One of the challenges for bloggers is to make it through primary season with our integrity intact. Our readers do not necessarily expect us to be objective (certainly not in the faux-objective manner of the corporate pundits) but they do expect us to be honest. If we support a candidate, we should say so. If we attack another candidate we should lay out our reasons with clarity, not distortions. It’s one thing to make a stupid argument or to obsess over something trivial. That’s poor judgment, but it doesn’t touch on our integrity. Some bloggers are failing this test, and failing it in spades. I hope that I am not failing it.
From the beginning of this process I have been open about my objections to the candidacy of Hillary Clinton and about my reasons. I haven’t said that Clinton is unelectable, but I have questioned whether she will have any coattails down ticket. I haven’t said (a la Nader) that there is no difference between Clinton and the Republicans. I have stressed the factions within the Democratic Party. On the one side there are the Clintons and the remnants of their political machine. There is the Democratic Leadership Council and their leadership (Harold Ford, Jr., Tom Carper, Al From, Bruce Reed). There are the fundraisers like Terry McAuliffe, and the pundit/lobbyist/strategists like James Carville and Paul Begala. There is the New Democrat Coalition. There are the Clinton administration holdovers like Rahm Emanuel and Madeline Albright. These people and groups are not a monolith, but, in general, they have sought to keep the Democrats on board with the war, lest they gain a reputation for McGovernism and being soft on national defense. They have also, in general, been the type of people to support the Bankruptcy Bill, Media consolidation, banking deregulation, unfettered free trade, and even Social Security privitization. Hillary Clinton’s voting record reflects some of this, but she represents New York. Outside of the war, her voting record is pretty good. My concern is what she will do when she no longer represents New York, but the entire country.
I have also been critical of her foreign policy, and not just her vote on the Iraq War or the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. My criticism is based, foremost, on the foreign policy of Bill Clinton. Most Democrats do not question Clinton’s foreign policy and see the invasion of Iraq as a sharp break from Clinton’s policy. I don’t see it as a sharp break. But more important than the invasion of Iraq is the Clinton policies that led to a rise in anti-American terrorism. Specifically, the Clinton administration antagonized Russia with its aggressive eastern-expansion of NATO and interference in former Soviet Socialist Republics’ affairs. It built or maintained military bases throughout the Horn of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. And it maintained a policy of containment against Iraq that (whatever its merits) caused a lot of resentment.
The other faction of the Democratic Party is led by progressive activists that oppose the pro-corporatist leanings of the Clinton coalition and are willing to question the bipartisan foreign policy consensus for an aggressive forward-leaning military basing strategy. John Edwards is a defector from the Clinton coalition who has joined the progressive coalition. We can question his sincerity (I know Russ Feingold does) but he is saying all the right things. Barack Obama is more of a cipher. He has done everything he can to reassure the Clinton coalition that he is an acceptable alternative. Yet, everything in his background indicates the he belongs in the progressive camp. This uncertainty about Obama and Edwards explains why I haven’t endorsed either of them and keep switching back and forth in my mind.
And no one gets to be president without making a few deals with the devil.
Primaries are always contentious and if you allow yourself to care about a particular candidacy, you’re likely to build up some ill-will towards the others. However, the Clinton campaign’s tactics are testing the integrity of their supporters. For bloggers that have cried foul about Bush’s staged events and planted questions, what can they say when the Clintons do it? When we howled about voter suppression, we never expected our own side to engage in it. When we protested racist dog whistle politics, we didn’t think we’d see it in our own primaries. To overlook these things is to lose our own integrity. I won’t overlook it. My personal integrity is more important (to me) than the outcome of this election.
Thank you for this!! I’m so upset that my otherwise progressive friends dismissed the Clinton’s campaign tactics in NV without protest. They indicated they thought all sides played equally unfairly. But that’s simply, provably not true.
Where’s the source re Feingold questioning Edward’s sincerity? I have questioned his sincerity myself, and been vilified for it. I’d love to be able to show people Feingold shares my concerns.
As many here know, I volunteered to be a precinct captain for Obama. But it’s not because I love Obama. I just think he has the best chance to win for us in the fall. I think a Clinton candidace will bring out the worst in America and will continue the deep divisions in this country. I think Obama helps us all turn the page, take a breath, and try to start out on a different foot. It may not succeed. But to me, it’s worth a try.
