Daily Kos

Triangulation: The Next Generation

Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:08:56 AM PDT

(originally posted at correntewire)

Why is it that Barack Obama’s rhetoric sounds so strangely familiar?

Oh, I remember. There was this charming young fellow from Arkansas – what was the name of that town? Anyway, he had this awfully nice idea, about a "third way" alternative to right-left partisanship. I wonder what became of him and that darling wife of his....

Wait, yes, it’s all coming back to me. She's pursued that third-way agenda herself, in the Senate and in a run for the presidency.

And so has the man from Honolulu/Indonesia/The South Side. (If this path doesn’t lead to the White House, it certainly qualifies him for one of those "New Sanfrankota" ads.)

So, which of our frontrunners do I prefer? To use the essential word of Obama’s generation: whatever.

* * *

Anyone who thinks post-partisanship is a good campaign strategy can take solace in the similarities between Barack’s and the Big Dog’s charisma-coated chatter. It’s a proven vote-getter.

And anyone who rued Bill Clinton’s "triangulation" should feel a little uneasy.

Though no one seems to have noticed, the Republican brand is now at a very low ebb.

It’s an extraordinary opportunity to rewrite the vocabulary of the national conversation. And yet, instead of reshaping the national dialogue, The Great Likable Hope is putting a coat of gloss on the rightwing’s prodigiously destructive framing.

I mean, sure, that’s a fine idea. Why else would the Beltway pundits and helpful Republicans always recommend it?

Choosing this moment to sing Kumbaya with the GOP reassures the growing post-Boomer population that there is no institutional problem with the Conservative Movement, that they haven’t been lied to about, well, everything: "family values," "the war on terror," "trickle-down," "the death tax," etc., etc.

Living under the sway of those narratives has been such a boon for America, it would be terribly rude to awaken us from the dream that says, at the very worst, Republicans are no guiltier than Democrats and that we have no reason to doubt their sincerity in helping heal the nation’s wounds. Or that there even are any wounds bigger than what you’d pick up in a food fight.

Suggestion: if you think our problems are properly characterized that way, you have my blessing to go play Guitar Hero the rest of the day and leave the discussion to people who have, I don't know, noticed anything that's happened the past fucking seven years.

Could someone please explain how non-partisanship — fighting the urge to fight — is a good defense against big, powerful, well-funded sociopaths?

Last I heard, that was called "taking a dive." And though honeyed talk might get you the gig, it ain't going to win any fights.

Now, of course the Obamaites will tell us: "Your days are just about over. Now that's a hard motherfuckin' fact of life. But it's a fact of life your ass is gonna hafta get realistic about. See this business is filled to the brim with unrealistic motherfuckers.... How many fights you think you got left in you anyway? Two? Boxers don't have an old timer's day. You came close, but you never made it, and if you were gonna make it, you woulda made it before now.... Night of the fight, you might feel a slight sting. That's pride fuckin' with you. Fuck pride! Pride only hurts, it never helps. You fight through that shit."

That's basically the message, isn't it? Obama wants us to be his champions, but he doesn't want to be ours.

Remember us, the people who fought the conservatives in the 1960s and 1990s? Well fuck us. Fuck our pride, and fuck our fights against racism, sexism, classism, and homophobia. Fuck our defense of the separation of church and state.

Fuck everything that harshes the mellow.

'Cause it will all be worth it when some NASCAR dad thinks nice thoughts about Obama... before he punches the chad for whichever authoritarian daddy the elephants serve up in November.

* * *

I've tried my best to preserve the fantasy that it's possible to push Obama into seizing the opportunity his mediagenic demeanor might hand him. But I suppose I shouldn't hold my breath.

Among other things, he's calculatedly disassociated himself from netroots, the progressive bloggers who have hammered away and – I think – helped break through the mainstream mythology about Iraq, FISA, and much more.

Whether the lack of affinity between us is at his peril or ours remains to be seen.

Then there’s the very real possibility that we’ll all be frolicking with ponies.

Yes, the "hope" stuff is chill — the new millennium’s answer to the Boomers’ cool.

Silly us, we thought "big chill" was a pejorative!

As audaciously awesome as hope is, is it really much of a differentiator from the Clintons and their compromising centrism?

* * *

A major fancy of post-Boomers is choosing the most pleasing "skin" for their cellphones and web pages. It’s a wonderful reflection on them that Obama’s skin unreservedly pleases them.

