rhetoric and posture Clinton has played hawk to Obama's dove, attacking from the right on everything from the use of first-strike nuclear weapons to negotiating with Iran's president. Her hawkishness relative to Obama's is mirrored in her circle of advisers. As my colleague Ari Berman has reported in these pages, it's a circle dominated by people who believed and believe that waging pre-emptive war on Iraq was the right thing to do. Obama's circle is made up overwhelmingly of people who thought the Iraq War was a mistake.
Clinton's fundamentally defensive conception of how to defuse the Republicans on national security (neutralizing their hawkishness with one's own) is an example of a larger problem, rooted in the fact that so many of her circle served in her husband's Administration. Their political identities were formed in the crucible of crisis, from the Gingrich insurgency to the Ken Starr inquisition. The overriding imperative was survival against massive odds, often with a hostile public, press or both. Like an animal caught in a trap that chews off its leg to wriggle away, the Clinton crew by the end of its tenure had hardly any limbs left to propel an agenda. The benefit of this experience, much touted by the Clintons, is that they know how to fight and how to survive. But the cost has been high: those who lived through those years are habituated to playing defense and fighting rear-guard actions. We know how progressives fared under Clintonism: they were the bloodied limbs left in the trap. Clintonism, in other words, is the devil we know.
Which brings us to the one we don't. A President cannot build a movement, but he can be its messenger, as was Reagan. Part of what tantalizes and frustrates about Obama is that he seems to have the potential to be such a messenger and yet shies away from speaking in ideological terms. When he invokes union organizers facing Pinkerton thugs to give us our forty-hour week, or says we are bound to one another as "our brother's keeper...our sister's keeper," he is articulating the deepest progressive values: solidarity and community and collective action. But he places more rhetorical emphasis on a politics of "unity" that, read uncharitably, seems to fetishize bipartisanship as an end in itself and reinforce lame and deceptive myths that the parties are equally responsible for the "bickering" and "divisiveness" in Washington. It appears sometimes that his diagnosis of what's wrong with politics is the way it is conducted rather than for whom.
(Continued Below)
Posted by Metteyya at 01/31/2008 @ 2:37pm
In its totality, though, Obama's rhetoric tells a story of politics that is distinct from both the one told by Beltway devotees of bipartisanship and comity and from the progressive activists' story of a ceaseless battle between the forces of progress and those of reaction. If it differs from what I like to hear, it is also unfailingly targeted at building the coalition that is the raison d'être of Obama's candidacy. Consider this passage from Obama's stump speech:
I've learned in my life that you can stand firm in your principles while still reaching out to those who might not always agree with you. And although the Republican operatives in Washington might not be interested in hearing what we have to say, I think Republican and independent voters outside of Washington are. That's the once-in-a-generation opportunity we have in this election.
Obama makes a distinction between bad-faith, implacable enemies (lobbyists, entrenched interests, "operatives") and good-faith ideological opponents (Republicans, independents and conservatives of good conscience). He wants to court the latter and use their support to vanquish the former. This may be improbable, but it crucially allows former Republicans (Obama Republicans?) to cross over without guilt or self-loathing. They are not asked to renounce, only to join.
Obama's diagnosis of the obstacles to progress is twofold. First, that the division of the electorate into the categories created by the right's culture warriors is the primary means by which the forces of reaction resist change. Progress will be made only by rejecting or transcending those categories. In 1971 a young Pat Buchanan urged Richard Nixon to wield race as what would come to be known as a wedge issue. "This is a potential throw of the dice," he wrote, "that could...cut the Democratic Party and country in half; my view is that we would have far the larger half." Obama seeks to stitch those halves back together.
Second, that the reason progressives have failed to achieve our goals over the past several decades is not that we didn't fight hard enough but that we didn't have a popular mandate. In other words, the fundamental obstacle is a basic political one: never having the public squarely on our side and never having the votes on the Hill. In this respect the Obama campaign is uniquely circular: his political appeal is rooted in the fact that he's so politically appealing. This means that when he loses, the loss affects him worse than it would other candidates, since it also cuts against his message. But when he wins, particularly when he wins big, as he did in Iowa and South Carolina, the win means more because it reinforces the basic argument of his campaign.
