Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Progressives and Netroots Feeling Abandoned as Obama Tacks Rightward

By Jason Rosenbaum and Sam Stein, Huffington Post. Posted June 28, 2008.


Two Huff Po. articles consider the frustration and anger from progressives and the Netroots concerning Obama's rapid shift to the center.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Jason Rosenbaum Sam Stein

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Editor's note: the following are two articles from the Huffington Post covering recent concerns progressive supporters have had with Barack Obama's announced policy positions.

The Obama Problem
by Jason Rosenbaum

In the last week, Barack Obama has handed progressives a string of stinging rebukes. First, he all but capitulated on the issue of retroactive immunity for lawbreaking telecom companies by endorsing the FISA "compromise." Next came his disagreement with the Supreme Court ruling that the death penalty shouldn't be imposed for rape. And then his flip on the heels of the Supreme Court ruling allowing the sale of handguns in DC.

It's been a hell of a week.

So, what are progressives to do? As has been evident for some time now, Obama is only loosely affected by progressive pressure. While he has moved left on some important issues, overall he has bigger constituencies to please, and he will do what he wants.

In the short term, there's probably not much we can do, as Mike Lux explains:

For me, being able to hold a politician accountable is having the real power to actually have a negative impact on something they really care about, namely getting elected and passing legislation they want to pass (although there might be a few other smaller things some politicians might care about). Unless you have the ability and willingness to mess with a politician in a serious way on either of those things, I don't think you can hold them accountable. I don't think saying bad things about them holds them accountable, I don't think holding a protest holds them accountable, I don't think starting a petition holds them accountable- unless it is affecting their ability to win an election or pass legislation.

But the only way to hold a Presidential candidate in the general election accountable once the general election season comes around is to work for their defeat or otherwise endanger their victory. For most of us, given the alternative of four more years of deadlocked government and a stubborn, hyper-aggressive President McCain, that is not an acceptable option. I see occasional commenters writing about not lifting a finger to help Obama now that he's screwed us on FISA or other issues, but I don't think very many of us in the progressive movement are there. Am I bummed, am I pissed that Obama and most of our Democratic leaders caved in on FISA? Absolutely, and there's nothing wrong with saying so. But am I going to "hold Obama accountable" for this action? Well, no, frankly. I don't think there's a way to do that without doing something far worse. It's the nature of the American political system: winner take all, no instant runoffs, no fusion voting (except in a few states). In the months before a Presidential general election, I can't think of another alternative re the Presidential race other than doing everything I can do to help Obama win.


The harsh reality is, Barack Obama can and will tack towards the center on issues that are important to progressives during the general election. We can argue until we're blue in the face that this is not a smart thing to do, and by extension, that the country is ready for real progressive leadership, but Obama will do what he wants to do. Unless we are willing to actively work against him, we have no leverage.


I am not willing to actively work against him. I'm not willing to call on people to pull their money and their volunteer hours either. But two can play at Obama's game.

To me, Obama's methods are obvious. He is selling out a constituency without leverage (progressives) to burnish his centrist image, which he believes will bring him more votes in November. Obama is practicing, as BooMan puts it, "raw political calculation." Well, guess what; I can do that, too!


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: election 2008, progressives, barack obama

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
John "Mussolini" McCain or Barrack O'Bilderberg ?
Posted by: mmckinl on Jun 28, 2008 12:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its' got to be Barack's kinder, gentler coporatization.

That being said, the problems that America is facing will be coming home to roost. Much of what is being heard and said now will be of little consequence in a few short months.

