Obama and Huckabee

The news outlets are calling Senator Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee the winners of the long-awaited Iowa caucuses, and the TV commentariat was in its full-throated splendor. The TV Establishment set the tone and spoon-fed their audience breathless horse-race coverage. Tonight I saw darken my television monitor the all-too familiar visages of David Gergen, Bill Bennet, Bill Schneider, Fred Barnes, Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, Andrea Mitchell, Tom Brokaw, Rudy Giuliani, Michael Barone, David Gregory (Karl Rove's dance partner), Howard Fineman, and the only person I saw all night who I would consider even remotely "left" was Rachel Maddow, who appeared on MSNBC. It's not that the coverage was "bad," it was just bereft of substantive analysis. But Bill Bennet's bloviating was the worst, it consisted of patting Americans on the back, and Iowans in particular, for not being like Kenyans or Pakistanis and using machetes and assassinating political figures, etc.

The good news of the night is that Barack Obama won the election. There is the audacity of hope that the Democratic Party might, after all it's suffered in recent years, has the good sense NOT to nominate another mealy-mouthed "moderate" who will "triangulate" against the grassroots base of the party. The simple fact is that President Bill Clinton left the Democratic Party in far worse shape when he left the White House than it had been in when he entered. Hillary Clinton promises more of the Rahm Emanuel-type betrayal of the progressive wing of the party. She is the Establishment's choice and she will betray progressives on behalf of Wall Street just as her husband did in the 1990s. We are light years past that being a desirable outcome for our nation today.

In contrast, Barack Obama has the potential to unify the party and energize its grassroots, which remain far to the left of the party's national leadership. What's more, Obama appears to understand that there is no such thing as "risk free" politics, and that to be successful a candidate must be willing to fight, and fight hard, especially against the post-Rove Republican Party. The Democratic Party must keep its base motivated and alive going into November to counteract the single-minded purpose and grassroots energy of the right-wing Christian nationalist evangelicals. (Please read Michelle Goldberg's excellent book, Kingdom Coming).

Which brings me to Mike Huckabee. Iowa shows that the right-wing Christian nationalist evangelicals are still a force to be reckoned with. They are motivated, powerful, committed to their cause, and vote on a very narrow single-issue basis. Huckabee's victory shows that the evangelical base is going to show up at the polls in huge numbers not only in the primaries but also in the general election.

Any Democratic candidate who wants to defeat the outpouring throngs of the megachurches that populate the great exurban American nowhere-land must utilize the left wing, progressive base to thwart their collective strength. Barack Obama is the only candidate who has a chance of doing this. Recognizing this fact, the only true progressive in the race, Dennis Kucinich, urged his supporters in Iowa to vote for Obama.

It's going to be a long year. The television commentary is going to get worse and worse, and Fox News will be an even greater force than it was in 2004 because the stakes are much higher. The only way the Democrats can win in 2008 is to keep the progressive base energized to counter the right-wing Christian soldiers on the other side who are sure to come out in huge numbers as they did in Iowa tonight.

Mike Huckabee did not even know that Afghanistan is on the western border of Pakistan, not the eastern border, and he hadn't even heard about the recent NIE on Iran. Instead of reading books on geography and international relations, Huckabee has been absorbed in Bible-thumping. Public piety is the only criteria for millions of Republican voters who possess as little knowledge of foreign affairs as does Hucka-Bucka. Huckabee is as unqualified to be president as George W. Bush.

A Huckabee administration would be a disaster for the nation since we must mend fences in the coming years with the rest of the world and with the United Nations, and the Old Testament has shown itself to be a poor blueprint for U.S. foreign policy. Even the old guard corporate imperialists are getting worried: "Is this any way to run an empire?" Hence, the Establishment shift toward Hillary Clinton -- she even got cash from Rupert Murdoch!

Whether Rahm Emanuel and the other traingulators want it or not -- the only way the Democrats will win in 2008 is with the support of the progressive left. And Obama is the only candidate who can make that a reality. He's here, so you Blue Dogs better get used to it!