One might grudgingly acknowledge that it also reflects well on their parents, who fought hard for civil rights in the 1960s and beyond. Oh, sorry, that was just our shameful divisive partisanship. Forget I said anything.

Obama is, without a doubt, a new-look politician and a brilliant orator. But the difference between him and Hillary is, it seems to me, skin deep.

She’s got hard-knocks going for her, and he’s got pizazz. Both are helpful, neither is sufficient.

Neither candidate has galvanized thought against today’s ruthless, valueless, corrupt, and incompetent Republican Party.

Neither candidate has recognized the implications of the public's deep distress at the Bush-enabling 110th Congress.

In 2004, some of us wondered why the public didn't catch on to the obvious advantages of the Democrats. In 2008, some of us wonder why the Democratic frontrunners don't catch up to the progressivism of the American public.

To those who see Obama as a visionary alternative to the tired politics of the 1960s and 1990s, I offer this sage word: whatever.

I have no such advice to Hillary Clinton’s supporters. They’ve seen this movie before. They know how it ends. I just wish they’d notice that a more interesting, more challenging alternative is playing in theatre #3.

Well, seeing how little difference there is between the two leading candidates does have its benefits, as this agitated Boomer settles into the rocking chair and — for once — feels downright chill.

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, 2008 elections, president, Recommended (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 550 comments

      •  It's so on... (19+ / 0-)

        ...actually, I rec'd this because it's a pretty well written rant and it seems we actually have to have this discussion (or at least attempt it)...

        ...and getting thru 1/3 of the thread I had yet to see a pie fight, which bodes well.

        "The revolution's just an ethical haircut away..." Billy Bragg

        by grannyhelen on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:35:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Misunderstanding Obama (7+ / 0-)

        And anyone who rued Bill Clinton’s "triangulation" should feel a little uneasy.

        Anyone who mistakes Obama's style for "triangulation" is misunderstanding him.

        Just because he does not pander directly to us here on dKos with red-meat rhetoric does not mean he is selling out progressivism.

        He has arguably the most progressive record of any of the leading 3 Dem contenders -- measured by actual achievement, not by words.

        His approach is pitched to appeal to lots of people -- but to win them over to our side, not to water down our agenda.  This is, frankly, exactly what Ronald Reagan did, but from the opposite side (and in service to a very regressive, harmful agenda).

        As I wrote the other day:

        Something important to note about his work with Republicans: It is not the all-too-familiar DLC model of endless triangulation and surrender.  Instead, Obama seems to form working relationships on particular issues with Republicans who hold moderate views (at least on the issue in question).  In other words, he builds issue-specific coalitions across the aisle, rather than selling our party out in the name of "compromise".  If anyone should be mad about this, it's the GOP -- because he seems to be very good at peeling off the moderates from the hard-core conservatives!

        •  I'll believe it when I see it (11+ / 0-)

          In the meantime, I remain very, very skeptical.

          I will vote without hesitation for the eventual Democratic nominee in November (though decidedly less enthusiastically for Hillary Clinton than anyone else), but until then I strongly support another "Third Way".

        •  The diarist should have bothered to read Obama's (5+ / 0-)

          views before writing this misled diary:

          The bottom line is that our job is harder than the conservatives' job.  After all, it's easy to articulate a belligerent foreign policy based solely on unilateral military action, a policy that sounds tough and acts dumb; it's harder to craft a foreign policy that's tough and smart.  It's easy to dismantle government safety nets; it's harder to transform those safety nets so that they work for people and can be paid for.  It's easy to embrace a theological absolutism; it's harder to find the right balance between the legitimate role of faith in our lives and the demands of our civic religion.  But that's our job.  And I firmly believe that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, or oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose.  Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose.  A polarized electorate that is turned off of politics, and easily dismisses both parties because of the nasty, dishonest tone of the debate, works perfectly well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government because, in the end, a cynical electorate is a selfish electorate.

          Let me be clear: I am not arguing that the Democrats should trim their sails and be more "centrist."  In fact, I think the whole "centrist" versus "liberal" labels that continue to characterize the debate within the Democratic Party misses the mark.  Too often, the "centrist" label seems to mean compromise for compromise sake, whereas on issues like health care, energy, education and tackling poverty, I don't think Democrats have been bold enough.  But I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don't work very well.... Finally, I am not arguing that we "unilaterally disarm" in the face of Republican attacks, or bite our tongue when this Administration screws up.  Whenever they are wrong, inept, or dishonest, we should say so clearly and repeatedly; and whenever they gear up their attack machine, we should respond quickly and forcefully.  I am suggesting that the tone we take matters, and that truth, as best we know it, be the hallmark of our response.  