There is Hell to pay and the credit card is maxed out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Exactly. However... Posted by: Explorer
» RE: Yes, You're dreaming Posted by: edgar_michel
» Great Title that's about it alright... Posted by: TJ-stars4peace
Stepping away but still ok
Posted by: masterofbadenglish on Jun 28, 2008 1:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I see most of these as pre-emptives to help defeat McCain and they don't have much lasting effect. The death penalty decision has no effect given that Obama is not a Justice but it protects him against the Dukakis trap. The same goes with the 2nd Amendment issue. I didn't quite understand about the FISA bill but I think it may be in order to protect against the bipartisan attacks that are coming from McCain's camp. McCain is saying that Obama has never made the tough call on a bipartisan issue that put country above party. Obama can then take this FISA bill and say look how bad I am being hit by my own people for this one. Russ Feingold in his interview basically revealed that a lot of those Democrats supporting the bill are saying we can just write a better one after we get into office. So I don't think it will last more than 6 months into Obama's term. Its not like if Obama wants to get re-elected that he is going to veto such an attempt, that would be political suicide. With all of this said, I still like most of you are a little disappointed about him and the rest of the party not making the symbolic fight against it. But that does not stop me from being 100% in Obama's corner.

P.S. It would be great if Feingold was the VP, I knew he was an Obama supporter and an upright fighter but I had not seen his speaking ability. He comes with the same level of innate intelligence and uprightness that I glean from listening to Obama.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Stepping away but still ok Posted by: masterofbadenglish
» RE: OK... Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: OK... Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: OK... Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: OK... Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: Stepping away but still ok Posted by: afrothetics2
Why are we surprised?
Posted by: cunning rabbit on Jun 28, 2008 3:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Paul Krugman told us months ago that Obama's proposed policies were to the right of Hillary Clinton's. Not to mention John Edward's. But somehow Moveon.org decided to support the most "conservative" of the "mainstream" candidates....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why are we surprised? Posted by: StillStanding
» RE: Why are we surprised? Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: Why are we surprised? Posted by: marrieah
» RE: Why are we surprised? Posted by: progdem
» RE: Why are we surprised? Posted by: empathyshocks
It's the War, Folks
Posted by: Urstrly on Jun 28, 2008 3:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does anybody remember there's a war going on in Iraq? And that Hillary was very, very late to disavow her support and Barack never gave his? That's my bottom line, progressive issue. For that reason alone, I'd expect MoveOn supporters to go for Obama.

