NOTE TO READERS

We will no longer update this blog for politics - although we'll keep all previous articles here - because you will now be able to link directly to all our politics articles through our main blog.

JUST USE THIS LINK

FLOTSAM & JETSAM: MOVING ON WITHOUT OBAMA

Sam Smith

With his expansion of the Af-Pak war, Barack Obama has now fully established himself as the Bernie Madoff of change and hope. He had been well on his way, what with all those billions for banks and so little for troubled homeowners and small businesses; his continuation of Bushic unconstitutional assaults on civil liberties; and the convoluted corruption of the health care issue. But a war that he can not explain or defend with any modicum of logic pretty well seals the deal.

While those of us who thought he was a con man from the start no longer find ourselves so lonely, there remains the problem of what to do about it.

My sense is that the infatuation over Obama was based on much larger problems including the iconization of politics, an excessive infatuation with words over deeds, as well as naive assumptions of what having the first black president would be like. Few recognized that true equality among ethnicities includes a balanced dispersal of sins and weakness as well as virtues.

Most of all, however, Obama represented a triumph of a generation of liberals dramatically different from their predecessors, most markedly in their general indifference to issues of economic as well as ethnic equality.

This heavily professional liberal class never once - in the manner of their predecessors of the New Deal and Great Society - took the lead in pressing for economic reforms. It wasn’t that they opposed them; they just never seemed to occur to them.

They, after all, had risen in status even as much of the rest of the country was slipping. Over a quarter of a century passed and the best the liberal Democrats could come up with was to slash welfare and raise the age for Social Security.

Obama was the epitome of this new generation: well educated, well connected and well toned in rhetoric. But far distant from the concerns of so many.

So it is small wonder that the O'Reilly, Becks and Palins rose to the fore. They simply hijacked the populist tradition of the Democrats and turned it into a rhetorical toy with which they could play in any manner they desired.

It wasn't the first time it had happened. Germany's willingness to accept Hitler was the product of many cultural characteristics specific to that country, to the anger and frustrations in the wake of the World War I defeat, to extraordinary inflation and particular dumb reactions to it, and, of course, to the appeal of anti-Semitism. But, bearing in mind all the foregoing, there was also:

- A collapse of conventional liberal and conservative politics that bears uncomfortable similarities to what we are now experiencing.

- The gross mismanagement of the economy and of such key worker concerns as wages, inflation, pensions, layoffs, and rising property taxes. Many of the actions were taken in the name of efficiency, an improved economy and the "rationalization of production." There were also bankruptcies, negative trade balance, major decline in national production, large national debt rise compensated for by foreign investment. In other words, a hyped version of what America and its workers are experiencing today.

- The collapse of the country's self image. Thomas Childers points out that Germany had been a world leader in education, industry, science, and literacy. Much of the madness that we see today stems from attempts to compensate for our own battered self-image.

This is only a caution, not a prediction. But without a strong populist progressive movement, based on the economic and social well being of all Americans, we run a serious risk of further disintegration.

The first thing that needs to happen is for there to be a clear distinction between smug, self-serving liberalism contemptuous of so many Americans and a populist progressive movement that seeks unity with those many liberals prefer simply to condemn.

The magnets for this unity are such obvious yet ignored issues as the creation of jobs, the preservation of pensions, decent treatment of endangered homeowners, an end to credit card usury, respect for local decision-making, and, yes, a healthcare plan based on providing financial assistance, not bureaucratic nightmares.

Such a movement would have to be formed issue by issue. It can not rely on empty icons or over-packed ideology. If one agrees on how to handle foreclosures but disagrees on abortion, leave the latter for another day. It is by working together on the things upon which we agree that both respect and power are gained.

Such principles were almost a given in much of the best organizing of the 1960s and 70s, but they have become obscured in a time when one's political identity is so tied to the ego and so indifferent to real progress.

We need to return to issue politics. To get out of the comfortable church of our own ideology and on the street with reality and real people. In the words of one populist of long ago, "we need to raise less corn and more hell."

Obama has had his chance. He blew it. It's our turn now. If we don't take it, we'll have far more than Afghanistan to worry about.

WHY PALIN, DOBBS AND BECK AREN'T POPULISTS

Jonathan Alter, Newsweek - Populism has been expanded to include anyone on the side of the people against the elites. But the word once had a more particular meaning. The anger had content. Populists of the past like Bryan in the 1890s, Huey Long and Father Coughlin in the 1930s, and even Pat Buchanan in the 1990s were angry about East Coast capitalists who were hurting the little guy in the heartland. They were anti-Wall Street, strongly protectionist, and committed to economic justice, even when some of them descended into racism and anti-Semitism.