(I also have spelled out elsewhere why I think the candidate of competence is also Obama, but you can see that elsewhere.)
Answering my own question. Here’s a quote from Feingold:
Source: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Feingold_Edwards_is_running_on_my_record.html
beat me to it. Here’s the interview.
well presented BooMan. These past weeks you’re exceeding your exceptional writing skills. Memories are short on the Clinton years. The RNC won’t forget and they’re readying for Billary. We’ll have to disown.
Hats off big guy.
So tell me, Was NV Dem Caucus
very close to a New Hampshire repeat…“a shared victory” or did Obama walk away with one more delegate than Clinton?
If yes, I’ll go spike my next cuppa coffee. Yea, yea, I know she has those super delegates. At this point, doesn’t matter, I’m saying she’ll lose the GE. The Af-Am votes are gone. …Look at the NV results (83% Obama vs Clinton 14%) And that disgusting robo call.
Ya know the Clintons are so power greedy, to hell with the party. Slow suicide.
Rather than thinking Edwards must be a hypocrite for these votes, let’s not lose sight of the fact that he was a first-term senator elected by a healthy, but not huge, majority in a very conservative state.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/edwards_clinton_and_questions.html
“Edwards beat incumbent Republican Sen. Lauch Faircloth in 1998, a bad year for Republicans nationally. He made Faircloth the issue and benefited from the contrast between the two candidates.
“But had Edwards run for re-election in 2004, he might well have lost to then-Rep. Richard Burr (R). By that time, Edwards had established a relatively liberal record in the Senate, making him much less appealing to state voters.
“Edwards, of course, couldn’t carry his own state during the 2004 presidential race, and the Democratic ticket didn’t carry a single Southern state (though it is certainly unfair to blame him entirely for the ticket’s lack of appeal in Dixie).
Feingold voted to confirm Ashcroft and Roberts, Clinton opposed them. Feingold is great at those symbolic battles we are certain to lose, it is just winnable battles with practical consequences where he consistently lets us down.
I wonder if Hillary would have voted against confirmation if she knew it would have resulted in the confirmation being denied. In other words, maybe her vote was symbolic as well?
Just like her support of Dodd re telecom immunity. She says she doesn’t want telecom immunity but we will soon see if she and Obama will actually work to get the result they claim they want in the Senate.
Obama’s Atlanta speech is live right now on CNN. He’s talking about our empathy deficit.
Booman, this post is one of the reasons. I love your work. I always come here for a REALITY check, and I am never disappointed.
Thank you.
This election season has been very revealing about the blogosphere in general and about particular bloggers, imo.
As far as I’m concerned, your integrity is intact. In fact, it’s why I came back in December.
I may (and often do) disagree with you, but our disagreements can always be honest disagreements because you don’t lie or mislead and I hope that I don’t either.
More than anything, I truly appreciate that you don’t ever try to hide the intent of your posts by wrapping them in faux bipartisanship when your true intent is to point out the flaws of, say, Hillary Clinton and convince us not to vote for her. At least the conversation starts at an honest place without faux denials.
Where I somewhat disagree with you on this post is that I think the test is not just for the supporters of the Clinton campaign but for the supporters of all campaigns. Clinton is not a saint. But Obama is not a saint either. Both are engaging in politics. To deny that your candidate is engaging in politics is a step on the road to losing your integrity.
Carry on.
Both candidates are engaging in politics
It’s how they engage. We need a united party in order to prevail on Nov. 04.
The Clintons have hit a new low, especially Bill a former president and titular head of the party to the point where Dem. Leaders have asked him to cool it. You can campaign for your wife without engaging in sleaze and slime.
That’s unseemly for a former president.
Yes. he misses being president.
Heh – saints in politics. For some reason the concept struck a funnybone with me;-)
I also come to this site because I know of the degree of integrity that Bowman brings to his work. Thanks for all that you contibute to the political dialogue.
I must say that I’ve been profoundly disappointed by the degree of racism that I have found in the posts and comments at other so-called progressive sites. Much of it is downright offensive. My views were shaped by involvement in the civil rights struggles of the Sixties and I have a difficult time understanding the reactionary attitudes of many young whites who comment on Kos and other sites. They are not as progressive as they think.