The question of who can best build popular support for a progressive governing agenda is related to, but distinct from, the question of electability. Given a certain ceiling on Clinton's appeal (due largely to years of unhinged attacks from the "vast right-wing conspiracy"), her campaign seems well prepared to run a 50 percent + 1 campaign, a rerun of 2004 but with a state or two switching columns: Florida, maybe, or Ohio. Obama is aiming for something bigger: a landmark sea-change election, with the kind of high favorability and approval ratings that can drive an agenda forward. Why should we think he can do it?
The short answer is that Obama is simply one of the most talented and appealing politicians in recent memory. Perhaps the most. Pollster.com shows a series of polls taken in the Democratic campaign. The graphs plotting national polling numbers as well as those in the first four states show a remarkably consistent pattern. Hillary Clinton starts out with either a modest or, more commonly, a massive lead, owing to her superior name recognition and the popularity of the Clinton brand. As the campaign goes forward Clinton's support either climbs slowly, plateaus or dips. But as the actual contest approaches, and voters start paying attention, Obama's support suddenly begins to grow exponentially.
In addition to persuading those who already vote, Obama has also delivered on one of the hoariest promises in politics: to bring in new voters (especially the young). It's a phenomenon that, if it were to continue with him as nominee, could completely alter the electoral math. Young people are by far the most progressive voters of any age cohort, and they overwhelmingly favor Barack Obama by stunning margins. Their enthusiasm has translated into massive increases in youth turnout in the early contests.
Finally, there's the question of coattails. In many senses there's less difference between the two presidential candidates than there is between a Senate with fifty-one Democrats and one with fifty-six. No Democratic presidential candidate is going to carry, say, Mississippi or Nebraska, but many Democrats in those states fear that the ingrained Clinton hatred would rally the GOP base and/or depress turnout, hurting down-ticket candidates. Over the past few weeks a series of prominent red-state Democrats, most notably Ben Nelson, Kent Conrad and Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, have endorsed Obama. When I asked a Democratic Congressional candidate in the Deep South who he preferred at the top of the ticket, he didn't hesitate: "Obama is absolutely the better candidate. Hillary brings a lot of sting; he takes some sting out of them."
Whoever is elected in November, progressives will probably find themselves feeling frustrated. Ultimately though, the future judgments and actions of the candidates are unknowable, obscured behind time's cloak. Who knew that the Bill Clinton of 1992 who campaigned with Nelson Mandela would later threaten to sanction South Africa when it passed a law allowing the production of low-cost generic AIDS drugs for its suffering population--or that the George W. Bush of 2000, an amiable "centrist" whose thin foreign-policy views shaded toward isolationism, would go on to become a self-justifying, delusional and messianic instrument of global war? In this sense, Bill Clinton is right: voting for and electing Barack Obama is a "roll of a dice." All elections are. But the candidacy of Barack Obama represents by far the left's best chance to, in Buchanan's immortal phrasing, take back the bigger half of the country. It's a chance we can't pass up.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/31/2008 @ 2:38pm
Posted by METTEYYA 01/31/2008 @ 2:13pm
see, obama sounds great, but then he goes and supports something as stupid as corn-based ethanol.
well, i guess if you want the ADM vote........................
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/31/2008 @ 2:38pm
2. American troops in Iraq should be withdrawn within 1-2 years. Obama: Yes Hillary: No
Sorry folks. The answer to this one should have been: Obama: Yes, Hillary: Yes.
Posted by FRITZTHECAT 01/31/2008 @ 2:23pm
uh, don't forget that's the so-called "combat" troops.
both will leave in tens of thousands of what, ¿cooks and janitors? troops.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/31/2008 @ 2:42pm
Posted by MATTMAN 01/31/2008 @ 2:00pm
Not a sure thing, MATT. The membership started out from the Old Days and were solid Bill Clinton supporters.
Her Majesty could still win it.
Posted by Mask at 01/31/2008 @ 2:45pm
FROSTY, yeah I was surprised to see the support for ethanol. I figured anyone even remotely close to corn farming areas would be against it.
Everyone knows we should be going with nuclear power....
Heheheheh.
Posted by FritztheCat at 01/31/2008 @ 2:46pm
Seriously though Frosty, ethanol is a really bad idea. I agree. :)
Posted by FritztheCat at 01/31/2008 @ 2:47pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/31/2008 @ 2:38pm
I personally don't agree with the ethanol vote because it drives up the cost of foodstuffs, but since he is from a corn state and wanted to win Iowa (which he did), maybe this is just politics.
