And the most discouraging thing I've seen lately...

...would have to be this:

[W]hen Bill Clinton was elected, the eventual weaknesses of his presidency were already common knowledge: his penchant for triangulation and his history of extramarital activity. The former would ensure that health care reform would be shot down for a generation, and the latter would give Republicans the wedge they needed to completely disrupt the final years of his presidency. And we could have predicted it all from the moment he was elected. With Obama, I just don’t see any similarly grand Shakespearean flaws being foreshadowed in the first act. We’re in an entirely different moment.

That's Tom Tomorrow, aka Dan Perkins.  I can't believe he's missed Obama's ever-increasing "penchant for triangulation" over the course of the campaign, so I have to assume he's just erased it from his mind.  And "an entirely different moment"?  I don't know how this moment could be more similar to 1992: a youthful underdog Democrat comes along after multiple terms of Republican malfeasance, talking about change, hope, and optimism, and energizing young voters—and is swept toward victory on the basis of vague uplifting rhetoric that doesn't match his behavior.  Not to mention that they're both black.

(And the implication that the problem with the latter part of Clinton's presidency was that he was prevented from doing even more, coming from someone who spent years savaging Clinton's crimes, is pretty mind-boggling.)

I was sorely disappointed in 2004 when Perkins—whom I'd seen in 2000 bashing Al Gore at a Nader super-rally in Oakland—not only went the Kerry route, but took the cheap shot of comparing those who didn't to George Bush.  And it's a shame now to see such an astute progressive observer of the political scene so far in the bag for Obama that he's convinced himself the last few months didn't happen.  It's things like this that make me think we're in for a very long four years.

Comments

[KDelphi]

It Is truly amaziong...I cannot tell you the number of peopel who just think Obama is gonna "make everything all right"! Many are very educated, astute people , who I have admired (still do) for years.

One, is my sister , who is a professor at SUNY--it is baffling.

I couldnt sleep, and now I am so tired, I cant spell!!

[Donald Johnson]

Full disclosure--I'll probably vote for Obama. But I agree with you. He's spent the entire campaign, and to some extent his career as Senator embracing mainstream conventional wisdom. We can expect him to be hugging the respectable center his entire term (or terms).

I asked commenter at another blog who I know are pretty far left why they like Obama and one person replied that he knows Obama doesn't have our beliefs on, for instance, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but he is at least an intelligent guy who will listen to other pov's. Which is fine, but Clinton was like that too. And what he did in the summer of 2000, knowing full well that the Israeli offer at Camp David was inadequate , was to announce to the world that the Israelis had come a long way and put all the blame on Arafat. A smart guy who listens to all viewpoints, but also happens to be a political opportunist who knows what he can get away with can do a great deal of harm if he thinks it's in his best political interest to do so.

[Donald Johnson]

As for why I'm voting for Obama--lesser of two evilism, plus a feeling that protest voting does no good and also, I think criticism of Obama's actions are taken more seriously by Obama-voting friends online and off if I don't try to convince them that voting for Nader was a good idea.

[SteveB]

Yes, but the country (and the world) is a different place than it was in '92. Can you imagine if Obama announced that the two main initiatives of his first term would be to expand "free trade" agreements and cut welfare benefits?

Both are opportunists, but as opportunists, they're both extremely aware of which way the political winds are blowing. Clinton was governing in a time when neoliberalism was at its peak. Even Clinton wouldn't be Clinton today.

[John Caruso]

Steve: Even Clinton wouldn't be Clinton today.

Agreed; I think Clinton today would be Obama. Regardless, it's pretty clear that Perkins' "entirely different moment" wasn't talking about the overall political atmosphere, but summing up his Clinton vs. Obama viewpoint.

Donald: See, voting for Obama but agreeing with what I'm saying here is something I can respect. Voting for Obama and pretending he's something he's not, though—especially when you should know better (like Perkins)—isn't. Speaking generally, I don't condemn anyone who votes for Obama because they genuinely believe he's the best candidate, though I'll of course disagree with them on that.

Are you in a swing state, though? And if not, why vote for him, when it seems clear you don't think he's the best candidate?

I'm planning a posting about "protest vote", BTW, which is a phrase that really irks me (though I know you didn't mean it that way, so please don't take it personally if and when you read it).

[KDelphi]

I just have to stick with what I decided yestereday--I need to "land" on this one!

