Sirota (mildly) attacks Barrack Obama

[wyldwolf]

Funny guy, that David Sirota. He's a passionate ideologue and creative writer who knows what he believes and expresses it vividly, though sometimes playing a little fast and loose with the facts (Just ask Matthew Yglesias, who wrote a blistering and well sourced debunking of one of Sirota's pieces on "Centrism.") In his latest article, though, I believe he was overwhelmed. In an attempt to mildly dress down Barrack Obama for straying from the strict progressive playbook, the Senator gives the writer a lesson in real world politics and demonstrates the difference between being a liberal and a progressive purist.

In a nutshell, Obama call Sirota seeking to clear up some "misunderstandings" between the two. In Sirota's words, "he was bothered that I had written a few blog posts questioning positions he'd taken that appeared to belie his progressive image."

What follows is an exchange between the two that I have to respect Sirota for actually writing because, although he has a point in some cases about Obama, in some cases he shows why he only writes about politics and doesn't actually participate.

I'd pay to hear Obama respond, though. After all, if Sirota's version makes him (Sirota) sound a little naive on the workings of Senate politics, I can just imagine how Obama's version would portray Sirota.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060608/cm_thenation/20060626sirota

[papau]

1. Why is Obama unsure on single payer - afraid of Lieberman's Ins Co's?

While the unfair comment by Sirota "the liberal carrot of appeasing a powerful industry rather than the progressive stick of forcing that industry to shape up by simply mandating higher fuel-efficiency standards" sticks out in an otherwise reasonable piece, I see Obama as someone who will not use his Senate platform to move the national political debate on ANY issue.

Obama's statement "Everybody who supports single-payer health care says, 'Look at all this money we would be saving from insurance and paperwork.' That represents 1 million, 2 million, 3 million jobs of people who are working at Blue Cross Blue Shield or Kaiser or other places. What are we doing with them? Where are we employing them?" shows an amazing lack of knowledge of the issue and the situation as to the effect on jobs. Most of those jobs would remain since administration of the program contracts would go to the current insurance companies and only a small part of the savings is lost jobs (and those few mainly due to the use of better and fewer forms) - the real savings is the ending of a return on capital that covers Health insurance risk - capital that is not needed in single payer, and the ending of a few, but very highly paid jobs in unnecessary management levels that would not exist in single payer to even 1% of current levels, plus just plain rip-offs that go to shareholders so as to allow the overpaid management level to not get hassled by shareholders, and in many cases, so as to pay the overpaid management even more as the Boards give them shares as gifts.

It is amazing he has bought Lieberman's kool-aid so completely on single payer and not realized it was insurance company bull recycled through Lieberman. I thought he had presidential possibilities - but I think I was wrong.

[hedda_foil]

2. Unfortunately, you weren't wrong.

Obama's brilliant oratory and incredible charisma make it almost inevitable that he will run for president and very likely win. I disagree with his carefully cautious "centrist" positioning, and am very disappointed that he is unlikely to ever emerge as a proponent of truly progressive policies unless it becomes extraordinarily politically advantageous for him to do so. He's such a skillful candidate that he's no doubt been advised that the best thing he can do is avoid taking a strong leadership position on any substantive issue in the Senate, continue to captivate the big donors and Dem audiences with his rhetoric, and position himself for his Presidential run in 4-8 years. Chances are he'll be the Dem VP nominee no matter who the candidate is. He' too attractive for any candidate to resist as a running mate (and will bring loads of votes and money to the ticket) and win or lose (in which case he still has his Senate seat) he's in a great position to be the next Presidential candidate.

[LiberalPartisan]

3. Obama's voting record shows he's no Progressive

He's a centrist at best. And frankly I'm beginning to think he's more of a 'Third way' triangulation practioner a la Bill Clinton than a liberal or a progressive. To date the only thing Obama has impressed me with is his speech at the DNC convention and that's it. He has potential. I hope he lives up to it but I'm not encouraged. I'm with Siroata on this.

[BluegrassDem]

4. If Obama's another Bill Clinton, then all the better!

At least he'd be a centrist winner and not a whining loser.

[iconoclastNYC]

6. "Centrist Winner?"

Clinton was a huge disspointment as a Democratic president. The only real accomplishment he was getting relected.

NAFTA
Welfare "Reform"
Telecommuncations Act of 1996

[wyldwolf]

11. Clinton

By the way, you have Joe Conason listed as a patriot. Don't you know he's just one more DLC apologist (LOL)?

Clinton:

The Strongest Economy in a Generation. Longest Economic Expansion in U.S. History. In February 2000, the United States entered the 107th consecutive month of economic expansion -- the longest economic expansion in history.

21.2 million new jobs were created since 1993, the most jobs ever created under a single Administration -- and more new jobs than Presidents Reagan and Bush created during their three terms. 92 percent (19.4 million) of the new jobs were created in the private sector, the highest percentage in 50 years.