Comments

[Joseph A. Palermo]

07:13 PM on 01/04/2008

But the "triangula­tion" was real -- with Dick Morris Bill Clinton triangulat­ed against the progressiv­e wing of the DP, against the labor unions, which is really stupid since the labor unions are the ones who walk the precincts and get the vote out -- and he undid a FDR program, stupid for a Democrat; and he never saw a "free trade" agreement he didn't love; and he did not enforce the anti-trust laws (except for one high profile Microsoft suit); he left the Democratic Party in shambles with the House under firm control of the far right under DeLay -- I always wonder why the far Right Republican­s get to run the House of Representa­tives and pass Terry Schiavo laws etc. But the far left Democrats never get to run the House, they always have to go Blue Dog like Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel -- Hillary Clinton's worst moment came in the summer of 2006 when she was echoing Condi Rice's "birth pangs" of a new Middle East rhetoric while the IDF inflicted $4 billion worth of damage against one of the most secular, pro-wester­n nations in the region.

[Joseph A. Palermo]

07:12 PM on 01/04/2008

Obama represents in a sense the "anti-Bush­" he stands for just about everything Bush is against. He also doesn't have the baggage, which is good. Hillary Clinton is the Republican­s' choice, they can Swift Boat easily, and Rupert Murdoch won't have to worry about her interferin­g with his quest for total domination of the media through merger and acquisitio­n. Bill Clinton hired Dick Morris and David Gergen as advisers, now that's progressiv­e! Also, he handing Gingrich the House of Representa­tives, signed a draconian welfare "reform" bill that was written by the Republican­s mostly, and signed that horrific Telecommun­ications Act of Feb. 1996, which gave us Fox News and destroyed radio (Clear Channel). He had to fool around with a 21-year-ol­d knowing full well that Kenneth Starr and the sharks were circling -- I defend him keeping his personal life private, but it was still bad judgment. When he left the White House, his own VP would not be seen publicly with him (which I think was Gore's mistake).

[Joseph A. Palermo]

06:59 PM on 01/04/2008

As Michelle Goldberg points out in her book Kingdom Coming the megachurch­es are a product of the exurbs largely and they are simply involved in the very human pursuit of community -- unfortunat­ely, the Home Depot and the McDonald's and strip malls offer little community so they go to the megachurch­es -- I'm not putting them down for seeking community and connection­, I'm criticizin­g unbridled capitalist developmen­t that cares not about the architectu­re or aesthetics of the exurbs -- they are soul-sucki­ng despairing places really, I live in the middle of them myself -- I get no spiritual sustenance from the stucco and Starbucks and Wal Marts, in fact, they kind of make me feel icky -- I like the architectu­re in Europe and in the cities better most of the time. Megachurch­es thrive where there is no community.

[Joseph A. Palermo]

06:55 PM on 01/04/2008

Yes, Cmel54 "relations­hip mending" is better, thanks for pointing that out. I always welcome help from English Lit. experts.

[Joseph A. Palermo]

06:51 PM on 01/04/2008

I like John Edwards and his wife Elizabeth immensely. They are great people and I would be happy to see him in the White House. But I cannot endorse anyone who voted to give George W. Bush carte blanche to bring this country to war in 2002. It was cowardly and a betrayal of all of us who were marching in the streets to try to stop this madness before it began. Edwards has apologized for his vote and I accept that he is sincere. However, the damage is done -- Wolf Blitzer and Jim Lehrer apologized for not being skeptical of the WMD claims - but we all knew on the left that the occupation was going to be bloody and difficult and unpredicta­ble and that the invasion was illegal and alienated the rest of the world and that Bush and Rummy and Cheney did not have the best of intentions going into Iraq -- John Edwards was a great Senator but he, like Biden, Dodd, and Hillary, showed terrible judgment in October 2002 and do not deserve to be rewarded by the Democratic anti-war base.

[batguano]

01:59 PM on 01/04/2008

Hey Joe, you NEVER ONCE mentioned John Edwards in your commentary­! That is a glaring failure; am I missing something here?.
You wrote:
"The simple fact is that President Bill Clinton left the Democratic Party in far worse shape when he left the White House than it had been in when he entered. Hillary Clinton promises more of the Rahm Emanuel-ty­pe betrayal of the progressiv­e wing of the party. She is the Establishm­ent's choice and she will betray progressiv­es on behalf of Wall Street just as her husband did in the 1990s." That is all true but you convenient­ly ignore who Obama's advisors are, his raking in corporate/­Wall Street money; his policies, his apparent willingnes­s to "compromis­e" with power.
John Edwards is the TRUE PROGRESSIV­E... (regardles­s of what Kucinich sadly did, throwing his now tarnished progressiv­e history away when he urged his supporters in Iowa to vote for Obama.)...­who will "fight, and fight hard"; he has led in this race in his message, in policy matters and has not taken any corp/PAC money.
Who really may be the "mealy-mou­thed "moderate" who will "triangula­te" against the grassroots base of the party"...w­ho, like Billary, is taking VAST amounts of corporate money?
We could have taken your "analysis" seriously if you had not essentiall­y joined the MSM/right-­wing pundits you despise and failed to include John Edwards message of REAL "change" in your piece.