I am voting Moore/Alexander or Nader/Gonzales, unless, there is a dramatic shift in the polls, or unless Ohio seems to be at risk of going for McCain.

BTW--NOt to be judgemental, but, I think that it is lousy for people to only listen to you or respect your viewpoint , IF you do not mention Nader. This "hate nader mania" is really ill-founded.

Alot of people do not agree with me--hell, I'm a socialist in the most "capitalistic" country in the world! (Arguable--some would say oligarchy or kleptocracy)

I know what you mean--I just fear "progressives" going "neo-liberal" again.

The middle class doesnt have the cushion to survive it this time, I dont believe.Hell, the GOP are even ranting about the vert lame and minor "redistribution of wealth" that Obama is speaking of (we only redistribute upwards!!)Also, the union bill.

The stats on homelessness, lack of heatlh care, early death, child abandonment, hunger, etc. are staggering! They put a lump in your throat. OUR America...

[Joan of Snark]

I don't know; I think Tom/Dan is pretty much where he's always been. I recall, on the one hand, in an interview many years ago, where he said that he figured the best we could ever hope for is "capitalism with a happy face", so the task was to try to work within that limitation.

Then on the other hand, it was only a few months ago where he was saying sarcastically about Obama (I'm paraphrasing from memory here): "Interesting to see that Hopey McChange's first political instinct was to endorse Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont." So I don't think his line about Shakespearean flaws refers to triangulation, which I'm sure he's aware of, but rather that at least with Obama, the battles will be over policy rather than a circus sideshow over where the presidential pecker has been.

[John Caruso]

Pretty much where he's always been for a few years now, maybe, but he's gone a long way towards the Democrats since the 2000 election. I attribute it to way too much Atrios, DailyKos, and other liberal Democrat sites; when he started linking to those more and more frequently a few years ago, I knew it couldn't come to any good.

Here's the quote stripped to the essentials: "With Clinton, the eventual weaknesses were already common knowledge: triangulation and extramarital activity. With Obama, I just don’t see any similarly grand Shakespearean flaws." So weaknesses = grand Shakespearean flaws = triangulation plus extramarital activity (both...thus the plurals). So each of those, individually, is a Shakespearean flaw. And so I don't see any way around the conclusion that he's absolving Obama of the sin of triangulation in addition to Clintonian wandering wang syndrome. The second is fine, but the first? You've gotta be kidding me. And I agree he must be aware of it, which is why I assume there's just some deep cognitive dissonance going on.

[Donald Johnson]

My reasons for voting Obama are muddled. It's mostly what I already said--lesser of two evils, plus being tired of arguing about Nader and third party candidates. One of the things that I've learned from reading blogs is that there are a large number of people who are genuinely pretty far left and yet committed to voting Democrat and who get fuming mad at Nader and Nader-voters if he is mentioned. I knew, of course, there were centrist liberals who vote Democrat because neoliberalism is where they are, but there are a surprising number of truly leftwing types who also hate Naderism with a passion. I think that they have some good arguments (not necessarily valid, but reasonable), but some of it is cognitive dissonance. They have this moral system worked out where if you vote Nader you are enabling the Republicans, but if you vote for the Democrat no matter what you aren't enabling their conservative tendencies. I think they are partly right (lesser of two evils is sometimes the moral choice), so I can't argue wholeheartedly against them, so what has happened is that I go along with them on lesser of two evils and then ask (quite sincerely) "But what do we do when the Democrat supports imperialist policies, as they always do?" I haven't seen any good answers (IMO) and I don't have any either, but I make my point, which people often agree with, and if I brought Nader into it then it would just turn back into a slugfest over whether or not it was evil to vote Nader and why it was a horrible lie to say Bush and Gore were similar and so on. It's not a productive argument.

[John Caruso]

What I don't get is what would compel you to bring Nader (or whoever else you might vote for) into it. Are you saying you feel that you have to reveal who you voted for, and so you vote for Democratic presidential candidates so you can give the "right" answer to that question and not be tuned out?

[Donald Johnson]

When you talk politics in an election year who you are going to vote for is part of the background. At least in my experience. If I just bash Obama and the Democrats to Obama-supporters, they get upset or irritated or think you're just unrealistic, so I throw in the fact that I'll vote for him as the lesser of two evils. This has happened to me. So yeah, part of my vote is to ensure not being tuned out. I also think lesser of two evils is defensible as a voting strategy and even in a non-swing state (where I live), I admit I do want Obama to get as large a popular vote as possible, as a way of repudiating Bush/McCain/Palin. The MSM doesn't pay much attention to the votes that don't go to the two candidates, so a vote for a third party, while not a vote for McCain, doesn't necessarily get counted as a vote against the Republicans. If McCain loses to Obama in a popular landslide that in itself would be a good thing, IMO.

