Wonderment, do you think it's better to have a candidate who agrees with you generally, but who moderates their positions toward some presumably electable ideal; or to have a candidate who sticks closely to more partisan positioning and sacrifices a big chunk of the center? I would argue that in a democracy the right thing to do is generally the same as the most electable thing you can do. Progressives or conservatives or liberals or libertarians or whichever other ideologically consistent factions you can name can't expect to start dictating terms to rest of the country, much as any of us might think it's the right thing to do. I'd go further and say that if we, any of us, really care for our ideals we should hope that those ideals don't become the consistent basis for legislation and policy in any particular administration. Too many interests inconsistent with those ideals will be hurt and the inevitable backlash will damage the cause. I think the better strategy for those of us who feel that our ideals are the best approach (who among us

Quoting Wonderment: ... reminding them through October how much he was against the Iraq War before it started, and then in January explaining why a precipitous withdrawal would be catastrophic. ...

At least you are beginning to see the real world and the reality the that the emperor has no clothes!

Jane looks just great without a beard! Wowee!

Jane, I can't speak for the patriotism of AA, but I believe that the current volunteer military fighting in Iraq & Iran is composed of a higher percentage than say the army which fought in Vietnam (so to say that AA's are the one's who fight the wars is factually inaccurate)

The percentage of blacks enter the services is now roughly on par with there percentage in the general population. This is down for what up until about 2000 was an enlistment rate considerably higher than their representation in the general populace ( as high as ~23%).

Jeff,

Wonderment, do you think it's better to have a candidate who agrees with you generally, but who moderates their positions toward some presumably electable ideal; or to have a candidate who sticks closely to more partisan positioning and sacrifices a big chunk of the center?

I'm not being facetious here, but is that candidate Barack Obama? I am aware that Obama will make compromises to get elected; all candidates do. I'm just suggesting that the progressive wing of the party should not be dazzled with fantasies that Obama is "the most liberal member of the US Senate" or bamboozled by Obama operatives who assure us with a wink that he supports our positions. Obama will begin to reverse the damage done by the idiocy and evil of the Bush administration. He'll abolish torture, shut down Guantánamo, and try to extricate us (painfully and slowly) from Iraq. He will wake up to global warming and bring us closer to universal healthcare coverage. All that is wonderful. But on most other issues he'll need to be pushed.

The talk about organization reminds me of the rave scene in the 90s.

Quoting Wonderment: Obama will begin to reverse the damage done by the idiocy and evil of the Bush administration. He'll abolish torture, shut down Guantánamo, and try to extricate us (painfully and slowly) from Iraq. He will wake up to global warming and bring us closer to universal healthcare coverage. All that is wonderful. But on most other issues he'll need to be pushed.

I'll take it! Seriously, if he can do that much, I'll be ecstatic. I'll add: he'll appoint people to the Federal courts who will properly value the rights of individuals, particularly when the they're measured in opposition to business interests. I know there are other pressing issues, but that really is a hell of a laundry list.

I'm not being facetious here, but is that candidate Barack Obama?

From my perpsective, I'd say so.

I'm just suggesting that the progressive wing of the party should not be dazzled with fantasies that Obama is "the most liberal member of the US Senate" or bamboozled by Obama operatives who assure us with a wink that he supports our positions.

You have a point. My guess is that as a matter of governance his administration would plop

My guess is that as a matter of governance his administration would plop itself into spot pretty close to center - somewhere to the left of Bill Clinton, but probably not very much further left than Hillary would have been.

I share your view, although Iraq War aside, I'm not sure he's further left than Hillary. As Elizabeth and John Edwards have pointed out, she had a better health care plan, and I think towards the end of her campaign she become a real upfront advocate for the poor (notwithstanding the idiotic "tax holiday" proposal). I think Hill was always more progressive than Bill and would have proved it as president.

Do you feel as though the Obama people are playing progressives, making promises they won't deliver on? That hasn't been my impression, but I'm curious if you see it that way.

No, I think he has pulled together a really diverse mix, and it's unclear so far which groups will exert more influence. That's why I wish we'd see more Obama policy wonks on BHeads. I do think Obama can be relied on to nominate solidly liberal judges to begin to offset the dominance

As a person who works with reporters every day, I think Ms. Hamsher is a national treasure. Just last week I had an experienced national reporter tell me that the first amendment ONLY applies to the press. That the rest of us are not covered by it's protections and therefore subject to government AND corporate retribution when reporting things, even if they are factual. When pressed about how one gets the noble title of Member of the Press this gentleman informed me that I would know if I was admitted into their ranks. Until that time that particular part of the Constitution and Bill of Rights did not apply to me. BTW, this is not the first, second or even third time this argument has been made to me by someone who considers themself to be a member of the Fourth Estate. Look for the governement to begin using this argument in court against bloggers and those posting video on You Tube.

Quoting ogieogie: Jane looks just great without a beard! Wowee!