Today's faux populists also feast on emotions-anxiety, anger, resentment-that intensify in hard times. But they are more accurately described as plain old reactionaries, a wonderfully precise word that has gone out of common usage. They're reacting against the pace of change and feeding right-wing nostalgia for a bygone era when a liberal black man wouldn't dare run for president. Palin might try to echo Bryan, but she would consider Bryan's Populist Party platform of 1896 communistic were she to add it to her famous reading list. Dobbs, once corporate America's biggest apologist, still has no use for labor unions, which might make it tough to forge a connection with working people. Beck said recently that his reading of history suggested it was in the progressive era that the United States first started going to hell. He wants to make the country safe for the 1880s.

MORNING LINE

Progressive Review - We've noted before the political dangers lurking for Democrats in the health care bill. It's not getting any better. In fact, we can't recall any legislation that was meant to be such a major political asset that turned into such a dud - unless it was the Clinton health care plan.

While much of the blame can be placed on right wing propaganda, it also true that the plan has been hurt by the needless complexity of the measure, its uncertainties, the enforced mandate and the sense that government control will be increased greatly. This latter fear is based not just on conservative manipulation but on a generalized - and largely unrecognized (by Democrats) sense - that the Obamites are too full of themselves. In this regard, Obama is almost the exact opposite of Harry Truman and helps to explain why so many are being sucked by Sarah Palin.

And what happens when the bill is passed and private insurance premiums continue to rise rapidly? Unfairly to be sure, Obama will now be blamed. And what about all the presently unnoticed bleeps in the bill that will become major issues in the 2010 election? The Democrats will have bought the rights to every health care headache in America.

To get some sense of the problem, consider the latest Zogby poll from Arkansas. Asked whom they would vote for, respondents went for the incumbent Blanche Lincoln over Republican Gilbert Baker by a mere 1 point.

But far worse is what happens when the question is changed from just one of a candidate choice to "knowing that Lincoln supports the healthcare bill" whom would you choose? Baker then wins by 12 points.

In other words, this purported flagship legislation could easily become a political nightmare for the Democrats.

Worse, for those who wanted a decent single payer plan, this disaster could ruin the prospects for such legislation for years to come. The Democrats will not have only blown their own supposedly moderate, pragmatic, bipartisan proposal, but killed chances for anything bette

SUPREME COURT CASE COULD AFFECT A HOST OF GOVERNORS' RACES NEXT YEAR

EARLY VOTING OFTEN REDUCES OVERALL TURNOUT

University of Wisconsin - Although states are moving quickly to put in place election procedures that allow for early voting, allowing people to cast ballots ahead of Election Day often results in lower turnout, according to research from a team of University of Wisconsin-Madison political scientists.

However, in states such as Wisconsin, which also allow voters to register at the polls, the effect on turnout is more muted, the research showed.

Although about 30 percent of voters nationally cast ballots before election day in 2008, the buzz that builds around Election Day - the key to bringing less-dedicated voters to the polls - isn't as strong when voting activity is spread out over the last weeks of the campaign, the report from the UW-Madison shows.

"Early and absentee voting siphons activity away from Election Day itself that would have stimulated turnout," says the report .

MORNING LINE

President

Obama is ahead of all three of his potential major challenger, but only with Palin is his lead consistently in the double digits. Recent polling gives Obama leads like this:

Against Romney: 8-10
Against Palin: 21-30
Against Huckabee: 7-10

Senate

The Senate line up is not good for the Democrats. They'll probably hold onto their majority but you can forget that "filibuster-proof" stuff. Two Democrats are in serious trouble - Dodd and Harry Reid - and five of the seven states that are unclear currently have Democratic senators.

Governors

The Democrats have already lost two governorships in this election cycle. At present, the GOP stands to gain one more with four unclear (two currently held by Democrats

Details

YOUNG VOTE PROVING FICKLE

Michael Barrone, DC Examiner - In November 2008, 658,000 Americans under 30 voted in New Jersey and 782,000 did so in Virginia. In November 2009, 212,000 Americans under 30 voted in New Jersey and 198,000 did so in Virginia. In other words, young voter turnout this year was down two-thirds in New Jersey and three-quarters in Virginia.

