Adam Green of BoldProgressives on Last Word

[Jack Sprat]

He offered a good answer to President Obama's willingness to fight the Left but not the Right.

When the President needed a reluctant Kucinich's vote on HCR, he flew to Cleveland to rally Kucinich's pro-HCR constituents against him. He was willing to fight Kucinich for his vote and he successfully gained it.

But, when Joe Lieberman and Olympia Snowe was being courted for their vote on HCR, he did not go to Connecticut or Maine to rally their majority pro-HCR constituents against them. Instead, he took them into the back room of the WH and made a deal with them. With his fellow Democrat, he used coercion. With his opponents, he made a deal.

Doesn't this cause one to wonder why Obama's administration seems very willing to verbally spar with his base, but shrinks from any fight with the opposition? If you are scarcely a month from election day, how could you choose this strategy unless you or your advisors really resent the progressive base of the Democratic Party? It is becoming evident that this staff surrounding Obama is frustrated and annoyed by Progressives and that annoyance at any resistance has fueled both the President's rebukes of the left and his staff's (Gibbs, Emanuel, and Axelrod) outright disdain of the Progressives.

[tabatha]

1. I saw that and I wondered

how Green knew exactly what happened.

Furthermore, sparring with one's opponents is only going to make them walk away.
Fighting them will not help - they are on the opposite side anyway, and they will move further away.
They need carrots not sticks.

On the other hand, people on your side are mostly there anyway, and just need a nudge.

[Jack Sprat]

2. Ah, so you agree that carrots are

warranted for the party of McConnell and Boehner. Maybe some carrots for Jim Demint of SC will help after the election. Meanwhile, sticks are needed for the dissatisfied, impatient base that elected you. I get it. We need to shut up and vote, and stop making waves for the elected.

[BzaDem]

3. That's because Kucinich was being totally irrational (so it was much easier to change his mind).

Lieberman, on the other hand, was being totally rational (given his goals). He wanted revenge against progressives who primaried him in 2006. He got exactly what he wanted. No talks from Obama were going to change that.

[Jack Sprat]

4. I'm beginning to catch on here

The idea here is to take clubs to Democrats that don't like compromising their principles, but offer carrots and kisses to the Repubs trying to stick a butcher's knife between your shoulder blades.

This rational outlook explains much of the past year and a half. I see why the polling looks so promising.

[tabatha]

5. No, you are not.

You are extending your opinion to wrap around your misinterpretation.

BzaDem had it right. Nothing could have gotten Lieberman on board - he is that bad. Nothing. Lieberman is all about Lieberman, and if he could stick to Obama he would.

Kunich recognized that there were good things in the bill, and that there was no way that Obama could come up with what Kunich wanted.

You do remember that the HCR bill was dead in the water after the number of Dem votes went from 60 to 59. Pelosi decided to fight to resurrect it, and for that I admire here and respect her.

You are reducing the situation down to dishonest arguments.

[Jack Sprat]

6. Oh yeah. You made it clear.

Both you and BzaDem want to compromise with your opponents for political expediency and shoulder the blame for your compromises onto the backs of the very Democratic voters, who invested their time and energy into getting you elected. That's the position of the WH staff and that seems to be your disposition as well. Those voters placed their hopes and trust in you. Now you demean them for your own failures to lead and represent them with the same fervor and passion that they gave to you in the 08 national election. I haven't seen such a vain administration since Lil Boots was in the WH.