          My dear friend Paul Simon used to consistently win the votes of much more conservative voters in Southern Illinois because he had mastered the art of "disagreeing without being disagreeable," and they trusted him to tell the truth.  Similarly, one of Paul Wellstone's greatest strengths was his ability to deliver a scathing rebuke of the Republicans without ever losing his sense of humor and affability.  In fact, I would argue that the most powerful voices of change in the country, from Lincoln to King, have been those who can speak with the utmost conviction about the great issues of the day without ever belittling those who opposed them, and without denying the limits of their own perspectives.

          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          The only way to doubt Obama as a progressive is if (a) one ignores that he has the most consistently progressive legislative record, or (b) if one assumes that he must be so dishonest that his progressive record was just a smokescreen so he could later try to move the party to the center.  Anyone who is such a poor judge of empirical data or such a poor judge of character is deserving of pity, and hurts the progressive agenda.

          Obama/McCaskill vs. McCain/Jindal? Call it a funny feeling.

          by ShadowSD on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 12:01:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  that is a terrific link (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            ShadowSD

            to Obamas words here. What a great candidate.

          •  It's Appeasement to Me (5+ / 0-)

            How is he on the rule of law?  Will he call the current theives, liars, and murderers on their crimes?  Can Justice ever be served if nobody stands up for it?

            I am sorely disappointed at our credulity, our gullibility, our lack of temerity on these matters.

            I recall reading (in Think and Grow Rich!) about how Samuel Adams forced the issue of the day in 1775 or so when he strongly rejected some Lord's overtures to stop protesting and receive amnesty from the king.  He drew a hard line and basically offended the Lord, inciting, sparking the coming foment in a violent direction!

            We need to do that here.  I am of the "No Prisoners!" faction of the Party, myself.  I cannot understand appeasement, and for all Obama's talk, it looks, walks, and quacks like appeasement.

            Poverty, Healthcare, and all are fine.  What about Justice?

            •  If you want your pound of flesh it will be a long (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Bluesee

              wait... I'm afraid... That is life... The heat will lose more issues than win...

              •  Classic, classic Oborg speak.... (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                alizard

                ......The heat will lose more issues than win...

                Who told you that?

                And why do you believe it?

                Chill out dude, twist yer iPod to 'Future's so Bright I gotta wear shades!' and stay mellow.

                Stay a doormat for the ReichWing.

                Stay silent in the face of Fascism.

                Stay silent in the face of becoming a corporate slave.

                Or as I understand had become the motto for the Oborg give a rousing 'Whatever' and go back to being 'good with it....'

                'I'm writing as Nestor since scoop in it's awesome wisdom won't let me use my real screen name: A.Citizen'

                by Nestor Makhnow on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 02:51:19 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  The refusal to look into high-level GOP crime (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                vastleft

                in previous Administrations gave us the Bush policy people like Rumsfeld and Cheney whose lies and ineptitude gave us the War on Iraq and other bad policies that have put a lot of money into the bank accounts of friends of Bushco. Remember BCCI?

                You want a future administration full of corrupt thugs? A Democratic party letting "bygones be bygones", stridinhttp://www.history.com/minisites/life_after_people
                g forth towards a "bi-partisan" future is the best way to guarantee it.

                Politics is more than just making sure your candidates win. Your desire to give corrupt thugs in suits a break instead of putting them as permanently as possible using the courts and the prisons and the national interest are two very different things.

                Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                by alizard on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:24:46 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Sheesh - the big brains on parade... (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            ShadowSD

            This is some weighty prose... I am humbled to be around thinkers of this magnitude.  This is what gives me hope - a lot of smart people out there.

            thanks....

          •  Right. You couldn't possibly be making (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            ZhenRen, crazyshirley2100

            a mistake, and everyone who disagrees with you must be completely deluded.  There's simply no other possible explanation!  Brilliant!

            /snark

            There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious...that you've got to put your bodies on the gears...and make it stop. -- Mario Savio

            by Boston Boomer on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:03:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  His Record (0+ / 0-)

            How is his record more liberal than the other 2 candidates of obsession here?  I hear this all the time, but I do not see it in the voting record.  I have not looked very hard at his state record, but to be liberal in Illinois is not very difficult.  
            Just asking for data...