..and the sheep bleet as the corral fencing draws closer on either side. The sheep butts in fronts seem closer than ever and the push from behind gets stronger and stronger. Over the loudspeakers, ‘get along, little sheepies, go along..’
Ever get the idea the election cycle itself is the side-show distraction? That no matter who ‘wins’ it’s really a win for the thing whose tentacles are up all these puppets’ asses? These ‘candidates’ just represent acceptable versions of the same outcome; their arguments tuned to convince their target coalition to buy the current US policy to continue for another couple FUs.
ASK YOURSELF: Is there a candidate that you can vote for that will reverse the perverse drive to claim/retain preferential access to resources that rightfully belong to others? Is there one that put our collective asses out on the limb of pursuing alternative energies without hedging our bets and financing it all by manipulating the current energy markets?
IF you can answer that question, for god’s sake vote for her/him.
Otherwise, you’re vote only further enshrines Bush’s world of eternal war and military domination and co-ersion of markets. Even if it was for the cute guy who promised to get everyone out real quick-like but won’t actually commit to doing it or the practical lady who will do it when conditions on the ground permit. Gotta listen to your generals, right?
I’d say this election is already lost if you given even the smallest fuck. Even the emerging ‘We should fix our infrastructure instead of dealing with this’ coalition is a grotesque abdication of responsibility for the role we’ve stolen ourselves in this world.
This limitation of options is why Hope will ultimately be crushed by ‘Reality’ and truth is reduced to a ridiculous midget in the Dreamworld pumped into our consciousness to distract us from the killing floor’s whirring.
well, most of us have been enjoying this empire, not only because it provides a nice standard of living, but because no one would have truly preferred to live under Soviet, Chinese, or any other subjugation. It’s not like the world would get along and share stuff if America wasn’t around to rap knuckles.
Perhaps it’s living under an empire that is the problem?
it’s about proper delegation. There’s nothing wrong with American dominance if it is combined with a like-minded consensus among other regional powers. Where we have failed is in failing to delegate responsibilities, which necessarily requires accepting some outcomes that we don’t particularly like.
You don’t see the scale of the military-industrial economy required to perform the role you describe, even at it’s most efficient and loveable, as linked to the destruction of the environment that I am sure you dislike intensely?
Do you think it is possible to simultaneously retain empire and even expand it (must always expand to pay off debt-foundation of American Capitalism) AND make the corrections necessary to fend off global-warming’s extremely negative effects? Not to mention pollutants which are killing off what is not touched by GW (note bad pun).
It’s all part of the same picture, and I know we’ve got the biggest Distracto-Ray even built pointed at us at all times, but I can’t really live happily with getting nothing we NEED in exchange for tinkering around the edges of the most destructive system Man has ever created (the body count can’t just include our military victims any more as people are starving and dying because of everything from our farm subsidies to destruction of the oceans).
Jimmy Carter once said that America was so powerful that withdrawing from our international role would create a power vacuum as destabilizing as abuse of power. I think he was right. Of course, at the time he said that we were the world’s largest creditor, now we are among the largest debtors. So we may have to cut back a trifle.
Well, then let’s just keep going until we learn to get it right. Right?
We could destabilize Indonesia pretty easily once we are done with the Middle East. Then we could prevent our Capital class from having to learn a new business for a few more years. You know, the way they expect the ‘little guy’ to retrain every 3 years as a pillar of the modern economy.
If Americans enjoy the benefits of citizenship in the Empire so much, I would advise people to drop the bleeding heart whining BS and get in line with military domination of the world. After that it’s just matter of which sales pitch to use for the rest of the world. Abomination or Obamanation?
Is the idea really that we should be picking better administrators of expansionist empire; better pitchmen who won’t sacrifice world opinion for our goals?
We no longer want to spread fear by posing as the bringers of Armageddon?
The world finds us an abomination?
>hold election<
OK, now we are a Obama-nation! See? we’re good cop now. YAY.
I think our nation is large enough, and resource rich enough, and inventive enough to live within our means. Who’s benefiting from our sucking the rest of the world like a BBQ rib? Our knuckle-rapping has prevented which war again?