Now the reality sets in. Compromise has always been his strategy, going back to his days on the Harvard Law Review. He holds out an olive branch to the gun nuts and another to the executioners and yet another to the market economists. So far, he seems not to have sucked up to the oil industry. Maybe he'll leave that one to McCain and profit from it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Money = Support Posted by: EKSwitaj
» RE: Thanks Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Oh, I get it! Posted by: oregoncharles
» No, I don't think you do Posted by: PaulC
» RE: What will you make up next? Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: What will you make up next? Posted by: helenwheels
» Are you serious? Posted by: Dianka
What Change?
Posted by: thebeerdoctor on Jun 28, 2008 3:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As someone who has a blog linked on the off the bus Huffington Post blog roll, I notice that there has been much skittles and beer over Obama's support of the revised FISA bill. For myself, I became thoroughly disenchanted with Barack Obama the day after he became the presumptive nominee, and gave that utterly ridiculous speech to AIPAC, where he went as military right wing as possible, promising $30 billion in aide to Israel over the next decade, declaring: "whoever threatens Israel threatens us". Not a single blessed word was spoken about the injustice being done to the Palestinians, while at the same time endorsing the land grab by declaring that Jerusalem should be the undivided capitol of Israel. I guess that was another example of "overheated rhetoric" as he put it.
I know it was a tough room to speak reality to, but if he would have said that Israel, a sovereign country, has to settle its problems without US assistance, I would be campaigning for the Illinois Senator.
But his back tracking on NAFTA, his weird embrace of extending the death penalty, makes you wonder what kind of change he is talking about. It should be remembered that when war monger Joe Lieberman lost in the Senate primary to Ned Lamont, Barack Obama went and campaigned for...you guessed it, Joe Lieberman.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I agree... Posted by: Tombo
» RE: What Change? Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: What Change? Posted by: beautifulady2003
barrack obama as president
Posted by: raine1 on Jun 28, 2008 4:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is hard for me to believe that you, gentle readers, have been so naive to believe that Mr. Obama would be any different than Bush, Clinton or (choke) Mr. McCaine when it comes to political expediency. From Whence did you think this fresh faced senator came from? He who was virtually unheard of until this presidential election? He was brought to you by the same people who brought us a one term governor from Texas, an obscure governor from Arkansas, Ronald Reagan, for heaven' sake. We have no choice again this year in the presidential sweepstakes. For decades we have "voted" for the lesser of two evils. This year, no matter who "wins", the general US population loses. Corporations and the Pentagon War Mongers, Big Bankers, Big Pharma, Big Agriculture, Big Everything Else win and land their "candidate" into the White House. We the people have been completely disenfranchised. WE do not count, not our votes, our letters, our cries for justice and liberty for all......this simply is not in the equation and hasn't been since Abraham Lincoln's time. Lest you need reminding, or haven't read your unbiased history lessons, Lincoln wasn't assassinated because of his liberation of southern slaves, but for his clear-eyed and vocal stance against corporatism and the proposed federal reserve system in which independent banks would control the country's currency. We the People will never again have "representative government" until we begin it at the local and state level, helping to elect people from within our own ranks, not those vetted by the existing powers that be. We will not have "representative
government" until all election laws are changed to NOT allow corporate control over who gets the bucks to run. ALL federal election campaigns should be publicly financed so that persons like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul can actually be heard. Until that happens (about the time hell freezes), we are doomed to sham elections in which only corporate clowns are allowed to run for federal or state office. Disappointed in Obama? How could you be when you should know better?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It is hard to believe that... Posted by: StillStanding
» RE: It is hard to believe that... Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: It is hard to believe that... Posted by: helenwheels
» Not even close Posted by: PaulC
» RE: barrack obama as president Posted by: jvaljon1
» RE: barrack obama as president Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: Lou DOBBS??? Posted by: Longdream
» RE: barrack obama as president Posted by: beautifulady2003
I have been suspicious of this guy...
Posted by: photon's feather on Jun 28, 2008 4:30 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...since just after his famous keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, when a reporter asked him whether, if he was elected to the Senate, he would finish out his term, no matter how good he thought the chances of a run for the presidency.

Exactly whose idea was it to float that particular balloon?

He hadn't yet gotten beyond state politics. (He was crushed by Bobby Rush in the Dem primary for the US House just a coule of years before.)

He talks about being against the Iraq war from before its beginning, but that was while he was in state government. Is there a war-funding bill he has actually voted against?

He did introduce the Iraq War De-Escalation Act, but that was a meaningless gesture: it hadn't a chance - and it was introduced the month prior to his announcement of his candidacy.

So now, for all you "I really like Kucinich, but he hasn't got a chance, so I'm voting for Obama in the primary" folks: Still think you made the right choice?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You've adopted the media lie! Posted by: photon's feather
» Talk about poor thinking! Posted by: photon's feather
» You do! Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: You do! Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: I have been suspicious of this guy... Posted by: beautifulady2003
» Photon's is right Posted by: democracynowiniraq
So, what are progressives to do?
Posted by: jimidee on Jun 28, 2008 4:37 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stop whining! That will do for starters. Then count your freaking blessings that Obama just may win the election despite all of the dirty tricks that the Repugs will pull on him. He is the most liberal Senator for a reason. Whether or not DC has a gun ban is of no great consequence to the vast majority of us. If folks are going to kill each other, they will find a way...they were doing it long before guns were invented. Obama brings so many other rational and reasonable ideas to the table. We must be careful no tho throw the baby out with the bath water.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So, what are progressives to do? Posted by: StillStanding
» RE: So, what are progressives to do? Posted by: nochicagoboys
» Personal attack: the sure sign of a loser Posted by: photon's feather
» More names? Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: I'm fighting sloppy thinking Posted by: helenwheels
Going from Killians Irish red to Bud light
Posted by: mattcoa on Jun 28, 2008 4:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Politics is just like everything else; from music to beer, to tv shows; in order to gain mass appeal you must become increasingly bland. Obama knows that he's already got the progressive vote, so now he has to grab people closer to the right. Honestly I cant blame him. We live in a country full of idiots, and in order to get their votes you have to appeal to their values, however ridiculus they are. Obama definately wont live up to all the hype, our government just doesn't work that way. But the bottom line is that he is Infinitely better than Mccain, and anybody that would go to the mccain side purely out of spite is a friggin idiot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Then it's a moot point Posted by: kegbot1
» RE: Actually, Posted by: oregoncharles
» I mostly agree, however Posted by: PaulC
» You are a broken record Posted by: PaulC
» RE: You are a broken record Posted by: helenwheels
» Do not feed the trolls! Posted by: PaulC
» Make up your mind, dude. Posted by: Krotos
» RE: Going from Killians Irish red to Bud light Posted by: animalleaderisgreat
George Carlin was right
Posted by: kegbot1 on Jun 28, 2008 5:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Carlin said: "The real owners are the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, they're an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehouses, the city halls. They've got the judges in their back pockets.