            "He who fears something gives it power over him."--Arab proverb

            by crazyshirley2100 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:25:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I notice you didn't bold this part... (4+ / 0-)

            But I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don't work very well....

            Sounds an awful like Bill Clinton rhetoric to me...but maybe you're not old enough to remember that.

            John McCain doesn't think kids need health insurance

            by katerina on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:36:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sounds an awful like Bill Clinton rhetoric (3+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              grannyhelen, alizard, marina

              It sure does. Here's a sample of the way Bill used to talk "way back when".

              Bill Clinton, the boy wonder of the Democratic Party when elected governor at age thirty in 1978, became the preeminent voice on education reform, emphasizing private sector involvement rather than massive new federal panaceas. For that reason Clinton was invited to Bush Sr's 1990 State of the Union speech. Bush put his stamp on the education reform Clinton had helped develop in concert with both Republican and Democratic governors, who acknowledged that massive amounts of new federal money were not the answer.

              This put Clinton at odds with an angry Ted Kennedy. He recalls that Kennedy took him aside and lectured about the evils of dealing with the Republicans because they were the enemy: "He said, 'Bush is trying to be the education president and is trying to minimize his own responsibility. Those of us trying to fund these programs feel we are being boxed in because you guys are giving your credibility over to him.' He was pretty critical of that. I understand where he was coming from, but I told him Bush was the only president we got.

              Matt Bai had an interview with Bill Clinton published in the New York Times Magazine about a month ago, and Bill, bristling at the charge that he "will just say and support anything in order to get elected", responded by saying, "Oh no, I really believe that stuff."
              "That stuff" appears to be anti-government, private sector involvement, Republican stuff.

              •  when histories of our time are written (0+ / 0-)

                a century from now, historians will lump Reagan, Clinton, Ford and both Bushes together as people whose common neoliberalist and deregulatory economic philosophy got America into the oncoming Second Great Depression.

                Bi-partisan indeed.

                Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                by alizard on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:27:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  I don't cede "some programs don't work well" to (0+ / 0-)

              Bill Clinton anymore than I would cede the concept of "bipartisanism" to Joe Lieberman because he claims it, or the concept of "compassion" to George W. Bush because he ran on it.  Just because someone uses a set of words to a negative end doesn't mean that rhetoric can now only lead to that negative end.  If we're that willing to surrender great swaths of language and ideas to those who have fought progressive principles, pretty soon we'll be out of words, and the other side will own them all.  I'm old enough to remember Bill Clinton, and I'm also old enough to know that particularly in politics, two candidates who use similar language are not necessarily anything alike, especially if one is lying; Rove's entire 2000 strategy was based on running on Democratic issues like better education and prescription drug benefits.  Sure, maybe there are some people out there who will no longer trust any candidate who runs on better education and health care because of Bush's false rhetoric - but that would be sad if that was the case.

              Obama/McCaskill vs. McCain/Jindal? Call it a funny feeling.

              by ShadowSD on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:20:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I'd be interesting in knowing (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            grannyhelen, marina

            exactly what programs he thinks don't work well.

            But I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don't work very well....

            There is no way to peace. Peace is the way. - Mahatma Gandhi

            by otis704 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 02:12:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  This is what bothers me (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            formernadervoter

            He says this:

            ...Whenever they are wrong, inept, or dishonest, we should say so clearly and repeatedly; and whenever they gear up their attack machine, we should respond quickly and forcefully. I am suggesting that the tone we take matters, and that truth, as best we know it, be the hallmark of our response.  

            But also this:

            ...a belligerent foreign policy based solely on unilateral military action...

            It's not a "foreign policy based solely on unilateral military action"
            It's a WAR CRIME. A crime against humanity.
            But Obama wants to use euphemisms.

            This distresses me. And I like the guy.

            •  Since unprovoked "unilateral military action" IS (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              formernadervoter, marina

              a war crime, I find the term to be distressing on its face without any additional rhetoric; I don't think it's a euphemism, although it's not the most plain spoken way to say things.  But I do think we run into trouble when every example of eloquence is interpreted as a sign of indirectness.  One can be forceful and also address complexity; indeed, one MUST be able to do both to defeat Republicans, as his first paragraph in the excerpt articulates in detail.