Fastest and Longest Real Wage Growth in Over Three Decades. In the last 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased 3.7 percent -- faster than the rate of inflation. The United States has had five consecutive years of real wage growth -- the longest consecutive increase since the 1960s. Since 1993, real wages are up 6.8 percent, after declining 4.3 percent during the Reagan and Bush years.

Unemployment was the lowest Nearly the Lowest in Three Decades.

Highest Homeownership Rate in History.

Lowest Poverty Rate in Two Decades. The poverty rate has fallen from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 12.7 percent in 1998. That's the lowest poverty rate since 1979 and the largest five-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years (1965-1970). The African-American poverty rate has dropped from 33.1 percent in 1993 to 26.1 percent in 1998 -- the lowest level ever recorded and the largest five-year drop in African-American poverty in more than a quarter century (1967-1972). The poverty rate for Hispanics is at the lowest level since 1979, and dropped to 25.6 percent in 1998.

Largest Five-Year Drop in Child Poverty Rate Since the ‘60s. Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore, child poverty has declined from 22.7 percent in 1993 to 18.9 percent in 1998 -- the biggest five-year drop in nearly 30 years. The poverty rate for African-American children has fallen from 46.1 percent in 1993 to 36.7 percent in 1998 -- a level that is still too high, but is the lowest level in 20 years and the biggest five-year drop on record. The rate also fell for Hispanic children, from 36.8 percent to 34.4 percent - and is now 6.5 percentage points lower than it was in 1993.

Improved Access to Affordable, Quality Child Care and Early Childhood Programs.

Increased the Minimum Wage.

Enacted Single Largest Investment in Health Care for Children since 1965.

Extended Strong, Enforceable Patient Protections for Millions of Americans.

An environmental budget that included a record $1.4 billion for Lands Legacy -- a 93 percent increase and the largest one-year investment ever requested for conserving America’s lands.

So much more on the environment, families, the economy, education, crime, etc.

[AtomicKitten]

12. hey, we wish we could have those "bad old days" back, eh? n/t

[wyldwolf]

13. yes, and I know you're a Gore fan...

...a state leader and political science professor this week said he believed Gore would have been a more effective leader than Clinton because he shared the policies but didn't have the baggage.

[AtomicKitten]

17. and I hope Gore will have the chance to lead to prove that theory

[iconoclastNYC]

23. I wish Clinton would have got more accomplished for the middle class

Other then being lucky to have a good economy he didn't do much and he did a lot of things that hurt the middle class and he left the Democratic party weaker than it was when he took office.

He was a decent president but as a Democratic president he was a dissappointment.

He's the big reason most Democrats dont think our party stands for anything. His religion of mushy-middle corporations-first "centrism" has erroded our base.

[iconoclastNYC]

19. Giving Clinton all the credit for the economy

Is like giving the Easter Bunny credit for the sunrise.

Presidents don't have that much influence over the economy.

I suppose you want to blame Carter for the bad economy he had?

[wyldwolf]

25. putting all the blame on Clinton for your criticisms...

Is like giving the Easter Bunny credit for the sunrise.

I suppose you want to blame Carter for the bad economy he had?

Nope. He inhereted it. He just did little to effectively alrer it.

[dsc]

28. Well, lets see

In 1993 we had Clinton, a Dem congress, and Greenspan. In 1995 we had Clinton, a Republican Congress, and Greenspan. During all that time the economy was great. In 2001 we lost Clinton, kept the GOP Congress, and Greenspan result a tailspin. Care to tell me who deserves the credit, if not Clinton?

[AtomicKitten]

29. your reasoning will go over the heads of some

who can't see the forest for the trees.

[iconoclastNYC]

20. Re: Conanson

Would you like to back up that smear with any sort of detail?

A lot of people learned the truth about the DLC and slowly backed away.

[wyldwolf]

26. It isn't a smear

Conason is a huge supporter of DLC Democrats. Always has been.

He would take great exception with your leftist and amatuerish critique of Clinton in your other posts.
After all, he did write a rather in depth book on Bill Clinton.

I recall a specific piece by Conason where stated the only way Democrats win is by uninting the party and said Gore dismissed the DLC for not attending a DLC gathering for presidential hopefuls in 2002.

He also dismissed the notion the DLC caused any Democratic losses, referring specifically to 2000 where he pointed out many of the "activists" attacking the DLC had ties to Ralph Nader's campaign.

In 2003, Joe gushed over the DLC's attacks on the Bush administration and referred to EDM, pointing out that since Bush entered office, the DLC has, through its various outlets, produced over 260 hit-pieces on various aspects of the Bush administration.

I could go on all day with Joe's writings defending and promoting DLC democrats.