Hey, no commenting on female diavloggers' appearances. ;^)

ohc: That assertion sounds so over the top that I'd like to believe that guy was pulling your chain. Sadly, though, there are clearly some members of the press whose sense of self-importance and privilege is wildly inflated, and so I'm afraid I'm inclined to believe the story at face value. In the spirit of Jane's expressed philosophy and your clear agreement with it, I call upon you to out the person who said this to you. Or did he clearly ask to be off the record beforehand?

I guess that's why they are called journalists and not lawyers.

Wonderment: AemJeff's already said a lot of what I would said, but I'll pile on just to emphasize one point: you can't govern if you don't win. Okay, two. As AemJeff noted, it's not reasonable to push for too radical a change all at once. Patient, steady pressure is the key. That's how the right did it, starting in the early 1960s, and look how well it worked for them. To that end, I urge you to watch the second video in the techPresident article (link repeated from show page), and to read the article itself, if you haven't already. For a lot of the problems we face, there are no quick fixes. I agree with you that Obama probably never as was as far to the left as the right would like to paint him (or if they're far enough out there, may genuinely believe). I also agree that it's important for us fringe types to keep pushing our agenda to keep him from going too far to the center.

bj - The context of his comments to me was a training for staff of a non profit agency that frequently interacts with the media. I am a designated public information officer for that organization. If it was just a conversation with him I would certainly disclose his name. As it is, for me to disclose his name might cause serious harm to an organization and cause that I strongly support.
On the other hand, I will tell you that one person who made such statements to me in the past is named Kathy Walt. She is a public information officer for Rick Perry, Governor of Texas.

To that end, I urge you to watch the second video in the techPresident article (link repeated from show page), and to read the article itself, if you haven't already. For a lot of the problems we face, there are no quick fixes.

I agree that there are no quick fixes. I even believe there may not be any fixes ever for our most serious problems. Yet hope springs eternal in my heart On the other hand, asking for some quick fixes with a popular new Dem. Pres, a solidly Dem. Congress and a lot of post-Bush international goodwill, doesn't seem too outrageous an expectation. Interesting clip (and article). Obama sounds a lot better in that kind of informal setting than he does giving a speech, interview or debating. I'm not so impressed with the potential of his 4-8 million e-mail addresses, however. Too diffuse and based on the pseudo-organizing principle of I-am-everything-to-everyone. I'm more impressed with the non-Obamacentric flexibility and organizing power of Moveon.org with 3.3 million members, many of whom are in the habit of getting their local communities into the streets at a moment's notice. I also look more to issue-oriented groups to promote agendas

ohc: Fair enough. (I was speaking mostly in jest, if you didn't already know -- shoulda used a smiley, though. Sorry.) Your answer does raise another interesting point, though. How much right does a reporter, or citizen journalist, or any old person, have to keep something to him- or herself? We regularly castigate the MSM for not revealing everything they learn. What if it comes out that, say, Jane Hamsher learned something about a politician that she chose not to blog about?

Wonderment: Good points, and good for you for your activism. I'm really interested in one of those groups you work with -- holding the BushCo people accountable. Obama has danced around this one a little bit. I read something today where he said that upon taking office, he'd immediately ask his Attorney-General to look "at everything we know" to see if and where further investigation is merited. (Here, by "everything we know," he means that he does not know as much as he expects to once the new administration takes over and gets access to whatever isn't shredded before Bush leaves.) I have my doubts that this will go very far. There's sure to be an immediate political backlash -- Fox and friends, I'm sure, are already training everyone how to say "witch hunt." And given how consistently the Bushies have worked to keep secrets throughout this administration, it could be a really tough investigation. I mean, they're already claiming they've lost years' worth of White House emails and invoking "executive privilege" every time Congress asks any former aide for information. As much as I'd like to see the whole lot of them frog-marched off to

And don't believe all that crap about how they can't get behind Mccain, it's just a ploy to get some distance from bush.
Any Iraq strategy has already been set up to be a horrific bloodbath by the bush "surge" maneuver, they are buying time and creating the illusion of progress by simply backing a Sunni faction financially to kill Shia and exile them from target areas. This is a stall tactic that will surely backfire, and bush is deferring the destruction to the next administration. Then when the house of cards they built implodes, they will then use it as a political weapon to burn the new guy... after all, things were really getting better under bush! I have to hand it to both candidates for even wanting the job. Part of me wishes Mccain inherits the disaster, but It that would make it an even bigger nightmare, because I think he'd pull an LBJ and want to see it through, and the casualties would multiply...

bj - Good question. One I have thought long and hard about. For the record, I am NOT a journalist or member of the media. In the end, for the media as well as private citizens, it all comes down to a moral judgement. I can certainly imagine a situation where I would blow the whistle on even family or friends if lives or certain values that I believe to be imperative are at stake. For example, I would turn in a family member for murder or rape.
The lines become blurred for many lesser transgressions. I would never go to the police about a friend who confided a drug addiction. That being said, it is completely incomprehnsible to me that someone who claims to be a member of the press would be complicate in outing a CIA agent. The one thing I do know is that Sam Adams and Ben Franklin did not envision the time when the First Amendment only applied to "credentialed" members of the White House press corp. If I choose to report facts that are true, the government has no right to jail me for it. And Bill Clinton had better figure out that a

How much right does a reporter, or citizen journalist, or any old person, have to keep something to him- or herself? We regularly castigate the MSM for not revealing everything they learn. What if it comes out that, say, Jane Hamsher learned something about a politician that she chose not to blog about?