              Obama/McCaskill vs. McCain/Jindal? Call it a funny feeling.

              by ShadowSD on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:10:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think Obama is so misunderstood.... (6+ / 0-)

          And from what I can see his message only sounds new to people who are new to messages, respectfully. His elbows are very much in the game and they're sharp. The world isn't in the shape it's in because no one ever thought of getting along before...I'm not voting against Obama and look forward to voting for him on his next time around.

          HR 676 is the best health reform proposal worth my vote.

          by kck on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 12:03:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  How many Repubs hold moderate views. (7+ / 0-)

          Both the Republican and Democratic Congress kissed Bush's ass, gave the spoiled ass brat everything he wanted. Nothing "moderate" in that.

          Bush's administration has been full of criminals for eight years, still is. How many big heads have rolled? Libby, Karl and the whole crooked bunch are still walking the streets and no one has been held accountable for the Bush administration crimes.

          The Dems are now in charge and Bush is still doing business as usual.

          It's time for a fight, not an ass kissing contest with Republicans.

      •  This is the best diary I've read in ages! (5+ / 0-)

        There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious...that you've got to put your bodies on the gears...and make it stop. -- Mario Savio

        by Boston Boomer on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:00:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Skin. (7+ / 0-)

    Idiocy:

    A major fancy of post-Boomers is choosing the most pleasing "skin" for their cellphones and web pages. It’s a wonderful reflection on them that Obama’s skin unreservedly pleases them.

    it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses | Buy M.I.A.'s Kala! (No, really. Please!)

    by Addison on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:11:06 AM PDT

  •  Fighting the last war . . . (15+ / 0-)

    I am a trailing edge Baby Boomer and maybe I can accept that the next generation intend to reject BOTH the Left leaning Boomers AND the Right leaning Boomers.

    If Barack Obama drew a line in the sand and Harry Reid stepped across it, then what?

    by Bill White on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:11:30 AM PDT

    •  Do you mind that Obama is repudiating... (23+ / 0-)

      ... the fights of the the 1960s and 1990s? The fights against Jim Crow, Nixon, and Newt Gingrich?

      •  Go read his book or something. (11+ / 0-)

        He's not conceding defeat in any of those fights.  He's saying they should no longer be the defining facts, the be-all and end-all, of our politics.

        We're moving on to fixing health care, sane tax and energy policies, clean and open government, etc.

        Their number is negligible and they are stupid. -- Eisenhower

        by Pegasus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:19:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sure, and we were greeted as liberators (7+ / 0-)

        •  "Move on...this country is beyond all that... (15+ / 0-)

          ...we'll get nowhere if we keep living in the past."

          Same kind of thinking that's used to argue against affirmative action.

        •  Which would be nice, (17+ / 0-)

          provided those fights were actually won. Which they aren't, which is why the ''moving beyond'' rhetoric has some distinctly nasty connotations, such as letting Republicans off the hook for political gain.

          Omne malum nascens facile opprimitur, inveteratum fit plerumque robustius. - Cicero

          by Dauphin on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:54:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Poor phrasing on my part, true. (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Dauphin

            We can do much more than only fighting those fights.  How's that?

            Re: "letting Republicans off the hook", I'd like to see anybody other than Kucinich who is talking about accountability in any real way.

            Their number is negligible and they are stupid. -- Eisenhower

            by Pegasus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:57:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Much of What's Wrong is the Repeal of Past Wins (6+ / 0-)

            As in, much of the New Deal.

            Kids would be a lot better off if we'd not been forced back on education support, minimum wage, outsourcing, pension regulation, loan usury.

            We could do a hell of a lot worse than re-establish the policies of the past that never failed but succeeded beyond the wildest Biblical prophecies until they were demolished by conservative conquest.

            We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

            by Gooserock on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:00:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  That would be the 10 year old book? (16+ / 0-)

          Come on.

          I'd rather listen carefully to what Obama's saying today. And he's sending dogwhistle after dogwhistle to the right.

          To my mind, the real killer in the Reagan quote was that lulu against the "excesses" of the 60s and 70s.

          Which "excesses" would those be? The Civil Rights movement? Feminism?

          And I won't mention drugs... Since that would be a wash, eh? Given the biographies of many.

          Excesses, my Sweet Aunt Fanny.