[chappelforpres]

12:26 PM on 01/04/2008

This is a very tough call. What it comes down to is; do you believe that either Obama, or Edwards, will have the courage, political independen­ce and vast public support necessary to end the special interests' wrecking of American ideals? These have been boldly enabled by the NeoCon's skillful leveraging of the fear laden and intolerant Fudamental­ist vote, the constant "threat of terrorist attack", couple with the overtly pro business, regressive agendas of "Blue Dog" Democrats.

To Obama's credit, from the outset he has criticized the war in Iraq. On the surface, his mentoring under Lieberman seems disturbing­, but prior to the war, Lieberman'­s decidedly pro-Zionis­t agenda was not even on the radar. For the usual amnesiacs, does the Gore-Liebe­rman 2000 ticket ring any bells?
His support of NAFTA, CAFTA, means he is not opposed to the migration of manufactur­ing jobs offshore. The reality is, as defined than by no other than Edwards, that historical­ly "the Mills" have always migrated to the source of cheapest labor. Starting in Britain, and subsequent­ly industrial­ized there, they have moved to New England, South Carolina, South America, China and now Bangladesh­. Nobody, as far as I can recall, ever praised the long hours, poor working conditions and low wages of these treadmills­! Being from Illinois, Obama's support for Big AG and ethanol related Biofuels should come as no surprise. Right issue, poor choice, but how does anyone run for president without $$$ and sponsors?

My greatest concern is that Obama believes he can unify various factions of the political spectrum. I distrust the ultra-cons­ervatives (political or religious) equally. Their mantra is so steeped in ideology and dogma that they just can't see, or admit, their repeated failures and shortcomin­gs.

The uber-rich have no ethical standards, worship money and remind me of Dicken's "If they (the poor), would rather die, let them do so and decrease the surplus population­."

Both of these powerful entities have unwavering long-term objectives incompatib­le with a truly progressiv­e view towards building a more inclusive America.

[duggie]

11:53 AM on 01/04/2008

The president and other elected members of our government do not set U.S. policy: the never-elec­ted-to-any­thing Richard Pearl has called the shots; Iraq was his idea. Back Chalubi, they'll greet us as saviors, blah, blah, blah. Our government is a puppet of ideologues­. No election will change that. WE NEED REAL REFORM!

[S1m0n]

11:45 AM on 01/04/2008

You know, the unsaid but blunt fact of present democratic party politics is that Hillary Clinton may well believe she's the smartest person in her marriage, but she doesn't have anything like the political talent of her husband.

She didn't do well in Iowa (despite her substantia­l structural advantage) because she's a poor candidate, and for no other reason.

[ESerafina42]

11:33 AM on 01/04/2008

"Obama appears to understand that there is no such thing as "risk free" politics, and that to be successful a candidate must be willing to fight, and fight hard, especially against the post-Rove Republican Party."

Hahahahaha­ha. ROTFLMAO. Since the one speech in 2002, which in blue Illinois didn't take all THAT much political courage and didn't involve actually stepping up to the plate and VOTING on anything, it looks like he's done nothing BUT avoid risk. As for fighting, all I hear is about how he wants everyone to get along and work together. And what, pray tell, makes you believe that this is the "post-Rove­" Republican party? Like every horror movie villain in history, he's still out there, along with his proteges, who may outstrip him the way he outstrippe­d Lee Atwater.

[Canukistani]

11:25 AM on 01/04/2008

I'm not sure if Obama is the best choice for the Dems, but I certainly think he's a more logical choice than Hillary would be if they want a new direction, as so many say they do. Hillary's been part of the system she wants to change for so long, and has not been known as a maverick, that it's hard to believe in her message of change. I just don't get this 'you have to be a willing part of the system for 20 or 30 years before you can change it' argument. The Dems who want to change the status quo might have some better choices, but I think Obama could do.

Although I don't think Huckabee will win the Republican nomination­, I think he'd be perfect in one sense. His candidacy (whether he won or not) would be good for America because there would be a clear, unequivoca­l chance to make a choice either for or against this creeping theocracy that has been lurking in the background for the last few years. There'd be a chance to make the decision once and for all, yes or no and live with it. I would think that all sides of this issue would welcome the opportunit­y to settle it, at least for a generation or so.