It is interesting to note that Hillary came around to supporting Obama's ethanol position after an ethanol plant opened up in Buffalo, NY.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/31/2008 @ 2:47pm
Comparison of Obama/Clinton re votes in Almanac of American Politics
Ban ANWR Drilling (S. 1932--strike provision to permit oil/gas drilling in ANWR) Obama--Y Clinton--Y
FY06 Spending Curb (S. 1932--Approval of curb on federal entitlement spending) Obama--N Clinton--N
Estate Tax Repeal (HR. 8--Cloture vote on filibuster vs. estate tax repeal) Obama--N Clinton--N
Raise Minimum Wage (S. 2766--Incr. minimum wage to $7.25) Obama--Y Clinton--Y Confirm Samuel Alito (self-explanatory) Obama--N Clinton--N They also both voted to filibuster Alito
Path to Citizenship (S. 2611--Immigration reform re citizenship path for illegals) Obama--Y Clinton--Y
Bar Same Sex Marriage (S. 163--Cloture on filibuster re Const. amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman) Obama--N Clinton--N
Stem Cell Research $(S. 206--Federal funds for embryonic stem cell research) Obama--Y Clinton--Y
Limit Interstate Abortion (S. 216--Criminalize taking a minor across interstate lines w/out parental notification) Obama--N Clinton--N
CAFTA (S. 1307--Approval of CAFTA) Obama--N Clinton--N
Urge Iraq Withdrawal (S. 2766--Sense of Congress re Iraq withdrawal) Obama--Y Clinton--Y
Provide Detainee Rights (S. 3930--Remove provisions limiting habeas corpus rights for military detainees) Obama--Y Clinton--Y
Posted by brunowe at 01/31/2008 @ 2:53pm
National Retail Chain announces Hillary Collection: T h e Clinton Collection [hillarydivides.coml]
Posted by indep2008 at 01/31/2008 @ 3:00pm
Everyone knows we should be going with nuclear power....
Heheheheh.
Posted by FRITZTHECAT 01/31/2008 @ 2:46pm
everyone knows we should be turning off those goddamn lights we're not using and putting on a sweater.
and walk. ¿remember that?
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/31/2008 @ 3:04pm
Posted by BRUNOWE 01/31/2008 @ 2:53pm
Now address the votes in my above post based on the Washington Post article, where they DIFFERED?
Explain why Hillary supported offshore drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, and Obama opposed it; explain why Hillary was against raising CAFE fuel efficiency standards, and Obama for it; explaining why Hillary supported funding for an anti-Castro TV station, and Obama opposed it; and explain why Hillary is against the disclosure of the source and recipient of pork-barrel earmarks, and Obama is for full disclosure?
And after you finish all that, explain why Hillary was for the Bankruptcy Bill in 2001, and Obama against it; why Hillary supported the War in Iraq, and Obama opposed it; why Hillary voted for the original Patriot Act, and Obama opposed it; and, why Hillary supported Kyl-Lieberman, and Obama opposed it?
Posted by Metteyya at 01/31/2008 @ 3:06pm
Posted by BRUNOWE 01/31/2008 @ 2:53pm | ignore this person
It's quite obvious that there is no difference between the dems and the repubs, no difference at all.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/31/2008 @ 3:08pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/31/2008 @ 3:04pm
You know FZ, I'd love to find somebody who's "more pure" than you are....living in a cabin in the woods, eating only roots and berries, only using fallen branchs for , no TV, no radio, NO COMPUTER, etc.
to point out what "self-centered consumerist!!!!" you are!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 01/31/2008 @ 3:09pm
to point out what "self-centered consumerist!!!!" you are!
heheh
Posted by MASK 01/31/2008 @ 3:09pm
well, in global terms, i'm very, very rich, so you could probably find at least a billion people who live exactly as you said.
i also understand certain contradictions of my daily life. you forgot to mention "car".
LIKE I'VE SAID TO YOU 17,543,689 TIMES, I'M TALKING ABOUT BEING FRUGAL WITH THE PRECIOUS RESOURCES WE YANK OUT OF THE PLANET, NOT BECOMING A NEO-THOREAU.
now, go sell that SUV..........................