          [x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

          by lambertstrether on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:01:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Say 'no' to Boomers and whistles (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Pegasus

            I know it's hard to hear this after congratulating yourself for the past 30 years, but Boomers did not win the civil rights struggle. Neither Dr. King, nor those who participated in the Montgomery bus boycott in 1955, the freedom riders in 1961, or even the vast majority of those who marched on Washinton in 1963 were boomers(even then, the oldest were still in high school.)

            The 60s anti-war movement failed to quicken the end the Viet Nam war, let alone prevent subsequent wars, but it was successful in reciprocally hardening public support of catastrophic cold war excesses by the right.

            What you hear as a "dogwistle," is not really one at all because you and most Americans can hear it just fine. Obama's message is an open rejection of the doctrinal language of the right and left wing from the 20th Century. The message is aimed at the mainstream of the Democratic party and at mainstream America.

            •  OK, fair enough (6+ / 0-)

              I was reacting poorly against the "excesses" thing. It's clear that the Boomers didn't do the heavy lifting.

              But we did keep the fight up, and we kept fighting the good fight through the years of the Southern strategy.

              As for the anti-war movement... That's just bogus. Links please. (I'm not an OFB, so I'll be nice and not just call you an outright "liar," mkay?)

              As for the "self-congratulatory" aspect, I generally don't give this generational shit a second thought. I can go for literally years without thinking of myself as Boomer (and the earlier ones got all the good acid anyhow).

              But Obama poked a stick in my eye -- using a generational theme first given mainstream coverage by Conservative writer Andrew Sullivan, I might add -- and so there's pushback. I assume he's getting what he wanted (and so much for Unity and respect, eh? Only seems to work one way, what a surprise).

              And I hear the open message just fine. It's just wrong. It's naively suicidal. The magical Unity Pony doesn't exist. It's going to take Obama a year or so to discover that, of course, so here's hoping the country can hold out that long.

              [x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

              by lambertstrether on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 12:17:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sorry, but (0+ / 0-)

                I didn't want to insult your knowledge of history, but it appears I have to point out that the war didn't end until 1975, 12 years after the anti-war movement began.
                In the meantime, the U.S. built up the military to unprecedented levels, got involved in wars in Chile and Angola and elected Nixon, twice.

                Perhaps I shouldn't have been so critical of Boomers, but Obama's point has always been that generation doesn't matter as much as the Baby Boom Generation has made it out to, and whether or not you burned your draft card doesn't matter as much as it may have in previous elections. Sullivan's great article in December's Atlantic was not the first mention of generation in this race, and it unfortunately won't be the last.

                When you criticize the possibility of collaboration, calling it a "unity pony" you are promoting the continuing trend to partisanship and gridlock in our politics. I'm not interested in failures that blame the other side with the most vigor. I'm interested in successes.

                •  Better gridlock than accommodation (0+ / 0-)

                  Only Dems like Obama plan to be accommodating. Good luck getting the GOP to reciprocate.

                  Bill Maher:

                  When they say Democrats are obstructionists, you say:

                  "You're welcome. Sometimes good people have to intercede to prevent dire consequences. You wouldn't like to think of ME as an obstructionist, but what if Roseanne had offered to sing? So I would be happy to frame this debate as a fight between the obstructionists and the enablers." There's your talking point: "Vote Republican and you vote to enable George Bush to keep ruling as an emperor. A retarded child emperor, but an emperor."

                  •  OK thats fine... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...as long as you are open about your opposition to solving America's problems. I am happy to oppose you when you agree with Tom Delay that "bipartisanship equals date rape."

                    As for me, I will keep fighting for getting medical coverage for all kids, and then everyone; reforming our national energy and environmental policy; ending the war responsibly. Feel free to oppose it if you want because its not in a version of a solution to each issue that only you and 5% of Americans would support.

                    •  Congrats on your superior holiness! (2+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      lambertstrether, marina

                      Sad that it's lost on you that the people who said "bipartisanship is date rape" (it was Grover Norquist, BTW), are the ones that Obama wants to be bipartisanship with.

                      My mama always told me not share drinks with confessed date rapists.

                    •  "... as long as you are open..." (0+ / 0-)

                      .. about your opposition to solving America's problems."

                      Cute! What a twister! Points on style, at least. But then Obama's always been good on style.

                      [x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

                      by lambertstrether on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:07:51 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  "as much as the Baby Boom Generation has ... (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  vastleft

                  ... made it out to?"