Destroying the evil empire is not the same as destroying America, or the American way of life (which is constantly being reinvented to include more and more requisite luxuries). In fact, I’d say it would ultimately save us.
You want to debate unknown unknowns?
I think you are mischaracterizing my point. I’m not talking about putting lipstick on a pig. I’m talking about maintaining an international system based on shared liberal democracy values where America, due to its Navy and Air Force takes the lead role and thereby has some degree of double standards. But it won’t work the way it worked during the Cold War and definitely not the way the neo-cons have envisioned.
For one example, Europe should develop cargo transport systems and their own divisions capable of mobilizing to trouble spots. And then they should take responsibility for their fair share of peacekeeping, humanitarian, and anti-proliferation efforts.
And we should pour everything into R&Ding our way out of the resource wars, if possible.
The problem isn’t that liberal democracies have emerged as dominant over fascists and communists. That’s what went right. What is going wrong is a failure for America to allow the other regions to take responsibility for their own shit.
My liberal democracy died somewhere around 1981. Maybe I should move to Philly.
I think we have different assumptions about nature of the current political system in the US and the scale and nature of change necessary to reach common end goals. I can’t pretend that we are not fascist in nature. It’s just that instead of the politicians picking the Corporations to partner with, the Corporations pick the politicians. Once the partnership is made, what is the difference. Euro-fascism was defeated in WWII, not American Fascism. Fascism itself was only defeated as a system in the minds of the disengaged, schoolchildren whose textbooks told them so and the veterans who’s very world view depends on this myth.
While flipping over the card table is attractive, the chaos that would follow would be terrible beyond prediction. We’re on the same page there.
I 100% agree that the Euros are capable of taking care of themselves at this point. I would argue the operating assumption should be that the rest of the world can do that as well unless they ASK us, and even then we should understand that rules backlash regarding market manipulations and monopolies apply to government as well as economy.
I would also argue that there is really no difference in being responsible for suffering and chaos and watching it happen. Through being ‘responsible’ you gain some order of control and there for you are also creating whatever peace exists (through killing, hypocracy and domination) – while abdicating ‘responsibility’ would place blame on us for what suffering exists due to our inaction (despite the ability to act). This paradigm is insoluble, and once accepted, allows every sort of devil’s compromise and has resulted in hate-attracting policy that reduces the value of Human life to the value it can produce. It is not a good paradigm, let alone a complete one.
Perhaps the answer involves delegating responsibility for maintaining supposed order while assuming responsibility for relieving the suffering the system we have imposed has created until that too can reasonably be delegated. This is very different from isolationism. It’s about building necessary and sufficient international institutions that enshire and defend the rights of people and nations, not any one particular political order. It’s a partial retraction of influence that could result in the sort of humility and responsible engagement that actually MIGHT produce long term stability, instead of operating in paradigms that CANNOT. Everything else is managing and profiting from one hell of a car wreck.
In a convoluted way I think you are basically agreeing with me.
Excellent news. One major point of contention would be the idea that we are somehow holding parts of the world together due to our military might. “It’s not like the world would get along if American wasn’t around to rap it’s knuckles”.
I believe that ‘the world’ CANNOT do so under our influence as we are actively creating a world of customers at war with each other. This pusuit is ideal for American capital and one of the few consistent principles of our foreign policy, required to be as such by our very economic system.
Given that, pursuing a world where it’s not up to American or any one nation to rap knuckles in order for folks to get along necessarily precludes dominance by a system such as ours. I don’t mean we can’t exist, but we should compete, not entrench, expand and dominate. Kind of like breaking up AT&T. They might be back again, and worse than ever, but look and the innovation that has occurred since the breakup, almost to the day.
If George Bush has done anything right, it was to weaken our influence in the rest of the world by over-exerting it in a few parts of it. But at what cost..
This is what results in the policies of which you speak.
Today`s LA Times, on Gates blaming Nato for not stepping up enough.
“Fine, fight your own wars then
Re “Gates says NATO force unable to fight guerrillas,” Jan. 16
As a former sergeant in the Dutch army, I am offended by the remarks of U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates. I think he has no idea what he’s talking about. What was the last guerrilla war that the United States ended in a victory? I would appreciate Gates not pointing his finger at others before looking at his country’s record.
The United States needs allies now more than ever.
