Why the Liberal Blogosphere Sucks

Josh Marshall:

I've started giving serious thought to the high likelihood that Barack Obama is about to inherit this mess.

No sense rushing into things.

The Coming Obama/McConnell Regime

Anglachel says:

What should be a celebratory election for me, the downfall of the Reaganauts, leaves me feeling angry and betrayed. The accidents of political and economic fate have brought us an anti-leader, someone who occupies a symbolic space without embodying the substance of what those symbols represent. I read people like Digby telling us that we have to settle for the importance of symbolism rather than actual substantive legislation and we should be fine with this, and I wonder how the the Left Blogosphere became more complacent than the DLC they revile so much. How is this different than being a Blue Dog Democrat? When did triangulation come back into vogue, except this time standing squarely on a party platform that holds rejection of partisan stances as its primary political purpose?

It's very strange. Barack Obama told us exactly how he planned to win the election, and exactly how he planned to govern, and he still locked up all the the liberals. To oppose him came to be seen as . . .unthinkable.

Perhaps Obama will change course. Perhaps he'll recognize that fate has handed him an opportunity to fulfill what started out as a mere campaign strategy.

Doesn't he need to find something to put in his next memoir?

A Port In The Storm

FOX is still FOX. MSNBC is unwatchable. CNN is a bore. What’s left for the discriminating news junkie?


CNBC, my friends. The market meltdown has humbled them. Their financial experts have now joined the rest of us poor American slobs scrambling to make a buck, and--unlike Mika Brzezinski and Campbell Brown--they actually know what they’re talking about. Why should I subject myself to Chris Matthews acting out his personal issues on Hardball when a few clicks down the dial Dylan Ratigan is kicking ass and taking names on the economy? Throw in John Harwood, Maria Bartiromo, Rick Santelli–I’m hooked.


I’m going to continue to watch CNBC religiously until I figure out what the LIBOR rate is. That may take awhile.

The January Man

Peggy Noonan appeared on Meet the Press this past Sunday to promote her new book, Patriotic Grace, a plaintive cry for bipartisanship aimed at an American populace battered senseless by eight years of Republican misrule. Such anodyne political products (Unity '08, anyone?) usually hit the marketplace with a thud (although Noonan’s effort may fare better by virtue of its brevity and its lucidly maudlin prose), but that never stops our Serious Pundits from insisting that The People are clamoring for Magical Consensus. It's the Holy Grail of Broderism and still a force to be reckoned with.


Of course, we never heard any urgent calls for bipartisanship when Michael Isikoff was conspiring with Linda Tripp to lay a perjury trap for Bill Clinton, or when Ari Fleischer was telling us that we had to watch what we say in a time of war, or when John Kerry was being swiftboated. That’s because the corporate media doesn’t find anything scary about Republicans controlling all the levers of power. (Will the nightmarish Bush-Cheney years alter their calculus?) A Democratic president in 2009 is going to have to resist a phalanx of journalists pressuring him to compromise away every progressive proposal he puts on the table.


On that score, I think Tom Watson misses the point:

Now, I know we're all supposed to be singing from the same hymnal on the left these days - the positive plans of the Obama-Biden juggernaut and all that , the change brand - but I'm breaking ranks. To this Democrat, used to suffering through disastrous election nights in the full knowledge that the results will further ruin his country, Obama's instinct to go for the vicious final punch, the head-snapping lights out political blow, is a thing of beauty.

He goes on to quote the great James Wolcott:

My rooting interest is less about Obama himself than about how big a hurt he can put to the Republican Party. I don't want the Republican Party simply defeated in November, I want to see it smashed beyond all recognition, in such wriggling, writhing, anguished disarray that it can barely reconstitute itself, so desperate for answers that it looks to Newt Gingrich for visionary guidance, his wisdom and insight providing the perfect cup of hemlock to finish off the conservative movement for good so that it can rot in the salted earth of memory unmissed and unmourned in toxic obscurity.

That’s a little strong for me, though I share his basic sentiment. But let's face it: Engaging in vicious electoral politics has never been difficult for Obama. Just ask Alice Palmer or Hillary Clinton. The problem is this: After November 5, John McCain, in all likelihood, will be history, and Barack Obama will have to lead the country. Only then will we find out what "bringing people together" means in Obamaspeak.


I’m not optimistic.

Leadership Vacuum

Robotic "town hall" questioners set the tone for a tedious presidential debate that Barack Obama won by default. Age and a soul-killing political marriage to George W. Bush have made John McCain a shell of his old warrior-self. His stage presence, particularly at the start of the debate, was awkward. His attacks on his opponent’s character fell flat. And his best moment on policy came when he stole an idea from his erstwhile drinking buddy Hillary Clinton, the Banquo’s Ghost of this dismal campaign.


We can forgive the audience for still exhibiting numbness from the Wall Street meltdown, but presidents are supposed to be made of sterner stuff. It’s been nearly two weeks since their last debate, and neither candidate has elevated his game. Surely Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan would have found a way by now to tie their policy prescriptions to an overarching positive theme, but last night all we heard was a nearly rote repetition of what was said in Mississippi. I have often taken a dim view of Obama’s "hope" rhetoric, but now we might actually need some of it–or at least the markets do. But caution is Obama’s watchword: The economy is tanking under Republican rule . . . John McCain is a Republican . . . Don’t take chances!


(A final note on moderators: Is there some law saying that during every debate they must raise the spectre of an entitlement apocalypse? Is it due to the temporal proximity of Halloween? Do they always have to lump Social Security in with Medicare as if they were one program? Brokaw did it twice.)

Biden/Palin Debate

Forget the bloggers who told us Sarah Palin had to look presidential. That’s not how it works. She just had to look vice-presidential. (How do you think Spiro Agnew and J. Danforth Quayle got elected?) By that standard, she hit a home run. She appeared confident, respectful of her opponent, and far more comfortable selling Republican economic snake oil than John McCain appeared last Friday. Above all, she exuded the dreaded "sunny optimism" that made Ronald Reagan so formidable. Joe Biden’s jackhammer pounding on McCain was effective in its own way–and much more truthful–but he was so damn gloomy that I found myself looking forward to Palin’s perky responses. Yes we can, Sarah!


Both candidates were extremely well-prepared, and Palin executed to perfection–with plenty of style points--the "Dubya Strategy" of never going off message. Gwen Ifill might as well have been a cardboard cutout.


Overall, I’d give a slight edge to Palin. Factoring in the low expectations, it was a substantal win. She’s certainly not a national embarrassment tonight.

The World According to Matt

The usual suspects really need to get out more. They’re as clueless as ever. Despite having Paul Krugman and the vast majority of the people who actually know something warn that we’ll be in a world of hurt without this admittedly awful bailout bill, they’re keeping track of who’s been naughty or nice in the Senate. Byron Dorgan? Gold Star! Jim Webb? Sellout! And watch out, Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton–we’re going to primary challenge your sorry, right-wing asses! (I guess that means they’ll have to impeach Obama.)


The final tally was 74-25. So let’s hold off on the Medals of Valor for Wyden, Tester, et al. A "nay" vote is as close to a freebie as its gets. If the bill passes, they can say they had a better idea. If it fails to pass, and we have a depression, the House will get the blame. If it fails to pass, and the country muddles through, they’ll break their arms patting themselves on the back for saving the taxpayers $700 billion.


Nice work if you can get it.