Prometheus 6

dnA at Too Sense said there is a liberal anti-Obama dogpile recently. He specifically cites TPM

But sometimes even the greats fuck up:

There are a couple stories up today about how the Obama campaign is supposedly advertising on Drudge and speculation about how this might enrage Democratic partisans. Now, I don't know anything specifically about this case. We're planning to put in some calls. But at the moment our reporters are tied up working on another story.

Ah. So they don't know if Obama is advertising on Drudge, but it "might" be happening?

...You can't hold yourself and the MSM to such (appropriately) high standards then pull the old "is this happening?" MSM style games.

And he let a link to The Politico indict Kos, Atrios, Jane Hamsher, Crooks & Liars, TalkLeft, and Ezra Klein.

Also, that as Ezra Klein writes, Obama represents the "old politics of centrist caution and status quo bias."

That's what used to be called, ironically, Clintonism.

True.

I saw some of that. I apparently missed both the depth of, and reason for, such silliness as complaining about how Obama is "attacking" Kerry and Gore.

 

Perhaps because his wife is such an avid reader of blogs, Edwards' campaign tapped right into our zeitgeist. He came out with our insight front and center. You want Edwards' message? Here it is: 'Fuck David Broder, fuck Joe Klein, fuck Chris Matthews, fuck FOX News, fuck Tim Russert, fuck Mitch McConnell, fuck Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Defense. We don't need them. They won't negotiate in good faith. They're stacking the deck against us. And we can beat them by telling the truth and getting organized.' That's Edwards' message, and that is the message we have internalized both through our successes and our failures.

What's funny is that Obama is saying many of the same things, in his own way. The policy differences between Edwards and Obama are minimal. But Obama's tone deaf to the blogosphere. And, as a result, the blogosphere didn't trust him. Take Armando:

 

...we do not criticize Obama's political style on aesthetic grounds; we criticize his style because we think it will not work to actually EFFECT CHANGE. We believe that despite his being touted as the change candidate, his political style is the one LEAST likely to achieve progressive policy change.

His 'style' will be ineffective. Why did so many of us conclude this? It's because we have watched Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi try to negotiate with the Republicans (in the minority, the majority, no matter) and it does not work. We have watched the Dems talk tough and then back down time and time again. We're done with conciliation and we don't believe bipartisanship is possible without first crushing the Republican Party down to a stump.

Fortunately, BooMan is adult enough to carry the analysis through to the real world.

Ironically, Obama might be the perfect candidate to provide the kind of crushing victories this November that will make true bipartisanship possible again. I definitely think that is a possibility. In fact, I feel his chances are strong enough that I can't endorse Edwards over Obama. I do hope Edwards wins in Iowa, but not necessarily because I think I prefer him to Obama. More than anything, I want Edwards' style to be vindicated. I want partisanship and combativeness to be rewarded. And I want Clinton/Lieberman/Ford/Carper/Carville/Begala/Penn to lose.

I am tempted to search out the reaction The Bloggers had when Edwards fired a couple of well-known bloggers. Obviously they got over it...I hope they'll get over this one too. Because none of them believe a victory for Obama is a loss for the Democratic Party.