I deeply regret that I haven't read this Lambert guy at Correntewire before but his post from Friday: Obama stump speech strategy of conciliation considered harmful, deserves attention and should be seen by as many eyes as possible before the Iowa caucuses.
For some time, especially since Obama ducked out of the Lieberman-Kyl vote and chickened out on the MoveOn vote, I've had this little voice of nagging doubt in the corner of my head. After two disastrous relationships, I have learned to pay particular attention to that little voice.
My initial thought was:
I was on the verge of concluding that Obama might be too easily flattered into running before his time. Or that he was a particularly malleable candidate who is somewhat at the mercy of savvy political types, looking for employment in a new administration. Or that he was a bit too beholden to his wealthy patrons who don't like mandates
But I think that Lambert put it all together for me when he quotes Obama from his stump speech:
[OBAMA] You know that we can’t afford four more years of the same divisive food fight in Washington that’s about scoring political points instead of solving problems; that’s about tearing your opponents down instead of lifting this country up. ...
It’s change that won’t just come from more anger at Washington or turning up the heat on Republicans. There’s no shortage of anger and bluster and bitter partisanship out there. We don’t need more heat. We need more light. 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.
Lambert then says:
We don’t need the kind of politics that’s about a single, charismatic figure. We need a mandate for progressive change. But when Obama focuses on "the big table," and "negotiation," and "reaching out," and the whole kumbaya thing, he weakens what Keynes calls the "animal spirits" of the very activists and social entrepreneurs that we need to build progressive institutions, and get progressive policies into the Overton Window and then enacted.
Universal health care is not going to come because Obama sits the players down around the big table and they suddenly, magically,**** "see the light" because of his mad negotiation skillz as an honest broker; it’s not in their interest to see what we see, and so they won’t. Universal health care may happen because of heat; if enough people can put heat on the corporations, and on their elected representatives, to make it happen. Confrontation increases voter turnout, and that can only be good for our side. And confrontation is heat, not light. Obama has it exactly backward.
Lambert goes on to use a very practical example of the kind of politics we loathe. Pelosi and Reid came on like gangbusters but capitulated easily when the High Broderites banged on them to "compromise" with the Republicans in a "bipartisan" fashion so that the new congress would get things done. The Villagers squealed about how terribly unpleasant it all is when there is so much emnity between the parties and Americans are so tired of all the fighting. Why don't the Democrats just try to give in a little to the Republicans? So, instead of putting up a spirited resistance, regardless of the fact that the numbers underpowered them, they went the compromise route, which we all knew was doomed to fail.
The Broders and the Brooks of the Village seem to be intrigued by Obama because he seems willing to play by their rules but as Lambert points out, the honeymoon would be short lived:
More importantly, we’ve given some idea, in the short history above, of how powerful, and how entrenched, the Conservative Movement has become in official Washington (the Village).*** If an election is held in 2008, and if an Democrat is elected, and is allowed to take office, and that Democrat is Obama, the Conservative Movement, and its billionaire funders, are not going to change their playbook. Why would they change what has worked out well for them? They will go right back and run the same plays that they ran when the last Democrat was elected (see Appendix I). The day that Obama touches a hair on the head of some Regent University grad who’s rewriting the work of a NASA scientist on climate change from a Christianist perspective, the howls of outrage about "hatred," and "liberal fascism," and "authoritarianism of the left," and — bless their hearts — the separation of powers are going to begin, the howling is not going to let up, and the Conservative Movement and the press are going to amplify it until Obama either caves or figures out the state legislature in Springfield was Triple-A ball, not the show, and slaps them silly. (Meanwhile, the Christianist will be all over the teebee, and if they pass, they’ll get a book deal. You know the drill.)
One commenter described an Obama nomination as a trainwreck that he feels powerless to stop.
Look, I believe that Obama's intentions are good and I will work tirelessly for him if he's nominated. And maybe if he has a solid majority in Congress, we won't need to worry so much. But I am still concerned that he may be too malleable as a relative naif when it comes to dealing with savvy political operatives. His avoidance on some politically sensitive votes strikes me as trying to appease his new politcal friends. And who would those friends be? They see a tremendously charismatic figure, easily flattered into running prematurely, who has not built up a sufficient base of allies, through working together in Congress, who would be willing or capable of supporting him during the tough calls. He would need to demonstrate extraordinary political prowess and sheer will to govern in the manner that he has been advertising. He would be beholden to the Villagers.
I see that as less of an issue with Edwards or Clinton. The two of them have some political maturity and coalitions they can call on for assistance. Edwards has the fiery rhetoric needed, although sometimes, his aim misses and he frags his own side. And Hillary knows better than any what it is like to be attacked by the Villagers and the GOP Wurlitzer. The fact that she has done as well as she has during this primary season in spite of their relentless attacks is testimony to the fact that she has learned something of how to deal with them. Throughout the primary season she has directed her attacks at Republicans and George Bush.
But Obama? He wants "enlightenment"? He wants to take the heat away? Ladies, how many times have you been winning an argument and suddenly you get taken to task for being too mean and aggressive and the second you dial it back, you lose your edge? Losing your effectivness and momentum is the price you pay for conciliation when you are dealing with bullies. Sure, keep your enemies close, find out what makes them tick but don't be afraid to put their balls in a vice when the time comes. Forget the fricking "light".
So, there you have it folks. Please read Lambert's critique. The race is tied but whoever wins Iowa may start the whole ball rolling and it might be unstoppable.
We have always had a choice.
Choose carefully.
PS: Digby captures more of this with her piece Bipartisan Zombies.