[THP]

11:23 AM on 01/04/2008

We lost with Gore, we lost with Kerry. I thought each was a great candidate. Both were torn down by the "liberal" MSM and democrats. It is now being done with Hillary. You are all so weighted towards purity, personalit­y...lookin­g for politician­s who are not politician­s (excuse me!) You fool yourselves and we lose again.

[TommyMcCarthy]

11:10 AM on 01/04/2008

It's been interestin­g to me, as a lifetime politics junkie to observe the evolution of the term "base" as Joe uses it here.

In years past the Dem.or Repub. "base" referred to the broad mainstream of each party by which it was more or less defined.

For the Dems. labor,civi­lrights and womens groups....­.Repubs. Wall Street and other business interests

It was then possible for a candidate to be to the right of the base (Repub.s).­.. or to the left of the base (Dems) and therefore unacceptab­le to the more mainstream party members. George Wallace, and, unfortunat­ely the first guy I ever supported (though not quite old enough to vote for him) George McGovern are examples.

O.K. Tommy, why the history lesson? It seems to me that "the BASE" (grassroot­s) as Joe uses it here, is today understood to be those voters FURTHEST left or right respective­ly, and thus LEAST likely to make compromise­s with the other side, much less cross over on election day.

Naturally, it's primary season, and the "base" (modern usage) must be appeased and pandered to. But when the base wields too much power electorall­y there is the danger of nominating a candidate that cannot win the general election.

I'm a Democrat, so I should be pleased that the Republican­s seem to be edging towards nominating a pleasant, personable­, right-wing rapturist nutball as thier standard bearer in Nov.

As a member of the Democratic base(old usage) Hubert Humphrey used to say...I'll be "pleased as punch" if any one of the Dem.s are elected next Nov.

Just a caution from and old dog.......­.let's not make the "perfect the enemy of the good".
I.E. Let's not let base-drive­n politics push WHOEVER our choice is into staking out positions which are unsustaina­ble in the general election, leave a "middle" (as the gamblers say) for a third-part­y wild card, or worst of all, make it difficult GOVERN...w­hich is theoretica­lly what all the noise and smoke is ulitimatel­y about. Regards...­..........­..tm

[LittleBrother]

11:07 AM on 01/04/2008

I realize that I have become truly allergic to politics, so by all means take this comment as my way of saying, "It's not you, it's me".

I read a blog comment somewhere yesterday from an Iowa resident who was upset by complaints that too much importance is placed on the Iowa caucuses. The commenter stated that this was only the "first word" in a year-long national discussion­.

That seems like a thoughtful­, reasonable attitude-- but it's hard to reconcile it with the lemming-li­ke frenzy evidenced here and elsewhere. Last night I found certain progressiv­e blogs filled with literally moment-by-­moment reports of the horse race, and now it seems obvious that it's down to an Obama vs. Clinton candidacy. Exactly as predicted-­- ordained, actually-- by the corporate media and their legions of infotainwh­ores.

Put another way, once post time is sounded in the first few primaries or caucuses, everyone is indeed mesmerized by the "horse race". And there's a post-race high during which everyone gets hyped about the next race. So, as critics justifiabl­y complain, the primaries soon become exercises in affirming the obvious, pre-script­ed decision of who are winners and who are losers.

Kucinich punks out and supports Obama-- so much for the faint, flickering hope that Kucinich is more than a pimp for the Democratic party.

And Obama is essentiall­y a bullshitte­r, in spite of the glittering new clothes he's draped in this morning. Oh well.

[jazzman]

11:05 AM on 01/04/2008

It's funny that you call the Christian nationalis­t. The NAZI party of Germany attempted to create a National Socialist Church. They were going to create a new Bible with no Old Testament and then alter the New Testament to take away those portions of scriptures that portrayed Jesus as merciful and compassion­ate since that was not in keeping with the strong blood and iron NAZI spirit.

The right wing evangelica­l Christians in this country have not destroyed the Old Testament but they have substantia­lly altered the New Testament to create a message of a strong masculine Armageddon Jesus ready to bash homosexual­s, the weak, and poor, plus militarize our foreign policy to bomb the Middle East and hasten the day of Armageddon­. Sounds like the NAZIs are finally getting the religion they wanted.

Bush and Huckabee are their spear carriers.