Slamming The Gate Shut

I think it's unfortunate that many in the netroots seem intent on destroying  their own movement. That the preachers of "people-powered politics" don't recognize a people-powered campaign when it's right in front of them. Worse yet, when given a real choice between the Democratic establishment that we've been attempting to reform, and the new generation - too many are failing to recognize the choice.

Kid Oakland's diary outlined Barack Obama's commitment to the 50 State Strategy, building the party in places where no other Democratic Presidential candidate has been.

I live in a state where we haven't voted for a Democrat since LBJ. And, yeah, it's real easy to write off Nebraska, which I guess would explain why Bill Clinton never set foot in our state until the very last year of his second term. But when Ben Nelson was running for re-election in 2006, there was Barack Obama, speaking at a Baptist Church in heavily African American North Omaha. There he was, even then, making the argument that we can't ignore anyone. We cannot afford to write anyone off.

And yet the message is being missed. The clear choice between a candidate who speaks in "We"s and the candidate who speaks in "I"s. The candidate who speaks for change and the candidate who speaks for "experience." The candidate who opposed the war from the start and the candidate who converted shortly before she announced. The candidate for all Americans and the candidate for just the ones who voted for her.

A number of people have taken the wrong lessons from Karl Rove and the Republican Party. From decades of below-the-belt hits and dirty politics. From partisan witchhunts and a generation of Democratic political consultants who pushed the party to the right. They forget who runs the party that refused to fight back at the moments we needed it most.

The new generation of the Democratic Party saw the last twenty years and said: enough. Enough of the politics of fear. Enough of the slime, the mudslinging, and the outright lies. Enough of "swiftboating," enough of the distortions. Enough. They said: We can do better than this.

The establishment lesson from Karl Rove was quite the opposite: We can do this better.

Right now, Obama is trying to crash the gate. Right now, Clinton and the Democratic establishment are trying to slam the gate shut. Anyone who believes Hillary Clinton represents a long-term Democratic majority better take a long look at who will be running the party if she gets the nomination.

•  Tip Jar

  My pledge to vote for the Democratic nominee means little. The Democratic nominee will not win in Nebraska. I recognize which candidate will work to build a party in all 50 states, rather than ignore or write off a state. That candidate is clearly not Hillary Clinton.

  by ptmflbcs on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:55:35 PM PDT

  •  Before I liked Obama and Edwards

    Hillary Clinton was my 4th choice.

    After the past 2 weeks and especially Monday night I am a confirmed Hillary Hater.

    The question is how do we stop her?

    by FishOutofWater on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:58:05 PM PDT

    •  Well for one thing...

      We stop caring about petty things and feeding right into Hillary's narrative. The Reagan thing was fed by Hillary, and the netroots ate it up. Even though what he was saying was completely accurate and not at all opposed to the goals of the netroots. Out of context quotes are the Clinton campaign's game. We'd do well to actually recognize when they're deceiving us.

      by ptmflbcs on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:00:32 PM PDT

    •  "hate" is really just so ugly, isn't it? n/t

      by aggieric on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:02:05 PM PDT

      •  The Clintons' act has been vile

        Race baiting, voter disenfranchisement, lies, innuendo and even a Bush-like smirk have been displayed by Hillary Clinton. She is ripping the Democratic coalition apart in an effort to stop Obama.

        Hillary Clinton is running using the same tactics as George W. Bush.

        by FishOutofWater on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:08:25 PM PDT

    •  campaign like hell

      (for either obama or edwards - it's all good.)

      supermegatuesday is less than two weeks away.  22 states - one is sure to be near you.

      make some calls. knock on some doors. have a party. do visibility on the streets. talk to your friends. twist some arms.

      that's how it's done.

      so get out and do it!

      by zeke L on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:03:01 PM PDT

    •  How do we stop her?

      By not hating her.  The thing that drove the Republicans insane was that the more they hated Bill Clinton, the more he beat them and kept beating them.