Ben Van Zadelhoff
Huissen, The Netherlands
Canadians troops are working with other NATO nations, including American forces, to secure Afghanistan and drive out the Taliban for good. We have lost many of our sons and daughters in this fight.
Our government is currently wrestling with our level of involvement given the enormous cost in capital and lives.
By staying in Afghanistan, we allow more U.S. troops to stay in Iraq. Discouraging words by your Defense secretary will only add to the pressure the Canadian government feels, and probably speed up the timeline for our withdrawal. Then, the United States will be left fighting two wars, on two fronts, alone.
Perhaps Gates should think carefully before dismissing the sacrifice of his allies to the national media.
Paul Nieuwland
Hillsburgh, Canada
If Gates believes Canadian, British and Dutch soldiers are not up to fighting the Taliban, I say well and good — fight your own war.
You should be able to bring to bear your expertise from that debacle called Iraq.”
Or that liberal democracy is also flawed, with many of the same flaws that communism and fascism shared. Liberal democracies are capable of adapting to change a bit more readily than their competitors … this doesn’t mean it’s well-adapted for long term survival.
(I realize this is a big topic and I’m not doing it justice in this short post, please don’t critique it on that basis. I’m just throwing out an idea.)
It’s not like the world would get along and share stuff if Saddam, or North Korea, or Sudan, or Burma weren’t around either. The US is definitely not worse than any of those regimes. Yay. We win.
Oh, and I love the Boo, too.
Not only is he a straight shooter with more than a little to say, but he’s also always been that way. Too bad the market doesn’t reward that the way they do the ‘good TV’ of Coulter, Hannity, Olbermann and Dobbs.
.
≈ See my diary — Falconry Enjoyed by Bush and Osama Bin Laden ≈
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Why complaints from the Obama fan base should be taken with a grain of salt.
I had a collection of songs back in the 80s called “Exiting With My Ethics Intact” wherein I saw my exit more dramatically. Same thing, though.
Booman, your excellent post here is pretty much my opinion. How does electing Clinton save us from Big Oil alternately sucking out our money at home or getting us into wars abroad, or the banking interests that want to plunder Social Security? Even electing progressive Democrats is only marginally effective with a President whose policies are merely Republican Lite. After all, the media concentrations and the awful trade agreements occurred under Bill Clinton with a coalition of Republicans and the Steny Hoyers of Congress.
Not hopeful with Clinton, not really hopeful with any of them.
Another educational diary. I appreciate your pointing out the Clinton expansionist policies after the Soviet Union breakup. This was a time the Russians felt most vunerable and we did nothing to ease their fears. So now we have Putin and a new nationalism to match our own. I remember being uncomfortable about all the east block countries joining NATO. Felt like we were waking a sleeping giant or something.
All good stuff Booman I’ve learned more about the DLC in the last two days than I care to know. Your take on the Clinton expansionist foreign policy looks spot on to me.
Going to read the Feingold interview now. Its also good to know someone the senator is distrustful of Edwards.
I agree … I just started following your blog recently. Other blogs and authors have fallen off of my reading list.
You have a sense of ethics, and you have something interesting to say (most of the time! :)). Thank you.
Just want to let you know that this piece is a good example of why I trust your judgment. Spot on.
I’m surprised to see some bloggers I respect get caught up in their support for a particular candidate. There’s one blog I used to go to for criminal justice opinions and news, etc., but it has become a silly partisan message board lately.
How any progressive or liberal blogger could get emotionally caught up in supporting any of these three candidates is beyond me.
What’s wrong with gettng emotionally caught up with a candidate? That is how they get elected. It is easy to be snide, but you can’t win elections that way.
I can’t get caught up with any of this years crop, but I am not going to put down anyone who is caught up with them.
Someone has to win.
If a progressive liberal is fired up about Hillary or Obama, then I question their judgment. It’s that simple.
I view this election cycle as a complete failure for progressive politics. Progressives were not successful at re-integrating their ideas into the Democratic party. Can you name one issue where progressives or the blogosphere put pressure on the candidates or the party to move to the left? I can’t. I just see silly fights about sex and race and who is ready to lead and who is ready to change and who gets treated unfairly or too well by the press, etc. I believe this was a waste of an historic opportunity that progressives had. So yeah, any so-called “progressive” that is fired up by one of these candidates is suspect in my book.