These numbers are extrapolations from exit poll results and should be regarded as approximate and not precise. But they tell a vivid story, and one with scary implications for both Democratic and Republican political strategists.

The scary story for Republicans was plain a year ago. Young voters went 66 to 32 percent for Barack Obama, while voters over 30 went for Obama by only 50 to 49 percent. Some analysts projected an enduringly Democratic Millennial Generation that would send the Republican Party the way of the Whigs.

But that future obviously didn't arrive last week and it doesn't seem likely to arrive in November 2010. Young voters cast 441,000 votes for Obama in New Jersey but only 121,000 for Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine, who brought Obama into the state five times and featured him in his TV ads.

Young voters cast 469,000 votes for Obama in Virginia and provided him with 70 percent of his statewide plurality, but they only cast 87,000 votes for the hapless Democratic nominee Creigh Deeds. Republican Bob McDonnell actually carried the young vote 54 to 44 percent.

A drop-off in young turnout is normal in off-year elections. But this drop-off was enormous. Evidently the aura of candidate Obama was a lot more attractive to young Americans than the policies of President Obama and the roughly similar policies of the Democratic candidates in New Jersey and Virginia.

MUDCAT SAUNDERS TAKES ON WHITE HOUSE SNIPING ABOUT VIRGINIA DEMOCRATS

CNN - A well-known Democratic strategist in Virginia is blasting the White House for placing anonymous quotes in the Washington Post in a preemptive effort to blame Creigh Deeds for what might be a loss in the state's upcoming gubernatorial election.

David "Mudcat" Saunders, who gained political fame helping Democrat Mark Warner reach out to rural voters during Warner's successful 2001 gubernatorial bid, told CNN Friday that trying to blame Deeds is "bullshit" when Democrats around the country are "just tired of politics.". . .

In a story published Friday, a senior administration official told the Post that the Deeds campaign ignored their advice to embrace the president, which the official claimed would have boosted the Democratic candidate's lackluster support among the African-Americans and young voters who supported Obama in 2008.

Saunders rejected that argument. Embracing Obama - who does appear with Deeds on ads running in some parts of the state - might not have hurt the candidate in Democratic-leaning areas, he argued, but with the contentious economic debates going on in Washington, the presidential stamp of approval wouldn't have turned him into an instant frontrunner. In southwest Virginia, he said, embracing the president would have been a "devastating" political move for Deeds, who is trailing Republican Bob McDonnell in the polls.

"They're making the assumption Virginia is a blue state, and it's not," Saunders said of the administration. "It's not a red state either. The very best that can be said about Virginia is that it's light purple. For them to say if he had listened to us they would win, that's chickenshit. That's Monday morning quarterbacking."

OBAMA AIDES SLASH TACTICS OF MAJOR DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE

This is an extraordinary story. We can't recall any previous White House doing something like this before an election. It won't be forgotten among Virginia Democrats

Washington Post - Sensing that victory in the race for Virginia governor is slipping away, Democrats at the national level are laying the groundwork to blame a loss in a key swing state on a weak candidate who ran a poor campaign that failed to fully embrace President Obama until days before the election.

Senior administration officials have expressed frustration with how Democrat R. Creigh Deeds has handled his campaign for governor, refusing early offers of strategic advice and failing to reach out to several key constituencies that helped Obama win Virginia in 2008, they say.

Democratic strategists said that over the summer, Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) offered Deeds advice on winning a statewide election. Among other things, Kaine, who is also chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told Deeds that he should lay out more of his own vision and stop attacking Republican Robert F. McDonnell so ferociously. But Deeds did not embrace the advice, according to a national Democratic strategist.

A senior administration official said Deeds badly erred on several fronts, including not doing a better job of coordinating with the White House. "I understood in the beginning why there was some reluctance to run all around the state with Barack Obama," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to speak candidly about the race. "You don't do that in Virginia. But when you consider the African American turnout that they need, and then when you consider as well they've got a huge problem with surge voters, younger voters, we were just a natural for them."

A second administration official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said: "Obama, Kaine and others had drawn a road map to victory in Virginia. Deeds chose another path."

A loss for Deeds in Virginia -- which for the first time in decades supported the Democratic presidential candidate in last year's race -- would likely be seen as a sign that Obama's popularity is weakening in critical areas of the country. But the unusual preelection criticism could be an attempt to shield Obama from that narrative by ensuring that Deeds is blamed personally for the loss, particularly given the state's three-decade pattern of backing candidates from the party out of power in the White House.