Will Netroots "Hold their Noses" in Backing Obama?

The backlash against Obama's vote for the FISA bill hasn't gone away in the blogosphere, even as leaders in progressive politics, the Democratic party and the liberal blogosphere gather in Austin later this week for "Netroots Nation," formerly known as Yearly Kos. Liberal commentators, such as Keith Olbermann, who defended Obama's action as a way to protect himself against GOP smear campaigns targeting ill-informed voters, have been pilloried by an increasingly outraged left.

Now the talk of "betrayal" is spreading on the Web, though, and some in the Netroots are starting to resemble those nearly half of die-hard Hillary supporters who say they won't vote for Obama.

And Isaiah Poole, executive of the website for Campaign for America's Future, a co-sponsor of the Netroots Nation conference, told the "D'Antoni and Levine Show" on BlogTalk Radio last week that many in the netroots are likely to "hold their noses" in supporting Obama -- an ominous sign that there could be less enthusiasm needed to generate the high turnout Obama is banking on to win, particularly among younger voters. You can hear Poole's comments here in the first half of our show, co-hosted with Portland broadcaster Tom D'Antoni.

Unfortunately, the growing anger and coolness towards Obama is starting to resemble Andy Borowitz's parody, "Liberal Bloggers Accuse Obama of Trying to Win Election":

The liberal blogosphere was aflame today with new accusations that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) is trying to win the 2008 presidential election.

Suspicions about Sen. Obama's true motives have been building over the past few weeks, but not until today have the bloggers called him out for betraying the Democratic Party's losing tradition.

"Barack Obama seems to be making a very calculated attempt to win over 270 electoral votes," wrote liberal blogger Carol Foyler at LibDemWatch.com, a blog read by a half-dozen other liberal bloggers. "He must be stopped."

But those comments were not nearly as strident as those of Tracy Klugian, whose blog LoseOn.org has backed unsuccessful Democratic candidates since 2000.

"Increasingly, Barack Obama's message is becoming more accessible, appealing, and yes, potentially successful," he wrote. "Any Democrat who voted for Dukakis, Mondale or Kerry should regard this as a betrayal."

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean said that he was "sympathetic" to the concerns of bloggers who worry that their nominee seems stubbornly bent on winning the election, but he warned them that the DNC's "hands are tied."

"If Sen. Obama is really determined to win, I don't think any of us can talk him out of it," Mr. Dean said.

Liberal bloggers said that they would be watching Sen. Obama's vice-presidential selection process "very closely" for signs that he is plotting to win the election.

"Barack Obama still has a chance to pick someone disastrous as a sign that he wants to lose this thing," Ms. Foyler wrote. "If not, he should brace himself for some really mean blog posts."

The anger against Obama is real, though, even as the netroots fails to get the mainstream media to focus on John McCain's vulnerable record as a serial flip-flopper and opportunist who didn't show the courage in the Senate he showed in the Vietnam war. Cliff Schecter, author of The Real McCain, explained it well in a July 3rd segement of our show.

While bashing Obama, many in the netroots could clearly do more to go after McCain in an effective way. The right-wing noise machine, including talk radio and their blogs, joined by the McCain campaign, on the other hand, seems quite skilled at shaping the media narrative about Obama as a flipflopper while giving McCain almost a free pass.

Let's hope that pragmatism and media savvy that can strengthen the progressive message emerges from this upcoming week's important Netroots Nation conference.

UPDATE: The New York Times reports this week on the left's anger and the threat it could pose to Obama's chances in the November election. The hari-kari progressive purists wing of Obama's support is drawn from the ranks of Naderites, bloggers and Kucinich supporters who are moving away from Obama towards a self-destructive path that could help put McCain in the White House, except, of course, that they're a relatively small faction:

In the breathless weeks before the Oregon presidential primary in May, Martha Shade did what thousands of other people here did: she registered as a Democrat so she could vote for Senator Barack Obama.

Now, however, after critics have accused Mr. Obama of shifting positions on issues like the war in Iraq, the Bush administration's program of wiretapping without warrants, gun control and the death penalty -- all in what some view as a shameless play to a general election audience -- Ms. Shade said she planned to switch back to the Green Party.

