Fun to See the Gyrations Progressives Will Go Through to Square Hope and Change with Biden

The instant Hillary Clinton tossed her hat in the presidential ring, self-styled progressives went ballistic. They pounded her mercilessly as a deal making, war backing, corporate shill, and Beltway insider. They railed that she would be a virtual Republican ultra-lite empty pants suit. That made her totally unacceptable as a Democratic Party fit in the White House. So now there's Joe Biden. He wears the same Beltway, deal making, war supporting, corporate interest backing tag as Clinton. But there's a difference. Obama picked him.

Predictably, the silence -- no, hypocrisy -- from progressives has been deafening. That's no surprise. Presumptive Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama did two canny things early on in his campaign to seal the deal with hopeful liberals and self-styled progressives. He publicly and repeatedly boasted that he would end the war in Iraq NOW. He lambasted every Senate Democrat starting with Clinton for voting to approve the war.

The second thing was he coined a catchy slogan, "hope and change" as the signature slogan for his White House bid. For a few months he barnstormed the country pledging to back public financing, never take a dime from fat cat lobbyists, oil companies, and Big Bankers, knocked the ole boy and girl clubby Beltway establishment, and touted his liberal to progressive voting record in the Illinois legislature. That fully sealed the Obama deal for progressives. But that was mid Democratic presidential pack Obama talking.

Sole Democratic presidential contender Obama has, of course, sharply reversed gears and modified, dodged, or flatly reneged on every one of the big ticket promises from immediately ending the Iraq war to opposing offshore oil drilling that progressive's cheered. Each time he back-stepped it was fun to watch them go through tortured gyrations to square their naïve belief that a consummate Democratic Party centrist candidate could really keep the inflated borderline left-side promises that he made.

It will be just as much fun after the silence ends to see the fresh contortions that progressives will go through to square Biden with Obama's hope and change promise. Then again Obama rarely mentions that these days other than as an occasional rhetorical frill to rev up a crowd. Their main rationalization will be to cite the conventional line that the Biden pick is a politically tactical move by Obama to foil McCain's hit attacks on him as a greenhorn on foreign policy and national security.

The more imaginative rationalizations will be that Biden's relatively liberal voting record makes him a sort of stealth progressive. Or, that even the most entrenched Democratic Party insider, such as Biden, is better than McCain. Or simply, that Biden is necessary to get Heartland America's votes.

There's truth in all of these excuses. But the hard reality is that the underpinning of Obama's campaign is that he did not just talk and look different than any other Democratic presidential candidate, but that he would also act differently. Some progressives cling so tightly to the Obama hope and change myth that they still apologize, ignore, or even cheerlead his back flips.

Others cling tightly to the myth out of fawn hope that once in the White House Obama will be the liberal even progressive reformer that he sold himself to them as. That's another pipe dream.

Biden is on the ticket precisely to insure that an Obama administration will play by the strict rules of the presidential governance game. This means bipartisan compromise, conciliation, negotiation, and agreement with Congress on all issues, a legislative emphasis on the traditional tax, budget, national security, and foreign policy issues, close cooperation with corporations, lobbyists, and the defense establishment, and that he will take no action on policy initiatives without strict approval of Democratic Party regulars. This is simply the way things are done and get done in Beltway Washington. The best that could ever be hoped for from Biden-Obama is that they will shave off some of the roughest edges of Bush bad policy. But McCain would likely be compelled to do the same.

In the days to come, McCain and the GOP will hammer harder on Biden's relatively moderate stance on judicial and foreign policy matters. Left-side liberals and progressives will have to swallow hard and twist even more as Obama-Biden parry the attacks by shifting even more to the right of center to assure independents that they are safe, dependable centrists. Liberals and progressives will be left even more out in the cold. The hope and change line whenever it's uttered will sound even more like an empty slogan.

But hope springs eternal, and so will the gyrations progressives will go through to convince themselves that everything will really work out in the end if only they can get their guys in there. This will be fun to see.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His forthcoming book is The Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White House (Middle Passage Press, February 2008).

Comments

[Insearchoftruth]

I agree that (1) Obama is a pragmatist and (2) transformational change will not happen in 8 years. However, you overlook a significant aspect of Obama's change message - his call for public participation and involvement to force our government to respond. If he activates enough involvement, political behavior will change. it will become more accountable to the public. This ideal trumps every policy and management issue that requires compromise. Eight years is enough time to establish a behavioral norm. Clearly, you are a passive observer. I wish I could say you are an objective observer but your cynicism is blinding me.