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/31/2008 @ 3:17pm
heheh
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/31/2008 @ 3:17pm
"The question then becomes this: which of the two Democratic candidates is more likely to bring to fruition a new progressive majority? I believe, passionately and deeply, if occasionally waveringly, that it's Barack Obama." C.Hayes.
I.e., so we must pray. We progressives have no other choice. Now & in Nov.
However, it would strengthen the progressive hand considerably, if our reps in Congress - ha - start accountability hearings NOW, with impeachable offenses on the table. Otherwise, it won't matter who sits in the unaccountable imperial perch after Jan. '09. Both Obama & Her Imperial Majesty have spoken against such hearings. Congrats, AIPAC, you continue to wag the dog.
Posted by sloper at 01/31/2008 @ 3:17pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/31/2008 @ 3:17pm
Or ....we work on methods to efficiently and productively RAISE the standard of living of others, without thinking we're "doing our part" by eating tofu and walking (instead of driving) down to the Qwiki-Mart for beer.
"Little measures add up"...yeah, if EVERYBODY is in on it, which means MANDATES and LAWS, since the volunteer part is about the same level as it was in the Woodstock Days.
I say, quit the "small things" and figure out how to solve the BIG problems with BIG solutions!
Dump $5 Billion in tax dollars on "recycling education" and "how to save energy tips" brochures that reach maybe 2% of the population....or dump it into fusion energy research that'll produce cheap but plentiful electricity or nano-technology that could produce proteins from inert matter.
Posted by Mask at 01/31/2008 @ 3:30pm
"everyone knows we should be turning off those goddamn lights we're not using and putting on a sweater.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/31/2008 @ 3:04pm
Hahaha, FZ, that's the best post I've seen so far. My father used to say the same thing, and he wasn't eco anything, just anti-high light bill.
Posted by ACook at 01/31/2008 @ 3:45pm
Posted by MASK 01/31/2008 @ 3:30pm
Mask, tofu is disgusting.
But, perhaps you can tell us how long it would take for the fusion energy and nano-technology to go from "research" to "fully implemeted" companies that would serve the greater good?
Posted by ACook at 01/31/2008 @ 3:53pm
Posted by SLOPER 01/31/2008 @ 3:17pm
"impeachment" to "AIPAC"?!?!?!
Okay, I know the convoluted "linkage" will shortly be coming, but seems a bit scatter-shot.
Posted by Mask at 01/31/2008 @ 3:54pm
I can already tell you that the voting is messed up. I received three emails confirming my vote. Two emails were votes for Obama and one email was a vote for Hillary. One i clicked on the vote for Hillary, another person's phone number came up. there system is definitely flawed and i won't trust the results.
Posted by indep2008 at 01/31/2008 @ 4:09pm
METTEYYA's got me convinced.
I'm voting for Russ Feingold.
Posted by Hman23 at 01/31/2008 @ 4:18pm
Posted by HMAN23 01/31/2008 @ 4:18pm
LOL!....never thought of that, HMAN.
Wonder what METTY would say if somebody said that. "You're right, I'm not voting for Hillary OR Obama...going to write in 'Russ Feingold'!"
Posted by Mask at 01/31/2008 @ 4:23pm
And then there's Kyle-Lieberman ...
Posted by V at 01/31/2008 @ 4:36pm
Posted by HMAN23 01/31/2008 @ 4:18pm | ignore this person
That's pretty good ... %-]
Posted by V at 01/31/2008 @ 4:37pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/31/2008 @ 3:17pm | ignore this person
Check this out [theaircar.com]
Posted by V at 01/31/2008 @ 4:40pm
And after you finish all that, explain why Hillary was for the Bankruptcy Bill in 2001, and Obama against it; why Hillary supported the War in Iraq, and Obama opposed it; why Hillary voted for the original Patriot Act, and Obama opposed it; and, why Hillary supported Kyl-Lieberman, and Obama opposed it?
First, Obama was Non-Voting for the Kyl-Lieberman bill. You can come up with any pretext you want for that but the point is that, at best, he didn't stand up to be counted because he put political jockeying above principle. Obama wasn't in the Senate when the Patriot Act, the Bankruptcy bill and the Iraq war bill were voted on. He can say anything he likes NOW but I defy you to find one contemporaneous statement he made opposing them.
