Airplanes!

« Brennan for CIA? Seriously? | Main | I Crush Your Head »

November 21, 2008

Who's Obama's Base?

by Lee Stranahan

When I see people like my old pal Markos on MSNBC and elsewhere talking about Obama needing to remember who brung him to the dance or David Sirota's column about The Team Of Rivals (h/t Travis), I see the new old progressive movement jockeying for position.

My take, however, is that Obama is beholden not to traditional progressives but to the massive amount of new voters that Obama himself brought to the party. That's scary to a lot of people in the Democratic establishment. But those fresh faced Obamacrats aren't holding their breath at each appointment, they are ready to let the guy they supported go to work.

I think it's also hard for people to wrap their head about the 'rivals' idea because they seem to want rivals they agree with. Those aren't rivals, though, really.


Filed under: Barack Obama || MSNBC

Posted By Lee Stranahan | November 21, 2008 3:01 PM

Comments

I personally feel like all this business about dancing with them who brung ya is a stupid idea. The president is not the president of the people who voted for him. He's the president of the entire country--even the people who think he's a secret Muslim socialist elite whitey hater. I gave him money and I gave him my vote because I wanted someone I thought would do what was best for all of us no matter what percentage of the time I agreed with him.

Yes, I think he was elected because people want something different than center-right Christian dogma market driven jingoism and he should certainly honor that call for change. However, I don't think a president should be or should act as though he is beholden to any specific group.

Maybe I've watched too much West Wing, but I'm open to the possibility that the president could explain to me why and then convince me why I might have been wrong about something.

Posted by: camel54 [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 21, 2008 3:33 PM

I do hope Obama recognizes his debt to progressives in some meaningful way, though. He's got a long list of folks who have supported him that he's now glancing at as he makes his decisions. I for one don't want him to limit himself exclusively to that list, but I think it is honorable for him to express his appreciation whenever the situation allows for him to pick from the list. I'm confident there will be "something under the tree" for progressives before Christmas rolls around. Patience.

Posted by: LiveFreeOrDie08 [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 21, 2008 3:36 PM

Lee, you know I agree with you. And, if Typepad let me have a signature, I'd quote your last paragraph with a permanent link back to this post! :)

But - I will say this for all the whiners on the left (kidding! JUST KIDDING!)... they have a right to expect, and demand a seat at the table. After all - that was one of Obama's main premises - not just a "team of rivals" but that everyone would be at the table together, instead of just the bigwig corporations taking up all the chairs.

I'm looking for a very competent administration, a new sense of direction implemented by this very competent team, and I'm looking for policy input from a wide range of voices. That would signal a successful start from an Obama administration, at least to me.

QT

Posted by: QueenTiye [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 21, 2008 3:39 PM

>>I personally feel like all this business about dancing with them who brung ya is a stupid idea.


Well, I feel vindicated. My vote: it's meaningless. (I mean, beside the fact I live in Alabama)

Posted by: Travis Disaster [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 21, 2008 3:40 PM

Wait, I just re-read this- was it implied that David Sirota is part of the Democratic Establishment??? By a guy who is doing cartwheels over HRC and Rahm Emanuel?

What??

Posted by: Travis Disaster [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 21, 2008 3:45 PM

NYT is reporting that HRC has accepted to be SoS.

Posted by: ceu [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 21, 2008 3:51 PM

Travis: I think (but Lee will have to confirm or deny) that Lee is defining "Democratic Establishment" as the original coalition of Blue Dog Dems, Progressives, and DLC'ers, while the newcomers to the tent are the Obamacrats, who are not yet well defined, but are clearly different in priorities from any of the above.

QT

Posted by: QueenTiye [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 21, 2008 4:20 PM

right on...
look,if i had my way,obama would govern to the left of bernie sanders.but its simply not realistic or productive in the long run.the reason bush pissed off so many people,and not just progressives,is that he operated in a douchebaggy bubble of ultra wingnut conservatism.there is a way to keep everyone(rational thinking people anyway) happy.im not smart enough to figure it out exactly but im confident that obama,along with emanuel,axelrod etc...is.

Posted by: 24hourjack [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 22, 2008 9:41 AM

Well. Here's the thing. When Hillary was deposed last summer, many of us wanted the Clinton's to go away permanently. This past week is the reason why. And, why do this when she clearly is not the most qualified person for the job. It smells of a deal made months ago. As far as Lieberman is concerned, Obama could have just as easily kept quite and let others banish him to the wilderness. Some of us have longer memories than others so I would have to say that a record of voting 90% of the time with dems does not erase his record of the last 7 years. Do we care about what the Bush policies have doen to this country or don't we? Decide. You can't be outraged one day then say, oh well, we need the votes the next day. ??

Posted by: idabamaho [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 22, 2008 1:56 PM



pixel.jpg
You Must Listen to the Bob and Elvis Show
BES_itunes_button_150.jpg

Bubble Genius

rogue_blogging_logo.jpg

Buy my book!