[ignrnthllblly]

Could we, for one tiny moment, consider the possibility that a veep choice does exactly squat to define the candidate in just about every context? Just because Cheney broke the mold doesn't mean we are required henceforth to use a broken mold. Is anyone's fundamental perception of John McCain likely to change when he announces his choice?

Personally, I have to duct tape binoculars to my eyes just to get the illusion of significance. Pundits should try it--backwards--so that they can get the illusion of perspective.

[jackie4444]

"Is anyone's fundamental perception of John McCain likely to change when he announces (VP)?"
Could be. For instance, as between:

(1) Obama/Biden
(2) McCain/Romney
My choice: Obama/Biden

(1) Obama/Biden
(2) McCain/Powell
My likely choice: McCain/Powell

(1) Obama/Biden
(2) McCain/Huckabee
My choice: Obama/Biden

(1) Obama/Biden
(2) McCain/Feingold
My choice: McCain/Feingold

(1)Obama/Biden/Bugs Bunny/Fred Flintstone/Dora the Explorer
(2) McCain/Bobby Jindal/Tom Ridge/Rudy Guiliani/Condo Rice/Joseph Lieberman

So maybe it matters a little - at least in this corner of a blue state.

[LeftRight]

In that last one, it ain't gonna happen. Russ would NEVER align himself with McCain after the last few years.

And in the case of McCain/Powell, that'd be a HORRIBLE choice! Colin Powell deserves our respect as a retired General, but that's IT! The man was either duped or forced to go along with bush, and NEVER did he say anything about it until LONG after it was too late! He even CONTINUED TO WORK FOR HIM until the end of the first term!

[Daisy1111]

Well -- maybe O can change his mind and flipflop on J o e as VP.

He's managed to flipflop one everything else.

"Ummm, ummm, ummm, after considering the variables I've recalibribated ny choice VP."

Maybe he should - since the most recent poll after picking J o e shows O lost two points.

By the way - I heard a mention the the C h i c a g o D a l ey political machine actually choose J o e for O.

J o e is in tight with them. Hmmmm

[LeftRight]

Really, he's flip-flopped?? Cause I haven't seen it on any issue except the FISA bill. Course, that one is pretty bad, but it looks much better than the 7 or 8 THOUSAND flip-flops that McCain has done!!!

[Edmonsky]

Earl Ofari Hutchinson:
It is the same reason why different strands of conservatives such as Evangelicals are realigning behind the candidacy of John McCain are the Liberals or Progressives throwing their lots behind Senator Obama.
It is just an issue of commonsense. People put their money where their mouth is.

Furthermore, the criteria used by different constituencies as determinants for choosing candidates during the primary elections are different in the general election. Your accusations against the liberals or progressives would have made sense if all the members are bound together under a common, one-dimensional interest; no, it is a lattice of multi-dimensional and multi-level of interests, hence, disagreements and conflicts of interests are a given. Please make a note of it and stop speaking about liberals or progressives as monolithic group under a common interest.

[nippersdad]

Sound of crickets? Maybe we have just given up and are waiting for 2012.

[jsinclair]

Okay. Picture January 20, 2009, on the inauguration platform.

There stand....Barack Obama and Joe Biden. or...

There stand....John McSame and Mitt Romney.

Which one ALREADY shows progressive change afoot in this country? Just by being elected Obama is advancing progressive issues.

But...that's not really the point. He's a Democrat, not a Socialist. He'll push the Democratic agenda (I believe better than others), and it will be "progess".

Is he Wexler, Sanders, or Kucinich (the 3 most "progressive" voices in Congress?) No, of course not.

But this is still a basically conservative and cautious electorate, and those men will not be elected president by a majority of Americans.

Obama has a vision and he's shown throughout this campaign that he's got the organization, team, and leadership to accomplish some great things for this country. And Biden's ability to help move their legislation through Congress will be invaluable.

In 4 years, will we see progress from Obama and his team--both domestically and in foreign relations?

You can bet on it.

[LizM]

Once you discover who Joe Biden is and what he is all about, you might want to consider retracting your entire post...seriously!

If Obama provides the change we can believe in, then Biden provides the capacity to make that change happen.