                  Believe me, I didn't give a thought to it until Bareback Andy stuck a thumb in my eye about it, I saw which way the wind was blowing, and then Obama and his fans gave me the big Fuck You by studding his vacuous rhetoric with Republican talking points.

                  My attitude now is, that if that's how the OFB wants it, they can deal with the pushback.

                  Funny how Unity only applied to Republicans, wasn't it? How short lived some dreams turn out to be. Ah, the ironies of life.

                  [x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

                  by lambertstrether on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:06:28 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Same here (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    lambertstrether

                    I hadn't thought that there was an us vs. them issue between generations until Obama and his conservative supporters defined the race in those terms, and the OFB decided that this campaign was a referendum on the Woodstock Generation.

                    •  Those who drank Andy Sullivan's poisoned KoolAid (0+ / 0-)

                      believe it.

                      It's an easy riff for the lazy to run, and fits in with a lot of media narratives.

                      Most of the younger people I know are are a lot more savvy, particularly about being maninpulated.

                      But they're not here.

                      [x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

                      by lambertstrether on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:03:37 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Aimed for the mainstream Democratic party (0+ / 0-)

              and mainstream America. Isn't that what the DLC said?

            •  Sorry to contradict you, because I'm sure (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              grannyhelen

              you studied hard in history class, but I'm a leading edge boomer.  I was in HS when MLK marched on Washington, and quite a large number of my African American classmates did attend the march.  

              There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious...that you've got to put your bodies on the gears...and make it stop. -- Mario Savio

              by Boston Boomer on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 02:09:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  What did you do to stop the Iraq war? (0+ / 0-)

              What have you and Barack done to end it?  Anyway, your candidate came in second again today.  I think his hopes are going down the tubes, so I'll try to show you a little compassion.

              There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious...that you've got to put your bodies on the gears...and make it stop. -- Mario Savio

              by Boston Boomer on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 02:11:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Uncivil (0+ / 0-)

                I hope your comments ("going down the tubes") put to bed anyone's argument that the Obama supporters are the ones who engage in uncivil comments.

                •  Hey, I've been yelled at by (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  vastleft

                  so many Obama supporters that I'm practically deaf.  What I said was mild in comparison.  

                  But...nice job of avoiding answering my question about what you and your candidate have done to end the Iraq war.  

                  I've noticed Obama supporters can really dish it out, but they can't take it.  And they usually ignore try to wiggle out of answering uncomfortable questions.  

                  You had some harsh things to say about my "generation."  I couldn't care less about generational rivalries.  My belief is that we are all in this together and we should hang together for the comment good.  I don't like the politics of division that Obama is pushing.  But I'll still vote for him if he's the nominee of my party.  But today I've seen quite a few Obama supporters talking about supporting Bloomberg is Obama loses.  Do you defend that?

                  There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious...that you've got to put your bodies on the gears...and make it stop. -- Mario Savio

                  by Boston Boomer on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 03:55:40 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  The War (0+ / 0-)

                What have you and Barack done to end it?

                More than John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, combined. Unlike them we both opposed the war since 2002. So who are you supporting?

          •  It was published in 1995, so it's (0+ / 0-)

            12-13 years old.  I picked up the more recent one yesterday so I could find out what Obama said about Reagan in his book.  

            There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious...that you've got to put your bodies on the gears...and make it stop. -- Mario Savio

            by Boston Boomer on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 02:06:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  When the Republicans say it, (0+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            marina

            it means dirty hippies, drugs, and demonstrations.

            There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious...that you've got to put your bodies on the gears...and make it stop. -- Mario Savio

            by Boston Boomer on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 02:14:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  You must be confusing Obama (7+ / 0-)

          with John Edwards.

          We're moving on to fixing health care, sane tax and energy policies, clean and open government, etc.

          "Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." Robert F. Kennedy

          by enough already on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:05:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Read??? You are asking too much of these people! (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Pegasus

          I have yet to find anyone who has read Dreams of My Father and not fully understood what Obama stands for. It is one of the best and most sincere political autobiographies of the past 100 years. It was that book, not his 2004 convention speech, that made me realize that Barack Obama was a once in a lifetime candidate. (Well, adult lifetime - I was five when JFK ran.)

          Fired Up and Ready to Go!

          Keep your eyes on the prize.

          by Better Days on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:24:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm sorry, but the last 100 years?? (0+ / 0-)

            If you actually believe that, well, I'd better just let it go at that.

