You gotta love Susie Madrak. She’s not afraid of anyone. And what she told David Axelrod needed to be said. Ironically, I agree with both Susie and Axelrod on this subject. Susie’s correct that treating us like the town ho isn’t exactly motivating. Axelrod’s correct to say, ‘Hey, we feel like the town ho, too.”
From the White House’s perspective, there’s this big progressive media outlet known as the blogosphere that is just blasting them day in and day out, when they thought they might get a little support to combat the Mighty Right-Wing Wurlitzer.
But, from the blogosphere’s perspective, we’re not seeing much love either. And forget about respect.
I think both sides have acted stupidly and with a lack of foresight. The number one thing the White House should have done differently is to level with people about the constraints they are facing in Congress. They should have done some coordination, basically telling us where progress was blocked and whose minds needed to be changed. But, really, with the need to hold together a center-left coalition, keep the Pentagon and Intelligence Community in line, maintain confidence on Wall Street, and engage in massive spending to keep the economy afloat, there was never much chance that progressives would be ecstatic about the results. Some of our advice should have been heeded, but a lot of it just wasn’t politically possible.
On our side, though, we were far too quick to assign the worst motivations to the administration. We made ourselves their enemy and earned their enmity.
It’s a two-way failure, as the exchange between Madrak and Axelrod crystallized. I hope people listen to what Axelrod had to say. But I’m also glad that Madrak had the balls to get in Ax’s face.
We know Aravosis wouldn’t have had the stones – he’d be too busy looking for a photo op.
The more I think about it, the more I conclude that we weren’t far too quick to assign the worst motivations to the administration. In the absence of understanding their motivations, it was easy for those not interested in Democratic success to play opinions in diaries and comments. And the arrival of Politico and the seriousness with which some blogs continue to take it has allowed Politico to play progressive Democratic opinions. Pretty slick for a couple of Republicans.
The White House meanwhile went into their bubble and folks within the White House who had agendas limited information that went to the President and slanted what the blogs were saying. My evidence is the upcoming departure of Rahm to run for mayor, for the upcoming transition of Axelrod to setting up the 2012 campaign, and to the return of David Plouffe.
And the White House communication staff never found their footing with the White House press corps, which has shown itself to be interested in maintaining bias against the White House.
The blogs wrote about the risk that Blue Dogs were taking with opposing the Presidents agenda, but the leadership coddled them to get their votes. And now they are the incumbents most in trouble.
Some of our advice was not only politically possible but politically necessary to ensure that what conventional wisdom predicts would not happen. The coming catastrophe, if it turns out that way, is because of Mike Ross, Blanche Lincoln, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and their colleagues who distanced themselves from the President and his policies and then discovered that their constituents considered Obama to be extreme. The gave credibility to the positioning of Obama as extreme.
Conversely, if the Democratic Party avoids catastrophe it will be because a large part of the Democratic progressive blogosphere got out and canvassed, phone banked, and got out the vote just like they did in 2008. And yes, we’re exhausted. It’s much more difficult than it could have been because of the invisibility of the all of the base once the President and the White House staff got into the bubble. I thought early on that the death threats and the guns at rallies during the health care debate was primarily intended to keep Obama in the bubble. How successful that has been was shown by his stunned look at Velma Hart’s statement about being exhausted. Anyone who has defended Obama against family, friends, co-workers, and neighbors knows what that exhaustion is like.
This is about right.
Too bad the rabid obamaisalwayswrong crowd won’t learn anything from it.
“From the White House’s perspective, there’s this big progressive media outlet known as the blogosphere that is just blasting them day in and day out”
And by the way – that’s my perspective as well. And I’m about as far away from the White House as one can be in the continental US.
Oh – and the phrase “hippie punching” is officially completely devolved, rather like “anti-Semitic”.
They now just mean “anyone who disagrees with FDL (or Israel) on anything”.
Agreed. I’m very tired of the term. It ought to be used for cases where people who are against senseless violence are belittled. It is not an appropriate term for Robert Gibbs complaining about getting reamed out by progressives 24/7.
So would you rather go back to being Sister Souljah’d?