And they own all the big media companies, so that they control just about all of the news and information you hear. They've got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying -- lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else.

"But I'll tell you what they don't want, they don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. That's against their interests. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure out how badly they're getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago.

You know what they want? Obedient workers -- people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork but just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. And, now, they're coming for your Social Security. They want your fucking retirement money. They want it back, so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They'll get it. They'll get it all, sooner or later, because they own this fucking place. It's a big club, and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: George Carlin was right Posted by: loxias
» RE: George Carlin was right Posted by: jvaljon1
» RE: George Carlin was right... about the public Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
Obamarama-2
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Jun 28, 2008 5:40 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1st volley missed the target, it seems but you can always count on a transgressor to transgress. For those who care, log onto www.counterpunch.com/reichel06262008.html and read his "There's No Hope at the Ballot Box." A man's got to believe in something, I believe I'll have another drink!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Obamarama-2 Posted by: photon's feather
Netroots, my ass.
Posted by: Longdream on Jun 28, 2008 6:04 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Certain people who have bought into the fact that Progressives own Barack Obama and every thought he has, every opinion he has, every decision he's going to make, and every vote he'll cast truly astonish me. That is as childish as a political attitude can get.

What you have in Barack Obama is someone who is his own man, all of whose work has been dedicated to social justice through compromise-- through bringing people on two sides together and forging alliances, which then create livable policy. This is what he is most known for, since he was in school. This is the person with whom you were formerly so enamored--not someone who will poll you every time he says a word. If you didn't know that, then you, netroot that you may be, have NOT researched your candidate.

The strongest concept in considering guardianship and fiduciary relationships is that the documents granting the role should limit the powers of the guardian or fiduciary as little as possible, so that the person may act fully and freely for the benefit of his charge. The fiduciary bond lies in the person, not in the document. You must choose your fiduciary wisely, someone in whom you can place implicit trust. When you do that, you do not need to circumscribe powers.

We are choosing Barack Obama because of the person we feel he is, and the heart and mind he will bring to the Presidency for the greater good. Or rather, some of us are thinking that way, and others are like people I've seen drawing up their Durable Powers of Attorney as a ten-page document of powers and prohibitions, the specifics of which may fail them at a critical moment.

So, go ahead. Have agida every time Barack takes a stand on something--major or minor. I warn you that if you read an account of his words without reading the very words he said, you may be basing your opinion on the opinion of another person who didn't understand. Barack is famously subtle and talks like a Constitutional lawyer, and sometimes you have to fish for what he means.

Go ahead. Say you may not be able to live with this decision, or that opinion, and won't work for him anymore, or can't vote for him. Keep it up.

What, in reality, are you setting yourself up to live with?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Netroots, my ass. Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Same here. Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Let's get one thing straight. Posted by: helenwheels
» That's okay, helenwheels.... Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: That's okay, helenwheels.... Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: Same here. Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Netroots, my ass. Posted by: StillStanding
» RE: Swell. Posted by: Longdream