"I'm disgusted with him," said Ms. Shade, an artist. "I can't even listen to him anymore. He had such an opportunity, but all this 'audacity of hope' stuff, it's blah, blah, blah. For all the independents he's going to gain, he's going to lose a lot of progressives." .......

Many Obama supporters said the most vocal complaining about various policy positions was largely relegated to liberal bloggers and people who might otherwise support Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate, or Dennis J. Kucinich, the liberal Ohio congressman who dropped out of the presidential race earlier this year.

"I think it's accentuated by the fact that Obama's appeal is an appeal to idealism," said Kari Chisholm, who runs a blog, blueoregon.com, and does Internet strategy for Democratic candidates. "They believe their ideology is the only idealism and Obama's is very mainstream. I'm not surprised they're getting a little cranky. They've always been kind of cranky. A mainstream Democrat has always been too mainstream for them."

Some of Mr. Obama's supporters say he is less vulnerable to accusations of flip-flopping on issues because his campaign ultimately has been built on his biography and philosophy.

And some sort of pragmatism still prevails among a wide swath of progressive Democrats:

Asked last week whether Mr. Obama's vote on the surveillance law or any other recent statements or actions had altered how he felt about the candidate, Mr. Blanchard, of North Smithfield, R.I., said "absolutely not."

"When are these people going to go, anyway?" Mr. Blanchard said of left-wing critics he believes have hurt Democrats in past elections. "My attitude is lighten up on the guy. We want to win. Moving to the center is not a crime in this country."

Comments

[tommybones]

As usual, Glenn Greenwald hits the nail on the head in regards to the "support Obama no matter what" mindset.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Another must read.

[Helzapoppin]

When asked what kind of government the Founders had managed to form, Benjamin Franklin replied "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Obama's vote on FISA (along with the other turncoat Dems on this and many other issues) answers Franklin with "No, we can't"

I'm done with the lot of them.

[mom2sons]

A Nation of Whiners, Dr. Phil was spot on! Stop thinking only about yourselves. What about our country? What about the people who have less than we have? It's not about 1 issue! Stop the madness!

[bgregs]

What madness? Are you referring to the fact that many of us are upset that the good Senator from IL refused to honor his oath to the country and to the constituents who sent him to Washington? Now then, I will still support Senator Obama, I will still vote for him, but it is ONLY because of the fact that the alternative is MUCH worse!!

[tommybones]

Could you remind me how we were rewarded for mindlessly backing the democrats prior to the 2006 elections? Could have sworn the dems have been a virtual continuation of the previous GOP led Congress and its right wing ideology.

Thanks.

[MyNameIsJames]

#1) Progressives don't OWE anything to the Obama campaign nor to the Democratic Party
#2) Progressives should create an organized response to Obama's FISA vote

I believe that the best response would be to stop giving the Obama campaign money - even if most Progressives decide to vote for him in the summer. Progressives should take the money they would give to Obama and give it to organizations like the ACLU who are continuing with FISA battle in court.

[SusaninIN]

I guess i'll just have to double up my contributions to help cover the loss.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

Better quadruple it.

[mgloraine]

"A mainstream Democrat has always been too mainstream for them." What a load...

When corporate media say "mainstream" they are referring to Republicans, who have been, since Reagan, anti-democracy, right-wing extremists and religious fanatics. Their perspective is skewed.

The only thing "mainstream" about the whole stinking FISA debacle is that the telecoms doled out big wads of cash to just about everyone in Congress to buy their votes, and just about everyone who got some of those bucks dutifully delivered. So Obama went along with the "main stream" of corruption, took the bribe and sold his vote, thereby stabbing the People squarely in the back. You bet your ass we're cranky!!

That FISA bill was a serious issue, not some cosmetic frou-frou crap. Obama and his pals once again handed over our civil rights to a criminal gang bent upon the destruction of this country and the enslavement of its people. And we're just supposed to "lighten up" and get over it?

Bull! Cheney-Bush and their henchmen are endangering all of our lives. Every day which Congress allows these crooks to pretend to be elected officials takes us closer to totalitarianism, World War III, the Greater Depression, environmental collapse, and probable extinction. This is NOT business-as-usual!

Progressives aren't demanding perfection, just a little personal integrity! We want our candidate to say what he or she is going to do, and then DO IT! No excuses, no fake "compromises", and no sell-outs.

[tommybones]

Well said.