[CindyV]

Earl: Loved yor post. I also love reading the hyprocrites justify the Biden selection as Veep. They hated Clinton for voting for the War. Biden did, too. (sound of crickets) They hate Clinton for saying Obama wasn't ready to be president. Biden did, too (sound of crickets) They hated Clinton because she was friends with McCain. Biden is too. (sound of crickets) They hated Clinton because she was "beltway" and as such, wasn't the voice of change. Biden's been in Washington for 35 years. Talk about Washington Insider!!!! (sound of crickets) . We have a second rate candidate for president and he picked the second rate running mate. Lovely. (sound of crickets)

[LeftRight]

First, I don't hate Clinton. Not for her war vote, not for her trying to get elected, and not for her being friends with someone that she has to work with on a daily basis. I lost RESPECT for her when she said that her supporters should consider McCain over Obama if she lost the primaries, and I've lost more respect for her since she has refused to completely give up her own ambitions for the rest of the year and back Obama 100%! However, I still like her, and people like you who seem to be more concerned about Hillary losing the primary season (which she DID!) than about 4 or 8 more years of DISASTROUS policies!

[planetclaire4]

Well, not quite. Biden repudiated his AUMF vote with more detail than anyone else has, and I don't think anyone with a brain "hates" Clinton for being friends with McCain. (For cryin into your beer, JFK and Barry Goldwater enjoyed the hell out of each other.) Biden isn;t bound to Monsanto and lobbyists for other countries--he doesn't even have a stock portfolio to avoid perceptions of conflict. AND for the first time in decades, the two at the top of our party aren't DLC, ie, Republican-lites-anything-to-get-elected. BIG change, right there. I suspect Cindy V. is either a Repub or a Repub-leaning independent and would prefer to continue the DLC way. I'm quite content to try real Dems this time.

[research]

no rationalizations needed:

I will vote for Obama because the alternative is infinity worse.

I would have preferred Kucinich and clark.

[LeftRight]

As would I, but we all know that there's a greater chance of the proverbial snowball than Dennis ever getting elected President. He wouldn't even stand a chance being APPOINTED Vice President and then coming in through the unthinkable!

[research]

Still, Dennis is going to present another impeachment petition. Sign it, and contribute to him. If he gets enough contributions, suddenly he will seem a whole lot more viable.

[Skepticat]

Unlike Mr Hutchinson I'm finding the gyrations of Hillary's diminishing fan club to be increasingly tiresome.

[loper2008]

I don't get your point. Are you trying to argue that he should have picked Hillary since Biden is similar? Biden is better than Hillary because he has actually passed important legislation like the Violence Against Women Act and he has been a vocal critic on many issues for years. JFK and LBJ partnered up. Their partnership resulted in some of the most important legislation last century. I fail to see your point at all. Their have been plenty of progressives here and elsewhere who have claimed they are not impressed with Biden. Biden was not a choice for bloggers he was a choice for the voters in FL, PA, and OH. I am thrilled because Obama has already won the progressive vote. Why should he pick a VP (who basically does nothing) that wouldn't appeal to a broader range of people?

[INDmind]

Earl, definitely one of your very best blogs! Thanks for leaving out the spin and telling the real truth.

[Heru1]

You want change? How about the first Black president. Feel better? I do.

[BigBen]

So it is all about color. Bill where are you?Geraldine where are you?What a bunch of hypocrites.

[AnotherTry]

Superficial change we can believe in.

Race should play no part in presidential politics.

[LeftRight]

And yet it does, including by AT LEAST half the PUMAs out there!

[Pieter B]

"You want change? How about the first Black president. Feel better? I do."

Two words: Alan Keyes.

[Pupadup4oBama]

Earl, while I do agree with you that many liberals and progressive can be seen as hypocritical,
I KNOW that Obama and Biden have not moved to the right inasomuch they are EXACTLY where a politician should be...right in the middle...someone who can see both sides of the argument.
For the past 8 years we have had too far to the right...we can't have too far to the left, that would just be continuing in the complete opposite direction and extremes in anything are not good.

[BigBen]

Listening to Obama for over a year now I did not realize he saw two sides to any argument."Can be see as hypocritical"? What a sweet way to put "are hypocrites "

[IslandGyal]

This guy is the left's Brad Blakeman.

[Lemeritus]

Every time someone brings up Blakeman's name, I have to hang another wreath of garlic on my door.