I don’t need to hear why I should be happier about Obama. I don’t hold him totally responsible for what I consider a tepid legislative record, but I do hold him responsible for policies under his control that are not even Bush lite, but simply Bush continued. I also hold the administration responsible for their failure to fight for what they have done right and to make Republicans accountable for what they’ve done wrong. The two silent Augusts in a row have been devastating.
“I also hold the administration responsible for their failure to fight for what they have done right”
It’s especially funny when that comes from people who don’t actually think Obama has done anything right.
Did I say they have done nothing right? I cited things I felt they haven’t done right. That’s not the same as saying nothing has been done right. Or is that too subtle?
I agree with this, but after seeing what Axelrod said to her, here’s what I have to say to him:
How thick is this bubble?
This is a Jon Stewart response to Fox News. What was it Axelrod said that was so egregious it deserves a response like that? All you’re doing is shutting down the conversation, and it doesn’t help anyone.
“I’d say right back atcha”
He doesn’t even acknowledge that they screwed up with “I admit we have screwed up sometimes, but we’re trying our best and here’s where we want to go.”
Their egos are too precious to ever admit that they fucked up on some things.
So he can go fuck himself 🙂
Ok, I agree he could have shown a little more respect and humility. But in your experience, does telling a person or institution to “go f**k him/itself” usually bring their sense of respect and humility to the fore? There has to be a more constructive way that these two important parts of the progressive coalition can work together with minimal friction, disharmony, hurt feelings, etc. And yes, you can tell I have progressive values when I talk about a segment of the Internet and a branch of the government having “hurt feelings.” 🙂
Am I talking face to face with Axelrod? No. Did Susie tell him to go fuck himself? No.
Of course there’s better avenues for dialog, but at this point, it’s apparent they’re not interested in honest dialog (well Obama might be, his advisors certainly aren’t).
“well Obama might be [interested in honest dialog], his advisors certainly aren’t”
I’m on your side on the your main point, but this is just “if only the Czar knew of this outrage!” for a new generation. The buck stops with Obama: he appointed Rahm, Summers, Geithner, Kaine, & Co. Axelrod has consulted for many campaigns; I believe Obama is the first candidate to bring him into the government. It’s Obama’s show.
Of course the buck stops with him, but his advisors still matter. He can’t read the blogs, his advisors do.
The point of that quote wasn’t to take blame off of Obama, but how I legitimately feel.
Obama will listen to your concerns and for the most part treat you as an equal opinion. He is interested in honest dialog. In fact, that’s part of his problem: he’s too good for America.
But, really, with the need to hold together a center-left coalition, keep the Pentagon and Intelligence Community in line, maintain confidence on Wall Street, and engage in massive spending to keep the economy afloat, there was never much chance that progressives would be ecstatic about the results. Some of our advice should have been heeded, but a lot of it just wasn’t politically possible.
You are worried about confidence on Wall Street? Help out the middle and lower classes and I think Wall Street will get along just fine. “Maintainig confidence on Wall Street” is just as stupid a term as “hippie punching.”
Evidentially, you were not impressed by the monthly loss of over a half million jobs during the first half of the president’s first year in office.
Some of our advice should have been heeded, but a lot of it just wasn’t politically possible.
This is nonsense and you know it. Take the stimulus. Did they really want a 1.3 trillion dollar stimulus? So why wasn’t their original proposal 1.8(as an example)? And they bargained away any advantage on the HCR/HIR bill. Why take single-payer off the table at the start? That’s just dumb negotiating. We all know that. We all know single-payer was never going to happen, but you use that to bargain down to a public option(or whatever the real ultimate goal was .. or should have been).
A pattern like that, it almost looks intentional.
Single-payer was taken off the table in the primaries. And it had almost no support in the U.S Senate. I mean, maybe three votes.
Okay, so if keeping single payer on the table would get you laughed out of the room, determine what wouldn’t and start from there. Medicare for all? I don’t know. But you don’t compromise before negotiations have begun. I thought Obama was an ace poker player.
I don’t give a shit about how good of a poker player he is. In fact, poker is a terrible game for politicians.
What I would NEVER do is send him to buy a rug in a bargaining situation.