I (METTAYA) addressed the WaPo article the last time you posted it, but since your contribution seems to consist solely of repasting the same posts over and over again, I'll repost my reply: Clinton voted against the energy bill itself because it was stuffed with oil industry incentives. But Obama supported the legislation because it included language that would double ethanol demand by 2012.
(Brunowe)Didn't get that at all. Clinton's opposition was based on oil energy incentives. Further, supporting a bill because it doubles ethanol demand is hardly progressive. Ethanol subsidies are a boondoggle for big-agriculture. Further, the article said that Obama's opposition to Radio Marti funding was on the basis of cost, hardly a progrssive position.
Second, I wasn't told they were the same by someone, I have inferred it based on their positions and interest group ratings. If your research consists of something as flimsy as the energy vote, I'm not sure how much stock I'd put in it.
However your posts on her votes re Feingold's have almost convinced me to write-in Feingold.
Posted by brunowe at 01/31/2008 @ 4:49pm
Posted by BRUNOWE 01/31/2008 @ 4:49pm
BRUNOWE,
You are playing the same game as last time of selectively responding to a small fraction of the votes where they differed.
The reason you can't respond to the "entire" list of differing votes is because it would prove that Barack is far to the left of Hillary, especially on defense and oil interests.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/31/2008 @ 4:58pm
Posted by METTEYYA 01/31/2008 @ 4:58pm
But you refuse to respond to BRUNOWE's point (and the point made by dozens of other posters over the past few weeks) that pointing to votes that Obama was not even in the Senate for hardly advances your cause. It's pure speculation that he would have voted the same as Feingold.
Posted by Hman23 at 01/31/2008 @ 5:01pm
We here at The Nation need to start our own grassroots movement. Feingold '08!
Posted by FritztheCat at 01/31/2008 @ 5:42pm
Posted by FRITZTHECAT 01/31/2008 @ 5:42pm | ignore this person
you have got to be kidding.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/31/2008 @ 5:45pm
Posted by HMAN23 01/31/2008 @ 5:01pm
It is not speculation if you look at his "overall" record and policy statements he made at "that" time on Iraq and the Patriot Act.
The point of the Feinglod comparison is to show that Hillary is NOT a progressive and on the left as some Hillary booster seem to think.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/31/2008 @ 6:15pm
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/31/2008 @ 5:45pm
Yeah, I am.
Posted by FritztheCat at 01/31/2008 @ 6:45pm
Chris Durang: "And yet she also voted against the Levin bill that would have required the President to return to the Congress for another vote before actually going to war."
"Here's Tim Russert and Hillary on that issue on Meet the Press on January 13, 2008. (And they had a nearly identical exchange on Meet the Press several months ago.)
MR. RUSSERT: I want to stay with your vote because that same day, Senator Levin offered an amendment, the Levin amendment, and this is how the New York Times reported it. "The [Levin] amendment called ... for the U.N. to pass a new resolution explicitly approving the use of force against Iraq. It also required the president to return to Congress if his U.N. efforts failed." ... Senator Levin said, "Allow Congress to vote only after exhausting all options with the United States." You did not participate in that vote. You voted against Carl Levin, who was saying give diplomacy a chance and yet you said no. You voted to authorize war. The resolution you voted for, Robert Byrd said was a blank check for George Bush. Ted Kennedy says it was a vote for war. James Carville and Paul Begala said anyone who says that vote wasn't a vote for war is bunk.
SEN. CLINTON: Well, Tim, if I had a lot of paper in front of me, I could quote people who say something very differently, so I know you're very good at this and I respect it, but let's look at the context here. Number one, the Levin amendment, in my view, gave the Security Council of the United Nations a veto over American presidential power. I don't believe that is an appropriate policy for the United States, no matter who is our president. [phrase put in bold by me]
Now I object to that argument. The "we can't let the U.N. dictate to us" is a Bush-Republican talking point. And it's a misreading of the Levin amendment, I think; and Hillary shouldn't be parroting it. And if she is, then I judge her for it.