New word for 2008 dictionary:
Electile-dysfunction: inability to become aroused by any of
the choices for President nominated by either party in the
2008 election year.
I used to enjoy the insights found at a certain blog like you describe cough No Quarter cough but I’ve had to unsubscribe in my newsreader until the primaries are over because a certain poster over there has gotten so petty and loose with facts about anyone opposing the future Madam President. Of course there are others as well, but that one really takes the cake.
Booman what do you make of Obama’s Saint Reagan comments? I don’t trust the Clinton crowd to be true progessives but I do not like Obama’s comments either. I am not for compromise and unity. I would like to see a sharp veer to left in our political landscape. The rightwingers have had 30 yrs of their show and it is time we pointed out that Reagan’s ideas have gotten us into the mess we are in.
The divisive politics have come from the rightwing of politics. The left has compromised itself so much that they is little of core left values defended by anyone in the national limelight anymore.
Obama might be trying to attract Republicans with his message but he is alienating me.
2 things
no way do i agree that hillary is like the republicans….she isnt going to give us supreme court justices that will vote against female reproductive rights….thats enough right there for me.
the other thing is i never thought the dems were any less capable of cheating in elections than the republicans…they invented cheating….rove just perfected it…i say that as someone who grew up in philly and saw how the democratic machine cheats in every election. which is why i wasnt shocked the dems have done nothing to improve the integrity of the voting system…if we shine the light in the dark corners of the system the rats we see will be both dem and repub.
edwards is my candidate….obama was my second but im now leaning towards hillary.
i will have no problem voting for her in the general and ill work for her campaign and contribute to it too.
what you will never see me do is work to reelect casey.
thats where i draw the line.
Talk about cheating! And it was the Democratic machine that perfected it.
Boo-
Even though you and I are like-minded in our politics and I rarely disagree with your commentary, I think I can still say objectively that you have nothing to fear re: losing integrity. You are a great and thoughtful writer who routinely takes a pause to reflect on recent commentary that may have been emotionally driven – like this post among others.
But that said, there are all types of bloggers. Some are activists first, who use blogging as just another means to push a particular agenda. I don’t see you as that type. But anybody can blog and anybody can comment. There’s no ethics test to call yourself a Blogger.
When the dust settles, some will be pretty embarrassed about things they’ve said and won’t it feel good to rub their noses in it ala Joe Klein?
I don’t enjoy seeing the blogosphere lose its credibility, which must remain as unassailable as possible in order to maintain its effectiveness. The last few months have been a disgrace. And, ironically, for all the abuse that Daily Kos takes, the front-page has maintained their integrity. They’ve been a little too cautious for my tastes, but that’s their decision and it has its advantages.
Other blogs have fallen completely into disrepute.
In general I agree on the front pagers, but many of the diaries have been awful and many of the comments worse than awful. Even thoughtful, informative diaries get drive by posts from out-of-control partisans, so there’s nowhere to hide. I’ve pretty much had it until things cool down over there.
I can’t speak to what’s happening at Daily Kos, as I rarely read them. They get too much traffic for me. I can’t possibly follow a comment thread over there. But I find that when something really notable goes on, one of my favorite smaller bloggers like you will pick up on it.
Realize that this IS the blogosphere, and this was the heart of my point… it’s a free-market of ideas and discussion with no barriers to entry. Some will succeed and some will fail. As long as we maintain Net Neutrality, that will always be true. Readers seeking accuracy and integrity in blog journalism will find the places who maintain these qualities and dump the ones who betray the values we’d like to see upheld. I personally add about 3 or 4 blogs a month to my reading list in my newsreader. I also dump about that many. That’s life. There’s only so much I can read and lately, you get top priority for the quality of content. (That’s a compliment, Boo.)
I am not going to worry too much about who’s up and who’s down overall. It may sound insensitive and maybe it is… The blogosphere has a unique feature that we don’t see in the mainstream media. It is self-cleansing.
Over at big Orange, I’ve stayed completely out of candidate diaries.
There is much else to write about!
I’ve put up a series (there and at SwingStateProject) about congressional races (I’m about halfway through)
The real enemy isn’t Clinton, or Obama, or Edwards….it’s the Republicans!