What the "mainstream" (and unfortunately even some liberal) media considers "mainstream" or "centrist" can be filed squarely in the right wing file. Obama's recent policy changes, often called "moving to the center," are actually moves to the far right wing, which controls the "maintstream" discourse in this once-great nation.

Since when is protecting the 4th amendment a "progressive" issue? And is taking offense to providing retroactive immunity to lawbreakers who violated the 4th amendment rights of millions of citizens a "progressive" cause? I don't think so.

Every time I see a "liberal" blogger or journalist comment on Obama's "move to the center," it infuriates me, as they are unknowingly undermining their own case. After all, what could possibly be wrong with a move to the "center"? If only it were true.

What is the true center? Ending the Iraq war. Universal Health Care. Investigating the abuses of the Bush Administration. Holding lawbreakers accountable. And on and on...

Oops, there I go again, considering the actual feelings of the PUBLIC and not merely the skewed propaganda of the Washington elite. My mistake.

According to the Washington elite, who apparently speak for the "mainstream," the "center" revolves around capitulation to the right wing, dressed up as "pragmatism."

[ProudLiberalDan]

According to the Washington elite, who apparently speak for the "mainstream," the "center" revolves around capitulation to the right wing, dressed up as "pragmatism."

------------------

Absolutely. Such also has been the "centrist" behavior of the Democrats in Congress who won't use their majority to stand up to Bush.

[liam2009]

You are exactly right, mgloraine, so i won't repeat what you said. Obviously, Obama is the only moderately sane option, so i will vote for him. However, my hope has been diminished to say the least and for the past couple of weeks, ever time i start to send him a donation i wound up stopping. I have been making contributions 2-3 times a month, but i'm pissed about FISA most of all! It is not a little thing to be brushed aside as just politics. We thought we had a victory in Nov 2006 ,but we were wrong. Despite the FACT that a Democractic majority in congress could have long ago cut off funding for the war, they refused and continued the funding for the rest of bush's "term". " Impeachment's off the table", right -wing nuts are confirmed on the supreme court, other extremist s get confirmed from attorney general to government agencies that are supposed to protect our food and water, environmernt etc., .. And now our nominee, whom i supported seems to be just another Democrat who will"fixed things" once he gets in like reid and pelosi. Yeah, well Barack, maybe i didn't pay close enough attention to what you stood for, although you did SAY you opposed FISA? So i guess my mistake was believing you. And to back down from a punk with a twenty something approval rating explains why congress is at 9%.
Fundraising will be tougher.

[repearwo]

Netroots. Like they are part of some ground swell rather than the Arrogant Elite who are so impressed with the sound of their own words that they fail to see the bigger picture. Kos has consistanly been behind the curve on Liberal issues. IN 2005 he and his minnions we saying we broke Iraq so we had to fix it. True Liberals were saying there is no fix, get out. 2000 dead later there is no fix and we are going to get out, now by Iraq's request..

Now the Pseudo Liberal want to wreck the Democratic Party because they are all strirred up over FISA. They say Constitution like they have a clue what that means. FISA is a law. Laws do not change the Constitution. Laws can be changed just as easly as they are passed. Bush will be out of office in less than seven months. Doesn't much seem like the law has a lot of meaning if it can't be inforced. Civil suits against businesses, particularyly large businesses, are costly and any monetary remedy is just passed on to the consumer. The only people who benefit are the lawyers.

Obama is the best hope and just becasue he will not kiss their rings and bow to their poor excuse for wisdom is no reason to cut their own throats.

FISA is a non-issue. It is time to check the egos and get behind Obama, the Presumptive Nominee of the Democrat Party, and win in November.

[MyNameIsJames]

NewsFlash - A lot of Progressives are NOT Democrats - many are independents or belong to 3rd parties. They neither owe Obama nor the Democrats.

[SusaninIN]

I'm behind Obama completely. I guess it's time to double up on campaign contributions.

I would like to ask one question to the people upset with Obama's vote. How are we supposed to be bipartisan and become UNITED without compromise?

[tommybones]

Comments like this are perfect examples of the inevitable effects of a long-term propaganda campaign.

