A couple weeks back, Chris Bowers wrote a piece over at openleft about our space priorities, and what he thinks they should be. As I mentioned in an earlier piece, I had family issues this month that chewed up my time big time, and therefore was not able to actively comment at the time.
Normally, I don't comment on other peoples' written pieces (well, normally anyway), but given Mr. Bowers' prominence in the blogging community, and the fact that he will be speaking at the NetRoots Nation Space policy panel, I decided to go ahead and comment on what he wrote. Besides, it gives me an excuse to write about space policy, and you, humble reader, an excuse to read about it. :D
How many times have you had this debate this week? It's been argued from every angle. In a diary currently on the rec list, Chris Bowers goes as far as arguing that anger leveled at Barack Obama is actually good for him - as it provides him with a useful foil:
I don't get it. Aren't we helping Democrats out by distancing them from us? Won't Obama be helped by news stories about how he has angered the left? Won't it make him look like he has Sista Soulhaj-ed us, or something? Why is our criticism a negative? Either Obama will be helped by distancing himself from the left, or he won't.
I may just be a simple guy, but that strikes me as a bit too clever.
The app lets you paste in any text containing the word "McCain" and quickly hyperlink all occurances with one of the 9 links to the stories Chris provided.
In another online life I lead, I've long been the lone voice in the wilderness insisting race, racism, the legacy of slavery, the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement are the defining features of the American political landscape (and the American experience), but this supposedly post-race election cycle might make that more apparent to more voters. Obama as a candidate, and Obama especially as the Democratic nominee, should it come to that, does not, imho, signal that race no longer matters. What Obama being the nominee and especially Obama being the President means is that race will signify in a whole new way, healthier, less tied to old alliances and grievances -- and I don't mean the grievances of black people, I mean the racial grievances of whites.
There's been a tremendous discussion going on over at OpenLeft with regards to potential VP choices for Barack Obama. While many of the more conventional names have been thrown out there, including Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano, Wesley Clark, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Jim Webb, Sherrod Brown, there has been less discussion of other individuals less prominent in national Democratic politics but might be a better fit for an Obama campaign, and (hopefully) an Obama presidency. After all, is there any better way to demonstrating a commitment to change than reaching beyond other Senators and Governors, and into the back bench of the House and out into the military, academia and other backgrounds?
During the final months of the 2006 campaign, Chris Bowers (formerly of MyDD.com and now with OpenLeft.com – two sites I still check every day), initiated the "Use-it-or-lose-it" campaign. For those who don’t remember, the UILI campaign targeted Democratic Senators and Representatives who were in "safe" democratic seats and who had substantial cash-on-hand for the campaign, to persuade them to donate some of that cash to other Senate and Congressional campaigns where the additional funds might make the difference in competitive races.
(I use the term Netroots to apply to the Progressive bloggers who back a confrontational strategy and consistently John Edwards despite the continuing strong evidence that John Edwards is not going to win the nomination. I realize that there are many other Progressive bloggers who support Obama. I use much stronger wording here than is my usual inclination because the arrogance of the Netroots invites and almost requires a strongly worded response.)
Again I find myself puzzled by the continued foolishness of the young and smart Netroots bloggers. How can they keep missing what is so damned obvious to so many others? I've only been following them for about 10 months or so but clear patterns keep emerging that make no sense to me. They are smart enough that they should be learning from their mistakes. Yet they are not.
The blogospheric rank-and-file has long been behind Edwards; now many of the influential bloggers are too.
Although the movement to Edwards is happening too late to have any impact on Iowa, the support could bear fruit, financial and otherwise, as the race moves on. In any case, it's heartening to see the progressive blogopshere get behind the strongest progressive in the race.
Incase anybody doesn't frequent OpenLeft (If you haven't, now's the time to start), Chris Bowers has an excellent rundown of the numbers in Iowa, New Hampshire, and nationally, and what they mean in relation to each other and to election prospects. His analysis is as scientific as can be possible given the unknowns obviously involved.
I think his analysis is probably correct, although I think as of now it leans more towards an uncertain tie and I think we'd agree that at best it leans Obama, things certainly could go that way in the next few weeks.
Bad but true: the blogosphere has not, and will not, oppose Hillary Clinton.
By blogosphere, I don't mean the rank-and-file (like me), who are overwhelmingly opposed to her. I mean those bloggers lucky enough to have a prominent forum; among the bloggerati, anti-Hillary Hunter is a rare exception, as is the intrepid David Sirota. Virtually all other elite bloggers, even those of populist bent like Ezra Klein, don't think a Hillary nomination would be bad for the party.
Which is to say that on this not-minor matter--we're talking about who will lead the party--the netroots don't have representative spokespeople. Yeah, yeah, I know, I could start my own blog, but for the length of this primary, the blogospheric powers that be are fixed, and they're not saying what is obvious to most of us: Hillary Clinton is too corporate, too hawkish, too Washington to be a good nominee.
What gives? Why are the elite bloggers letting us down?
Bill Richardson, once the darling of the blogosphere, until he didn't perform as well in the debates as some expected or against three trial lawyers, has once again engaged us on the war in Iraq. Matt Stoller, Chris Bowers, and Christina Siun O'Connell all speak out in the latest Richardson ad, released just before tonight's New Hampshire debate:
A Dem Presidential victory in 2008 means all US troops are leaving Iraq and coming home. Right? Wrong.
If, as Joe Biden suggests, Iraq is no longer a country why does the US need an embassy for a nation that does not exist?
If all the Presidential candidates vow to leave enough troops in Iraq to prevent genocide and ethnic cleansing; and the Kurds and Shia have both been past victims of ethnic cleansing, how many troops will a Dem President be forced to leave in Iraq?
Remember how President Stupid doesn't like to be bothered with facts?
...discussion of Matt Stoller's process of deciding to support the challenge to Lieberman is almost surreal, as if the involvement of Stoller, Jane Hamsher and even Daily Kos's Markos Moulitsas, was necessary to drive the challenge to Lieberman. ...
Today the netroots faces a new challenge of avoiding being seen as a top-down driven movement. This month is a pivotal time in the fight to end the Iraq debacle. Yet organizations like MoveOn and netroots "leaders" like Matt Stoller and Chris Bowers are more interested in launching campaigns for the 2008 elections than in organizing to pressure today's Democrat-controlled congress to do all it can to end the Iraq war now, during the Bush presidency. ...
John Edwards gave the speech of everyone’s life the other day, a masterpiece of progressive populism, a verbal grenade tossed at the Establishment. The key line should be tattooed on Rahm Emanuel's face: "We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other." RTWT.
Chris Bowers has posted his reply at OpenLeft. Please read his entire post, but as you do, please note that he is dishonestly conflating the debate over Bush Dogs with this endorsement squabble. I do not object to going after Bush Dogs and am supportive of BM/AB doing so. These are two very separate issues and I find Bowers' mixing of the two to be indicative of his weak case for endorsing Franken OVER Ciresi.
