Strike Three?
Yesterday, I bemoaned the fact that Barak Obama seems to have missed the boat on too many issues. He's against the Feingold plan to censure Bush and he's endorsed Lieberman over Lamont. I warned that one more strike and he's out.
Today, I read:
Do we really need Democrats running around contributing to the press' derision of the party? Maybe this isn't strike three, but it's sure pretty close in my mind.
Today, I read:
"They say Democrats don't stand for anything. That's patently untrue. We do stand for anything," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., joked at a recent press dinner.
Do we really need Democrats running around contributing to the press' derision of the party? Maybe this isn't strike three, but it's sure pretty close in my mind.
posted by walldon | 9:24 AM
1 Comments:
I am going to grant him some leeway to ingratiate himself with the Beltway Establishment. It's very early in his national career, and a lot of responsibility has been thrust on him already. Establishing the support structure seems like the right long-term power move right now -- similar to Clinton's expropriation of certain Republican themes after Reagan had turned the country so far to the right -- but nevertheless made some fundamental liberal governance moves that, in fact, slightly reveresed the massive growth of income inequality. (With the stock market explosion, wealth inequality was another matter.) However, I would hope to see Obama start to separate himself philosophically from that scene. In the meantime, he needs to find a better way to co-exist with the more ardent liberals and progressives. Right now, he, along with all the other Beltway Democrats, seem to be in a kind of denial mode, pretending to themselves that the blogs operate at some leftist extreme that does not represent the thinking of millions of Democrats -- the ones most likely to work and give generously when election time rolls around.
Post a Comment
<< Home