      With Hillary, New Hampshire is your best example of that.  The hatred went so far over the top, all over the media, that women backlashed hard.

      It will happen again and again.  

      You have to understand her, give her a fair due, and then show how much more attractive other candidates are.

      Hillary Hatred feeds the beast.  Her campaign knows this.  Why do you think they keep the petty squabbles alive?

      by stephdray on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:28:38 PM PDT

    •  And there's this...

      Hillary Clinton is the preferred Dem candidate by repugs and the corporate media.

      I said it before- Rupert Murdoch supports Hillary Clinton because either:

      #1 Rupert Murdoch is a red-blooded true USA patriot who wants what is best for his adopted country, and would give his life to defend the USA >OR<:</p>

      #2 Rupert Murdoch expects Hillary Clinton to line his pockets with money just like her hubby did in 1996.

      All Hillary Clinton supporters should ask exactly WHY the anti-USA corporate elite WANTS Hillary Clinton to be the Dem nominee.

      >I<don't have to ask- I ALREADY KNOW the answer.</p>

      Obama supporters need to ask exactly WHY Obama is the ONLY alternate choice that the anti-USA corporate elite is willing to tolerate.

      The corporate media has blacked-out Edwards and Kucinich. WHY? (Democratic HilBama supporters NEED to ask why!) (But they WON'T!!!!!)

      So if my choice in November 2008 is between a corporate approved dem nominee and a corporate approved repug nominee, MY choice is either:

      #1: Vote for the corporate approved HilBama Dem nominee, and see the same avalanche of USA jobs continuing to go overseas, OR:

      #2 Vote for the corporate approved repug nominee and see those same jobs go overseas only slightly faster, but knowing that the badly needed second revolution will happen sooner if the corporate approved repug is made preznit.

      So I will vote for a repug traitor before I will vote for the HilBama traitors.

      At least a repug traitor will hurt enough USA citizens fast enough to trigger the badly needed second revolution.

      HilBama will only serve their corporate masters to palliate the ignorant masses, and prevent the revolution required to take our country back.

         

      by last patriot left on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:04:32 AM PDT

•  If by Obama "crashing the gate" you mean

  "undercutting any message of progessivism by constantly pandering to disaffected Republicans" then, yeah, I agree.

  The fact that so many Obama supporters here have said they'd rather vote for McCain than Hillary tells me all I need to know about his campaign's true essence.

  by Jim J on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:59:32 PM PDT

  •  Oh no!!!

    God forbid we get Republicans to join our party!

    Then we might actually, I don't know, win!

    by ptmflbcs on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:01:19 PM PDT

  •  I hope you

    haven't confused "supporters" with the candidate. I am for Edwards but I have seen Obama and heard his message it was good. Some of his supporters (groupies) were there and ruined it for some of those who had been attendiing the event he spoke to and literally crashed the event and tried to force conference attendees from their seats. That though was not Obama's message nor the impression I got from him. He will be my second choice after Edwards

    by utopia on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:05:36 PM PDT

    •  people are

      more excited about a candidate than any since RFK, and somehow it's a bad thing?  sure, words/speeches aren't the ballgame, but they are not to be discounted.  See:  "Ask not what your country can do for you....."  ETC

      by Charlie T on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:16:31 PM PDT

  •  Isn't attracting disaffected Republicans what we

    want?  Or do you want the entire country to stay in GWB Hell just to pay for their past stupidity?  Or what?

    I've got loved ones who are Republicans, and I can't think of anything more lovely than their being disaffected and voting for Obama!

    by spotDawa on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:21:12 PM PDT

    •  Dang hyperbole

      I went over the top there.  I can thing of many things "more lovely" than politics of any stripe.  But you know what I was getting at.

      by spotDawa on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:29:44 PM PDT

•  Nobody

  is going to crash any gates.

  Nobody will get impeached for lies, wars of aggression, malfeasance, war profiteering, or any of the other evils of early 21st century America.

