My qualms about the "Movement" for Obama.

[Tom Rinaldo]

I have had many discussions on DU with people who say Barack Obama will best be positioned to overcome vested interest opposition to progressive changes, because when he reaches out to the other side seeking common ground he will not be doing it by himself; he has "a movement" backing him up. I have seen endless posts here stressing how Obama says "we" but Hillary says "I", when talking about trying to accomplish political goals. The argument presented seems to hold that the movement behind Obama will insist on good faith attempts to find new common ground in solving America's problems, because "the people" will punish politicians - obstructionist Republicans mostly, who try to stick to narrow partisanship.

I can only judge the strength and character of "the movement" backing Obama by what I see from the outside I admit. To date however I have higher regards for Barack Obama than I do for his "movement", though I do see real positives in his movement also. A movement that starts by engaging new people to become active, that inspires people, that puts people into political motion for the first time, begins with a lot of pluses in my book.

But if the Obama "movement" tolerates, and allows to prosper within it, as much thinly veiled online hatred for a Democrat as it obviously does who, give or take a few percentage points, has the support of half the Democrats in the nation, then I am not inspired by it's ability to assist Obama realize his goals if elected. I am far from convinced that movement will help Barack Obama to put aside America's divisive politics of the past in the way he so proudly proclaims he is best able to accomplish.

It is not that difficult for a zealous movement to over play it's hand and become counter productive - pushing away those who are not already part of it more than it draws new people into it. There are many reports, for example, that indicate that an invasion of orange hatted Dean supporters swarming over Iowa on his behalf prior to the 2004 caucus there hurt Dean more than it helped him, because too many locals became alienated because of it. There is no doubt that Howard Dean would never have come as close as he did to realizing his Presidential goal in 2004 without the strong support of grassroots activists. That does not mean however that all of their behavior was net positive for him.

You are right if you assume that I believe most of the hate shown by many toward Hillary is unfair, and I credit much of it, at least indirectly, to Hillary's long years of standing in the way of a Right wing agenda for America - the Reagan/Bush agenda, that the election of Bill Clinton as President in 1992 interrupted. It provided a template of lies that those who want to push Clinton out of Obama's way now are free to draw on and copy from. I do not accept that the hatred comes from her vote for the IWR or her so called Senate record of appeasement.

John Kerry, Joe Biden, and Chris Dodd supported the IWR also. John Edwards co-sponsored it and openly defended the actual Iraq invasion for months after the fact. Edwards and others now say they were misled then and that they are sorry now. Clinton said she would not vote the same way then if she knew then what she knows now. Some people put more weight on hearing the words "I'm sorry" in this context than I do, but OK, call that a reason not to support her. It isn't a reason to hold her uniquely in such deep disdain, nor does Clinton's liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate qualify her for such disdain. If Hillary Clinton is our enemy, what the hell does the Obama movement expect to find when Barack Obama reaches across the aisle for that unity embrace?

If Obama's movement is alienating support from Democrats who think highly of Hillary Clinton as a fighter for the Democratic Party, while they signal their intentions (see - I just felt "intimidated" from using the common phrase "telegraph their intentions" because of the derision the term "xerox" has gotten around here) to reach out for the support needed to bring about progressive changes - don't mind me if I'm not buying that as a strategy.

There are many many exceptions to the negative behavior I speak of inside of Obama's movement, only a small minority actively engage in it. And I realize that the problem I am raising appears in its most concentrated form in online expression, and even there most Obama supporters are not a party to it. But those who are party to it are often praised and held in high esteem by other Obama supporters precisely for their zest in fighting against Clinton for Obama, and seldom get called out for sowing disunity in our own Party. If there is an Obama movement then Obama must be considered at it's head. He isn't the leader of our Party yet let alone our nation, but he is the leader of his movement. To an extent, I do judge Obama's leadership abilities now by taking the measure of the movement that he now already leads. The results I find are highly erratic.