            There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious...that you've got to put your bodies on the gears...and make it stop. -- Mario Savio

            by Boston Boomer on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 02:19:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Pegasus, you can't "move on" (18+ / 0-)

          while the battles you propose to move on past are still in progress.

          --Jim Crow is dead on paper but I suggest you go look at relevant statistics on racial disparities in everything from income to lifespan if you think Mr. Crow is a' mould'rin' in the grave.

          --Explore the resumes of the current and recently highest members of the Bush administration/staff and you will see service in the Nixon administration on nearly all who are old enough, suggesting that Tricky Dick still lingers on in spirit form.

          --And Newt Gingrigh is still out there kicking the culture (and Overton Window if you're aquainted with the term) to the right through speeches and books, including one to rewrite the Civil War to an outcome he finds more advantageous. So he doesn't go in the "safe to move on from" category either.

          There are a few more of these "old-timey" issues that remain on the table as battles to be fought. Privacy, anyone? Rule of law? Use of the US Department of Justice to prosecute crimes, not harass one's political enemies? Warrantless wiretapping? Intermingling of political campaigns with government operations? Raping the treasury to pour blood in pointless wars based on lies?

          One could go on.  

          I think you may be tripping over Vastleft's phrasing of the Crow, Dick and Newt fights as being "of" the "1960s and 1990s." He means that's how long those fights have been going on since, not that they are somehow over and done with today.

          Conclusion: We need bare-knuckle, knock-down,severely political and fiercely partisan actions in Washington now more than at any time before. And that's just to get back to the level of government malfeasance seen at the end of the 20th century for chrissake.

          We can't get on with any kind of progress--no, don't start to argue, we simply can't--until these issues are addressed and the mess cleaned up. Airly waving one's hand and proclaiming that the solution is "postpartisanship" or, worse yet, "Unity," is not only anathema to everything good America has ever stood for, it is the most boneheaded move imaginable. You leave an army of orcs at your back.

          Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?

          by Xan on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:34:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Are you referring to (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          marina

          The Audacity of Hope? Because I have read it, and it's one of the reasons why I could never vote for Obama. It a horrible book, filled with empty phrases, historical revisionism, and awful policy prescriptions.

          And I was relieved to find that I wasn't the only person to react that way to his book. Here's one of my favorite reviews,entitled Obama's Audacious Deference to Power.

          Oh well--it looks at this point as if neither Obama nor Edwards is going to get the nomination, so there's no point in our arguing.

          •  Obama really should have saved (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            grannyhelen

            his lionizing of Ronnie Reagan until after he got the nomination.  They have been running that footage constantly on MSNBC today and asking everyone and his brother about it.

            There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious...that you've got to put your bodies on the gears...and make it stop. -- Mario Savio

            by Boston Boomer on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 02:22:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah, it was kind of like (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Boston Boomer

              Clinton's vote for Kyl-Lieberman, which almost killed her nomination. They're supposed to save that kind of stuff until after they've hornswoggled us Democrats into voting for them.

            •  agreed - even this lefty partisan who can't (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              marina

              stand what Reagan did to this country would have cut him more slack for this if he had done it in the GE.

              Party Primaries are supposed to be about...you know...the Party.

              "The revolution's just an ethical haircut away..." Billy Bragg

              by grannyhelen on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 02:35:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I wouldn't have like it even then. (0+ / 0-)

                But it was incredibly stupid for him to do it during the Democratic primaries.  Sure it got him the newspaper endorsement, but he needs at least a few Democratic votes in order to win.

                There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious...that you've got to put your bodies on the gears...and make it stop. -- Mario Savio

                by Boston Boomer on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 03:49:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  I reject the word repudiate (8+ / 0-)

        After all, Vietnam is a valuable trading partner today. If the son of a US Marine makes a business deal with the daughter of a NVA officer, does either repudiate their parents?

        If I drive a Honda automobile do I dis-respect the men who died at Bataan?

        = = =

        Unless post-Boomer righties are in lock-step with their Boomer rightie ancestors why should post-Boomer lefties be trapped in the old frames?

        Many of the battles you mention have been won.

        = = =

        Fleetwood Mac was a great band. But a reunion tour is a reunion tour.

        If Barack Obama drew a line in the sand and Harry Reid stepped across it, then what?

        by Bill White on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:23:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]