Anyway, that's more about why I'm voting for that jerk Obama than is worth knowing. I certainly don't say that others should follow my muddled way of thinking. In fact I'm glad to see third party supporters out there making their case.

[KDelphi]

I lay my hopes at the feet of Congress now...we need a very liberal Super Majority...

Sure way to see my hopes dashed!! LOL

[Duncan]

DJ: "so I throw in the fact that I'll vote for him as the lesser of two evils." I have done this too, but I don't find that it helps much. The Dem I'm talking to usually starts foaming at the mouth because I want a perfect candidate, and I'm an elitist; well, nobody's perfect, and I might as well get used to it, besides Nader is a millionnaire too, so there! I've always thought that this kind of behavior is an odd way to win someone's vote, but the Dems know better than an elitist like me.

[John Caruso]

Donald: ...I do want Obama to get as large a popular vote as possible, as a way of repudiating Bush/McCain/Palin.

Ok, I've seen that argument and I can understand the thinking behind it (whereas voting for a Democrat in a safe state solely on the basis of lesser-evilism doesn't make much sense).

Duncan: I've always thought that this kind of behavior is an odd way to win someone's vote, but the Dems know better than an elitist like me.

Well, it works with enough people that they have no reason to behave otherwise. As long as that's true they can afford to lose the votes of a few fuzzy-headed, perfection-seeking elitists.

[KDelphi]

It is sad, and so ironic, taht Obama's grandmother just died...I am sorry for it.

[KDelphi]

I did not know that Obama was using Chicago School economic advisors!!

HOW in HELL can that be CHANGE?!

Heritage Foundation , on Austen Goolsbee...

http://www.heritage.org/press/dailybriefing/policyweblog.cfm?blogid=64BC5083-A0C9-D18A-0F18545761259B74

http://www.soapblox.net/belowboston/showDiary.do?diaryId=1562

[KDelphi]

Also, Rham Emanuel...sigh

[SteveB]

So would National popular vote be good or bad for third parties?

On the one hand, you lose the "Well, you live in a safe state, so why not voted for the Greens anyway?" argument, but I don't see how that does us much good anyway.

[John Caruso]

Mildly bad, I'd guess, as the .01% of the population that votes for third parties and also accepts how the electoral college works is suddenly faced with a consequential choice. Still the right thing to do, though.

[SteveB]

I'm talking to a friend of mine who's still on the fence on Obama v. McKinney. Showed her all the Wisconsin polls, which have Obama up by anywhere from 7 to 12 points, showed her fivethirtyeight.com, which has Mcain's chances of winning at slightly less than 2%, but she's still concerned that she'll vote for McKinney and get McCain/Palin. She admits its not rational, but there you are.

I'm starting to believe that there are those who vote for the Greens without a second thought (I know a lot of people like this) and then there are those who do give it a second thought, and a third thought, and a fourth thought. And those folks nearly always end up with the Dems. But people who worry about the outcome and finally come down on the Green side? Haven't met one yet. If you're looking at polls to decide who its "safe" to vote for, you're voting for the Dems (or at least that's my theory.)

[John Caruso]

In 2004 I had a friend who said exactly the same thing about voting for Nader in California (which was pure Kerry country). I believe it's because they're succumbing to the fear I described in this comment on the protest voting thread: that whatever they do in the voting booth makes it more likely that hundreds of thousands of other people will do it as well. So it's unthinkable for them to check that box for a third party candidate, because then those other people might do the same thing—and where's your safe state then?

[SteveB]

Another part of it, I think, is the crime-victim PTSD that many liberals are still suffering from after the 2000 and 2004 elections. Watching Florida - and the election - get stolen in 2000, and Ohio get (probably) stolen in 2004 makes most libs very wary about believing polls. It's like getting mugged in a dark alley: it's going to be a long time before you're going to be comfortable (or even willing) to go outside on your own after dark, and having a friend read crime statistics to you, "Look! The murder rate is actually declining!" isn't going to help.

I think we're going to need to see a long string of Republican losses before liberal Dems feel they can trust the polls again.