Medicare-for-all is basically a single-payer system. It has no support, Calvin.
Look around you.
You live in America.
It doesn’t matter who is president when it comes to certain basics. One basic is that the insurance corporations, the energy corporations, and the Wall Street banks own Congress.
Dick Durbin, the freaking Senate Majority Whip, has admitted as much.
You need to start wishing things were different and stop pretending that the decision tree offers all these lollipops.
Medicare is extraordinarily popular. The public option polled better than HCR in general at every point during the debate. These points could have been used to get something, but they weren’t.
“One basic is that the insurance corporations, the energy corporations, and the Wall Street banks own Congress.”
It would be more accurate to say they control the White House and >40% of the current Senate, wouldn’t it? Pelosi has been pretty damn steadfast.
No, it would be more accurate to say what I said.
Oh, if you say so.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/83059-senate-sitting-on-290-house-bills
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/83057-290-bills
Y’know, a smart politician who actually wanted to enact a liberal agenda would use liberal blogs as something to cite in public discourse as a way to move the Overton window. You certainly don’t see Republicans attacking their blogs this way, even when the blogs attack them. But if you’re a Democrat trying to move away from liberalism, liberal blogs are just an impediment.
Obama really doesn’t give a shit about any policy that I can tell. He is not intellectually committed to any particular outcome. That means that he will take what he can get, and that the Republicans won because they have had a clear idea of what they want.
For many issues, I really wonder if Obama thinks that either Republican or Democratic ideas are better.
to appearing unflappable and able to joke with everyone. His latest town hall was appalling, and I’ve never thought that of any of his previous appearances (he saves the appalling part for the next day’s backtracking, usually). It wasn’t even tone-deaf, he was in his own little world where that persona still works, while the crowd was aching for him to speak up for them. But when they thunderously applauded his toe-dipping into populism, he would immediately draw back. The only person he seemed comfortable with was the banker guy. Not with Velma Hart, who is now an icon for sticking it to him. With the banker it was all about guys they both knew; with the ordinary citizen it was as if she was a client. He could not have made it clearer where his values lie.
Wow. I saw a different show, same channel same time.. weird.
That’s half right. Obama is primarily process-oriented. He operates by airing issues, setting policy, and negotiating with the folks he considers stakeholders.
That does not mean that he is ignorant of policy. He understands ground level effects of policies. He has been very good at commanding the military and has sought and gotten accountability when the military acts insubordinate.
Where he is hamstrung is in the fact that the entire Republican side of the Congress is not bargaining in good faith but pushes the line that they are the victims of an overreaching tyrant. And the Conservadems in the Senate and Blue Dogs in the House cause him to be fighting with one hand tied behind his back.
He has a clear idea of what he wants but cannot command party unity, most likely because the Senate is always a bunch of cantankerous independent-minded folk and the House Democrats are split into three subcaucuses with the majority leader tilting toward the Blue Dogs.
I do not think that the Republicans won on health care. And they certainly did not win on financial industry reform. Joe Lieberman and the Conservadems have won the tweaking of many bills to their wishes. The Republicans have not done anything but obstruct.
And right now “Republican ideas” is an oxymoron. They seek the power to act without accountability and to ensure their re-election through the earmarks they are always complaining about. Power, patronage, but no ideas. Their vaunted ideas and principles are just window dressing.
(as Dukakis): “I can’t believe I’m losing to these guys!”
I hoped we were past nominating bloodless “process-oriented” yutzes, but I guess Howard Dean was our one illusory shot at dodging the inevitable.
Please. You’d be calling Howard Dean the second coming of Ivan the Terrible by this point in his presidency. Don’t kid yourself.
I had no idea that you know me personally or followed my commenting so closely. Oh, no, probably not, because if you had you wouldn’t believe that this is the case. I’m not going to publicly speculate about the cause of your ad hominem, but I will say it’s not doing your argument any good.
you know I am right. Howard Dean would have faced the exact same constraints, and you would have hated him for it.
and assume (s)he’d still be solidly behind Dean no matter what distasteful compromises Dean would have to make. Oh, wait,,
Way to jump in with a “me, too!” Well done. Perhaps Booman will give you a pat on the head.