I agree, good question. It's the Fowler case again. She sat on the Obama "clinging" story for a few days till her conscience got the better of her. I think Ohcomeon is right in that any journalist uses her own judgment. For example, if a reporter walks in on John McCain kissing an intern, she may or may not feel obliged to immediately run with the story. But if she walked in on Condi Rice and Cheney plotting a coup, the moral obligation is higher.

Wow, and I never thought Jon Stewart was all that funny.

That was pretty awesome.

How can something that actually happened be incomprehensible?

He ran as a liberal in the primaries and is now moving to the center which is pretty much par for the course when Democrats run for president. The church thing is a whole other matter which was a strange spectacle indeed. John

Very enjoyable. I like the camp counselor bit; tracks real well with my opinion as the to the level Senator Obama's experience really rises to.

Quoting ohcomeon: bj - Good question. One I have thought long and hard about. For the record, I am NOT a journalist or member of the media. In the end, for the media as well as private citizens, it all comes down to a moral judgement. I can certainly imagine a situation where I would blow the whistle on even family or friends if lives or certain values that I believe to be imperative are at stake. For example, I would turn in a family member for murder or rape.
The lines become blurred for many lesser transgressions. I would never go to the police about a friend who confided a drug addiction.

Agree with you about there being a sliding scale on obligation to tell, depending on the severity of what's known, the danger to others, etc. And I'll also note that there is a changing set of values for that scale over time. Can you imagine, for example, JFK being able to run around the way he did, nowadays?

That being said, it is completely incomprehnsible to me that someone who claims to be a member of the press would be complicate in outing a CIA agent.

I wouldn't like to make such a sweeping

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/117...2&out=00:17:26

Obama Campaign Poster. (source)

Hamsher is wrong on one point - journalists were denied access to the SF Obama fundraiser. So the question becomes should "citizen-journalists" use subterfuge to gain access and report on events that are construed as "off-the-record" or at least closed to reporters ? The Clinton thing was totally in a public venue. The Obama thing wasn't. (Of course, in the current terrain candidates have to assume that any group of people can easily disseminate their comments. But it doesn't reflect well on Fowler's approach to "journalism" - if that's what she's supposedly engaged in.

I'm really interested in one of those groups you work with -- holding the BushCo people accountable. Obama has danced around this one a little bit.

You can help support Dennis' resolution at http://kucinich.house.gov/ Urge your Congressional Reps. to pay attention.

Washington Post
Wednesday, June 11, 2008

...Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) escalated his battle against the administration this week by introducing 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush, using a parliamentary maneuver that will probably force a vote today.

Kucinich's impeachment measure accuses Bush of taking the country to war in Iraq under false pretenses; he introduced it as a "privileged resolution," which requires the House to take it up within two legislative days. Any lawmaker may offer a privileged resolution, but it is usually done only by party leaders.

Kucinich, upon introducing his articles of impeachment Monday evening, insisted on reading the resolution into the Congressional Record, a process that took nearly five hours. He finished reading it late yesterday after the close of legislative business.

As they have previously, Democratic leaders staunchly oppose Kucinich's impeachment effort. They expect to table the resolution by referring it to the Judiciary Committee, where they expect it to die....

Watch Dennis -- adorned with flag pin -- introduce to Congress the Impeach Bush Resolution A thing of beauty to behold.

Good call guys, the Daily Show got me through your guys shit for brains administration, now it's your turn.
You might wean yourselves off the foxaganda, so as to avoid an aneurysm.

Quoting brucds: Hamsher is wrong on one point - journalists were denied access to the SF Obama fundraiser. So the question becomes should "citizen-journalists" use subterfuge to gain access and report on events that are construed as "off-the-record" or at least closed to reporters ? The Clinton thing was totally in a public venue. The Obama thing wasn't. (Of course, in the current terrain candidates have to assume that any group of people can easily disseminate their comments. But it doesn't reflect well on Fowler's approach to "journalism" - if that's what she's supposedly engaged in.

In a world where fox news is sold as "fair and balanced" "journalism", you have to believe that all bets (gloves?) are off. The expectation of privacy was killed long ago by tabloidism.
I appreciated Hamsher's point that the sword cuts both ways, if all statements had to be approved for release, the result would be pure propaganda.
Crying foul just makes the candidates look worse. I think Obama and Mccain are the presumptives because the ARE very cool under fire, and careful about what they say to anybody, for the most part anyway...

That'll get Mccain some street cred with the young (under 60) demographic. How 'bout instead of stealing the "change" thing, they could go with:
"Take a chance on me!"