A farce is clearly seen in the mainstream "Democrat" vs. "Republican" debates, which implies that the two are not in fact the same business party, with common goals (imperialist power and corporate control to profit the wealthy elite) and only slightly varying strategies and tactics for achieving those goals. The Democrats believe it's a smarter move to let some crumbs fall to the masses to keep them complacent, while the GOP believes you don't have to give any crumbs away when a truly strong propaganda campaign can fool the "bewildered herd" easily enough.

"There is a lot of talk right now," Noam Chomsky told David Barsamian in January 2007, "about how the United States is a divided country. We have to bring it together, 'red states' and 'blue states.' In fact, it is a divided country, but not in the way that's being discussed. It's divided between the public and the power systems (the government and the corporate system)."

One need only to study government policy in relation to public opinion to see that the "compromise" isn't between "left and right," or "liberal and conservative," but between the public-at-large and the wealthy elite, who spend billions of dollars perpetuating the myth of the american democracy.

We need to wake up.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

"How are we supposed to be bipartisan and become UNITED without compromise?"

Let's compromise.

Give my Constitution back to me.

Or at least give me a candidate who wants the votes of those who want the rule of law more than the votes of those who do not.

Obama says that it is alright if we are upset with him. Why don't you believe him? Are you unaware of his position? Or, if you are aware of it, why don't you accept his position?

[bgregs]

Tell you what. I will vote for Obama, but that's simply because the alternative (President McBsuh!) is WORSE!!

Having said that, please explain to me where there is compromise in this new law..... All that I see is republican senators and congressmen standing up and proclaiming that this bill is BETTER than bush could have ever hoped for in his wildest dreams! At the same time I'm seeing several people proclaim that it was necessary (it wasn't!) and that Obama did right (he didn't) and that since people are opposed to his vote that must mean that they are opposed to HIM (we aren't!)

[nippersdad]

It would appear that Democrats in Congress ask themselves that very question every day, yet the Republicans never do. Why is that? There are some things that one cannot compromise with lest one become compromised in the process.

[nippersdad]

You sounded like a Democratic Party pragmatist until you gave yourself away. That "Democrat" Party line you rightwingers have been unable to rid yourselves of is always a dead giveaway.

[laylahb]

The neo-cons don't need FOX when they've got the Netroots on their side..

[tommybones]

This snide remark ignores how we were "rewarded" after the 2006 elections:

Repeatedly funded the Iraq War without conditions;

Defeated, at the White House's insistence, Webb's bill to increase the intervals between troop deployments;

Defeated, at the White House's insistence, a bill to restore habeas corpus, which had been abolished by the Military Commissions Act;

Enacted, at the White House's insistence, the so-called Protect America Act, vesting the President with extreme new warrantless eavesdropping powers;

Approved the Senate's Kyl-Lieberman Resolution, to declare parts of the Iranian Government a "terrorist organization," an extremely belligerent resolution modeled after those which made "regime change" the official U.S. Government position towards Iraq;

Deleted from a pending bill, at the insistence of the White House, a provision merely to require Congressional approval before the Bush administration can attack Iran;

Overwhelmingly enacted, at the White House's insistence, the "FISA Amendments Act of 2008," to vest the President with broad new warrantless eavesdropping powers and to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, all but putting an end to any chance for a real investigation and judicial adjudication of the Bush administration's illegal spying program;

Confirmed, with the indispensable support of two key Democratic Senators, Bush's nominee for Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, despite his support for radical Bush theories of executive power and his refusal to oppose torture;

Stood by passively while Bush officials flagrantly ignored their Subpoenas and refused to comply with their investigations.

But yeah, let's mindlessly back everything Obama does...

[ckdogs]

I hope the net roots people will opt for pragmatism. In a democracy, we can't all have what we want in total. We have to compromise. Just ask yourselves if we would be better off with Obama as president, or McCain, and the Republican establisment? Think about it, over and over, before you start bashing Obama for his lack of perfect purity!!!

[EmJay144]

"Just ask yourselves if we would be better off with Obama as president, or McCain, and the Republican establisment?"

Yes, let's ask ourselves whether it's better to have a Republican who spies on us or a Democrat who spies on us. Give me a break! One of the reasons I've always felt proud be a Democrat was the (general) lack of willingness to sell out on core progressive principles while still maintaining a reasonable appeal to the so-called center.

Try asking yourself this: Who benefited from Obama's vote except Obama?

[dexxjones]

yes