[iconoclastNYC]

5. Maybe he doesn't participate in politics because the DLC

Has pretty much screwed up our party??? Ever think of that?

Who'd want to play in politics when to be competitive you have to spend most of your time sucking up to big money special intersts (you know the ones that fund the DLC and the Hamiliton project)

I'll take a "progressive purist" over a DC-sell out any day, thank you.

I just read David's new book.

[Douglas Carpenter]

8. David has actually participated in politics quite a lot - here is his bio:

"As a political strategist, Sirota has helped populist Democrats win elections in some of the most conservative parts of America. As a writer, he has worked to expose how our government has been corrupted by Big Money"

"Sirota has served as the press secretary for Independent Rep. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, as the spokesman for the U.S. House Appropriations Committee Democrats, and as a fellow at the Center for American Progress. He most recently served as a senior strategist helping Brian Schweitzer become Montana’s first Democratic governor in sixteen years. In addition to serving as a senior editor at In These Times, Sirota is a regular contributor to The Nation and The American Prospect, the blogger for Working Assets, a twice-weekly guest on “The Al Franken Show,” and the co-chairperson of the Progressive Legislative Action Network"

link:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/about/author/236/

[AtomicKitten]

10. Are you saying Obama is a DLC sell-out?

We have already established here at DU that Obama is not DLC and, as a matter of fact, insisted TWICE that they eliminate his name from their rank and file lists, as documented by the Black Commentator.

This is FYI in case that was what you were insinuating. Rhetoric and false rumor is rampant at DU, and it matters that we make an effort to be factual.

Dislike Obama all you like, but he is not DLC.

[iconoclastNYC]

21. You don't have to be an official "DLC" toady

To support thier goals. For example you can now call yourself a "Hamilton" Democrat.... or just a "centrist".....or a "realist." Or you can use the fact that you are a "freshmen" Senator to explain away your dissapointing votes and lack of progressive leadership.

The bottom line is that Obama isn't nearly as progressive as he'd like to brand himself. David's piece makes the point exquisitely.

It's funny how in one breath you'll defend the DLC and the next you'll use the fact that Obama isn't DLC to defend Obama.

So which is it ? DLC bad or good? For you I guess it depends which way the wind blows.

How very "centrist" of you.

[AtomicKitten]

27. Actually the point is quite specific.

Obama was being slammed for being DLC and I merely pointed out that he is not.

How very fractious of you for trying to make something more of it.

And, for the record, I consider the DLC as (ob)noxious as other extremes inhabiting the big tent. Yeah, I'm talking about you.

[welshTerrier2]

7. wyldwolf: you just love those intra-party squabbles, don't you??

bash away ... toss around those "purist" labels ...

oh what delightful fun ... another flamefest thread ...

[wyldwolf]

9. Go preach your message of peace and unity in these active threads:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2670482
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2669548

Only then will you be the least bit credible.

[snowbear]

14. I agree 110% with WelshTerrior2 ....

Wyldwolf starts more anti-Dem threads than anyone I've ever come across on these boards..

Sorry Wyldwolf.. but it's true.

Tons of these --->

And rarely (if ever) any of these --->

[TK421]

15. Ooohhhh....what are you implying?

:D

[wyldwolf]

16. then I think you only look for threads you disagree with

because, after all, if you AGREE with a thread, you wouldn't think it was anti-Dem.

I can show you some doozies from WelshTerrior2!

[knight_of_the_star]

18. Really?

I think there is a difference between highlighting squabbles between the leadership and the "important" people and the party leadership failing to take advantage of an opportunity out of sheer cowardice. You seem to have a gift for the former with an almost child-like glee.

[wyldwolf]

24. yes, really

and, again, it is in your perception.

[iconoclastNYC]

22. Great quotes from the article:

"As Printed in The Nation:

Obama is telling the truth--he's not opposed to structural changes at all. However, he appears to be interested in fighting only for those changes that fit within the existing boundaries of what's considered mainstream in Washington, instead of using his platform to redefine those boundaries. This posture comes even as polls consistently show that Washington's definition of mainstream is divorced from the rest of the country's (for example, politicians' refusal to debate the war even as polls show that Americans want the troops home).

Obama's deference to these boundaries was hammered home to me when our discussion touched on the late Senator Paul Wellstone. Obama said the progressive champion was "magnificent." He also gently but dismissively labeled Wellstone as merely a "gadfly," in a tone laced with contempt for the senator who, for instance, almost single-handedly prevented passage of the bankruptcy bill for years over the objections of both parties. This clarified Obama's support for the Hamilton Project, an organization formed by Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and other Wall Street Democrats to fight back against growing populist outrage within the party. And I understood why Beltway publications and think tanks have heaped praise on Obama and want him to run for President. It's because he has shown a rare ability to mix charisma and deference to the establishment"