You mean the way I hated Clinton? No, wait, I didn’t hate Clinton. Clinton didn’t pre-compromise away the best deals he could have gotten, and actual stood up for working people in public on a consistent basis. Anyway, I don’t hate Obama, I’m just disappointed that his cool exterior hides a cool interior.
Also: you can stop being such a prick already. You don’t know me, and your self-serving guesses are wrong.
Clinton stood up for working people? NAFTA gives a big hello! And don’t even get me started about fucking welfare reform. I didn’t live during FDR, JFK, or LBJ but the 90’s weren’t that long ago.
Um, Clinton got NOTHING on health care. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Are you sure that’s the comparison you want to make?
What has since about March 2009 has been the negotiating style. OK, Obama was obligated to play bipartisanshit patty-cake for a round or two. But talk about slow learners? He gets his hand bit time and time and time again, and its the same shit, over and over and over.
You don’t negotiate by looking like a total pussy, which Obama looks like now. He has no cojones. Most importantly, he has no interest in DEMOCRATIC ideas. he just wants a bill, and is willing really to do anything to get it.
That means that he has no negotiating skill, no negotiating leverage, and really no negotiating ability.
Keep the Pentagon and intelligence community in line? That’s a laugh. The Pentagon and the intelligence community keep the President in line.
You can’t diagnose the problems if you don’t know the schematics. How come a majority of Americans have wanted out of those wars for years but no one in the White House or Congress comes out strong getting out? How come the defense budget is sacred in a time of huge deficits? Why is America spending more on the military than the rest of the world?
Please.
If the Republicans run a general for President in 2012 maybe then someone will recognize what’s going on.
You might have missed two events.
The demotion of David Petraeus. It was covered up by McChrystal being relieved of duty in Afghanistan.
And the departure of the Marine Corps Commandant who was opposed to repealing Dont Ask Don’t Tell.
The sad part is today was one we should be showcasing the improvements health reform will do for people’s lives and pointing out what a farce the Republican’s plans are but instead we are complaining, rightfully so, what a bunch of wimps our Dem leaders are for folding a strong hand because well, they suck.
According to Woodward’s book (or the excerpts I have seen), the President asked for exit strategies and received none. That is how the Pentagon keeps the president in line. Nevertheless, he crafted his own exit strategy. Personally, I wish he could have been bolder. But it’s clear how the playing field is tilted against peace.
Demoting McChrystal for insubordination and demoting David Petraeus isn’t bold enough for you? Engineering the early retirement of the Marine Corps Commandant that opposed DADT repeal. Getting unanimous endorsement of repeal from Gates and the Joint Chiefs. Getting Gates to commit to cutting $100 billion from the DoD budget.
He seems to be building a defense against a “stabbed-in-the-back” mindset if he decides that Afghanistan is not working and he has to withdraw and adopt a different strategy.
Pushing for START treaty ratification in this political environment is bold and he has Richard Lugar pre-announced on his side.
In the things that he actually controls without interference, he has done very well.
Well, you know Tarheel, the problem I have is that some kids are getting killed over there while this whole compromise plan shakes out. I am painfully aware of the decision tree the president faced. But, I’m unhappy with his decision.
‘Kids’? Do you mean young US adults in the armed forces or Afghan kids? I know the answer. The use of the word is so condescending. I just had to say it.
Except as a comic foil. She gets a chance to speak to David Axelrod and what does she do? She decides to make herself the story, talks to him in blogspeak and throws a weird sexual metaphor in for good measure. It would have been better if she just yelled out, “I like pie!” or “all your base are belong to me.” Does her type talk to anyone besides other bloggers or blog commenters? If I hadn’t already concluded that a good percentage of lefty bloggers are self referential, ego-based life forms and politically useless (except as opposition) I’d be embarrassed by her right now. And so what if Axelrod came back at her? Where they fucked up is by including the likes of her on the call in the first place. I assume that more than Susie Madrak’s feelings was discussed on the call but from Greg Sargent’s article and from Memeorandum you’d never know it. Does anyone know what other topics were covered?
Cosigned.
The Anti-Dog Whistler