The Levin amendment sounds to me that it was saying that once the president has gone to the U.N. (as he agreed), if the U.N. didn't agree with his position that the danger from Iraq was imminent and required preemptive attack, that the president then must RETURN TO THE CONGRESS so that they then can reassess, and either say "yes go to war" or "no, don't go to war." That thing that supposedly the Congress has the right to do -- to declare war."
Full text ~> barack-_b_84303.html
Ummm what he said ... or, frankly I consider the Obama same as Clinton argument specious, and if one didn't fight for and with Kucinich when one had the chance, even less valid.
Posted by V at 01/31/2008 @ 6:50pm
You know, I really have a problem when people simply rely on someone elses 'interpretation' or 'analysis' when it comes to voting records...even if that 'someone else' is the Washington Post and supposedly has credibility.
Take for instance the notion presented here that Barak and Hillary have different voting records when it comes to raising CAFE standards, one supporting the idea and the other not.
The rather obvious reality is that CAFE standards have remained quite static since the 1980's. The law just passed that resulted in the first significant raising of CAFE standards in the past 25 years is called for "H.R. 6: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007".
Here is the public Senate voting record regarding that legislation...
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2007-226
As is clear, Clinton and Obama both voted in favor of passage.
Posted by Lillian at 01/31/2008 @ 6:54pm
You're damn right that MoveOn is now just a pack of centrist, laconic cheerleaders. Why? Where's Mike Gravel in this poll? This is a poll stolen from liberals and 'progressives' and given to Obama and the corporatist base.
Posted by thegreathal at 01/31/2008 @ 6:56pm
So, other than the actual voting record, who's 'analysis' is most significant regarding the respective views of Hillary and Barak regarding the issue of 'raising CAFE standards'? The Post article sure makes it sound like Barak was the greater proponent...and Hillary somehow opposed the idea.
But here is an interesting counter-analysis...straight from the GOP...
http://www.gop.com/News/NewsRead.aspx?Guid=681b3e70-aa75-48d1-a7c4-b9a4b 3fee2e7
...which sure paints Hillary as a pretty strong supporter of raising CAFE standards...even makes her sound fanatical about it.
So who do we believe?
How about we believe the 'actual' voting record on the law that 'actually' raised CAFE standards?
Seems simple enough.
Posted by Lillian at 01/31/2008 @ 7:05pm
Posted by LILLIAN 01/31/2008 @ 6:54pm | ignore this person
Or ... one could actually point out the part where one differs, or diverges in ones analysis, even if only to the degree of being merely nuanced. Else, one runs into the interpretation of an interpretation, which in some cases runs into another's concept of re-inventing the wheel and or redundancy ...
As the obvious vote against Levin bill was, regardless of Clinton's (IMHO, of course ...), subsequent spin, a vote against the Levin bill. As, while said spin, could be subject to interpretation; "that the president then must RETURN TO THE CONGRESS so that they then can reassess, and either say "yes go to war" or "no, don't go to war." is not ... and pointing out said fact was and is, in my humble opinion, redundant.
What is CAFE?
"Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) is the sales weighted average fuel economy, expressed in miles per gallon (mpg), of a manufacturer's fleet of passenger cars or light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lbs. or less, manufactured for sale in the United States, for any given model year. Fuel economy is defined as the average mileage traveled by an automobile per gallon of gasoline (or equivalent amount of other fuel) consumed as measured in accordance with the testing and evaluation protocol set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)."
And how about we weigh things, too? Say like the things where the words collateral damage means someone's family member ends up being someone elses dead non-cambatant? You know, things like war? Which when the two things are compared, CAFE standards and war ... and giving you the respect of my honesty, CAFE assumes the relevance pretty much right where I place the sweat off a, pick your favorite mammal's, backside.
As you can see, I really have a problem too ... (notwithstanding the the myriad you, if you bothered, would doubtless ascribe to yours truly). I have a problem with the focus being elsewhere other than the people we put in harms way by their being sent to war, and the ones put in in harms way by having them sent.
Posted by V at 01/31/2008 @ 9:43pm
I'm not so much FOR Obama, as I am against the powers behind Hilary - and her refusal to distance herself therefrom.
Does ANY progressive Democrat really want that Union-buster Mark Penn playing Clinton's Rove for the next four years? You know he didn't take this job without a firm promise of insider power for at least four years - he's not exactly an altruist...