  The revolution will not be webcast.

  by tiggers thotful spot on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:04:07 PM PDT

•  I really don't get it either.

  Obama builds his campaign precisely on Howard Dean's trailblazing campaign. He figures out that Dean's failure was far more about message than process and alters that accordingly. He brings in top-notch consultants to deal with the 4th estate, which any modern campaign absolutely must do. He energizes young people in numbers Dean could only dream about. He brings in the formerly apathetic. It lulls independents and even some Republicans. He runs everywhere. Can you believe that Barack Obama got more votes in northern rural Nevada than ANYONE else, Republican or Democrat?

  Yet, Democrats, being the suicidal losers they are, decide to nominate someone who represents EXACTLY the kind of politics that spawned the netroots backlash in the first place. They decide to, again, nominate a candidate people don't like, to run a campaign on the margins of the electorate, and scratch and claw for every little tiny vote in a handfull of states instead of running everywhere. They brand themselves as the anti-war party, then nominate someone who voted for the war.

  I just don't get it.

  by brooklynbadboy on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:05:38 PM PDT

  •  Couldn't have said it better myself

    How you go from Howard Dean to Hillary Clinton is a true mystery to me.

    by Descrates on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:08:05 PM PDT

•  I don't understand how Hillary suddenly became

  acceptable to the liberal blogosphere.  All I heard for years was how much of a sell-out she was.  Talk about liberals wanting to lose.  If she becomes president, it will be a bigger blow to the progressive movement since Bush's reelection.

  by Descrates on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:11:17 PM PDT

•  Exactly!!!

  I've been thinking this for days.  Thanks for giving voice to the obvious irony of supporting the status quo candidate on DKos.

  by spotDawa on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:19:00 PM PDT

•  Uncrashing the gates, indeed

  Hillary Rodham Clinton and her team are an utter repudiation of what the netroots have worked for. If she's the nominee, expect to see the return of the business model of the 1990s: a top-down Democratic Party in which only those with fat wallets or Beltway addresses will be listened to.

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:26:01 PM PDT

•  Ask Jerome about "Crashing the Gate"

  MyDD has turned into a 24/7 Obama bashfest with Jerome leading the way.

  Jerome in bed with the DLC. Please don't post the pictures.

  by Bob Johnson on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:31:21 PM PDT

  •  The same DLC that calls us the "nutroots"

    The mind boggles.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:32:35 PM PDT

    •  What is it with him?

      Is he pissed because the Obama campaign hired a bunch of Warner's people and he was left behind?

      by Bob Johnson on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:39:35 PM PDT

•  Thank You

    Early on I didn't pay much attention. Sure I read the Diary's and I basically knew what was going on but I thought Gore would get in so it was all noise to me since he was my clear choice.

     When Gore didn't enter the race I was left trying to decide between Obama and Edwards. My first inclination was Edwards because according to the blogs (which I trusted) he was the only true progressive.
   
     Finally, about a month ago, I started to actually pay attention and, like you, I just don't get it!
   
    Obama makes a statement that he didn't choose to be a trial lawyer but rather a civil rights lawyer and the Blogs attack. Sorry, nothing against trial lawyers but which choice shows a greater sacrifice for the common good.
   
    Then (to keep this shortish I will skip many other instances of this attitude among the Blogs) he says Reagan won because he had ideas and he used them to form a base that could change the status qua.
   
   Duh. That is basic. Anyone who denies that is what happened in the 80's is living in an alternative reality. I voted for Reagan because I fell for that at 18 and it defined a generation.
   
   But what do we get from the blogs? Instead of saying the truth, that he was right but he never said he agreed with what he did, we get a cores of "Obama Loves Reagan and His Policies" which gives Hillary and her crowd the opening they need.

  by fabacube on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:21:38 PM PDT

•  There's nothing like primary season to remind you

  that those gates are in place for a damn good reason.

  by jxg on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:56:18 PM PDT