You are who you associate with, and HilBill have clearly chosen to associate with the lowest form of political operative at the very highest levels of their campaign. Take a look at Penn's CURRENT clients (he won't even quit his day job while she runs for president!) - he's a man without a conscience. Can this country survive four more years of that kind of Machiavellian presence behind the scenes in OUR White House? I don't think so.
I wouldn't even vote for her against McCain, as long as she aligns with slimeballs like shifty-eyed, amoral Penn.
Posted by sjduskin at 01/31/2008 @ 10:53pm
Posted by MASK 01/31/2008 @ 3:30pm
see you in greenland.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/31/2008 @ 10:59pm
Check this out [theaircar.com]
Posted by V 01/31/2008 @ 4:40pm
yeah, i saw that the other day. cool.
Posted by V 01/31/2008 @ 9:43pm
actually, the stagnation of CAFE standards is a big contribution to the death of the big three.
they thought it would be easier to keep the fuel hogs in the show rooms.
"the lazy one works twice as hard".
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/31/2008 @ 11:03pm
....stagnation of CAFE standards is a big contribution to the death of the big three....
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/31/2008 @ 11:03pm
The implementation of CAFE is one huge cause of the pending death of the big three!
Ever been to Asia? There is a damn good reason they started in the auto industry building small cars...that's what their land-starved, narrow streets and compact, vertical cities are suited for.
The strength of the US makers have always been mass-market cars sized for cruising at 80 to 90 mph going coast-to-coast in 3 days....in the days families vacationed via cars.
When CAFE came in, they tried to compete and ended up losing money and even worse, ended up w/reputations for shitty small cars....Vega, Pinto, Chevette...up against Asian makers that have refined small-car manufacturing down to a science using Demming's quality control system.
The Big 3, with some `fair trade' assistance from the Gov't, could have entered into JVs w/the Asian makers so that all small cars sold in the US, will add revenues and some profits......Lord knows that even if Japan is wide open to US imports, we just ain't going to sell many Ford Tourinos, Buicks or dodge Ram pickups or full-size vans....would be miserable to drive those in Asia....imagine yourself driving a small U-haul truck for everyday driving here in N. America....try find parking in those vertical garages that's everywhere in Tokyo...none that I saw can handle a typical US-made 1/2 ton pickup (that I drive).
Eventually, the Big 3 will become just small niche makers turning out F-350s and up, GM truck or bus chasis, etc....will be out of the mass-market everyday cars and most compact trucks (like the Ford Ranger).
Government regulation forced the Big Three into losing money on small cars and along the way, their reputation.....since they really made shitty little cars! While today, they are building better small ones, it's too late! Night!
Posted by Happy at 02/01/2008 @ 12:59am
Posted by HAPPY 02/01/2008 @ 12:59am
we've known for years that oil is going to run out. and with that the price goes up and up and only up.
fatbutt cars could only be viable for so long.
"While today, they are building better small ones, it's too late! Night!"
you've just proven my point.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 01:22am
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=sjduskin
can this country survive four more years of war? you can vote for McCain, but don't come around here like some kind of democrat.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/01/2008 @ 10:43am
[to the Alabama for Edwards listserv]
Hey, y'all,
I tried to participate in MoveOn.org's Presidential Endorsement vote online in order to indicate that I didn't want to endorse either Clinton or Obama, but their system wouldn't allow it. You had to vote for one or the other. So I sent them a message through their regular contact page. Thought I'd share:
I tried to participate in your Presidential Endorsement by leaving the following message and indicating "Not Sure" for the question of whether I'll vote for the Democratic nominee (I'll probably come around in the end, but not now), but the system would not take my input without voting for either Obama or Clinton. You should have had an option for "none of the above" or "no endorsement." Not everyone associated with MoveOn.org wants to endorse one of these two candidates, but without such an option, you won't know how many. That's just not democratic, which is not worthy of MoveOn.org. Here was the message I tried to leave on that vote, but was rejected for not having chosen someone I can't support:
I am an Edwards supporter disheartened enough by the lack of courage and integrity of the remaining candidates that I can't decide which to choose. Just considering the purely practical purposes of choosing the candidate with the best chances against the Republican, I still can't decide. One has tested poorly and the other is poorly tested. I'll keep my options open, as poor as they appear right now.
Tim Cook
Posted by cook015 at 02/01/2008 @ 2:01pm