http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2009/9/10/AR/371
http://boldprogressives.org/lincolnpoll

I recall there being another poll earlier in the summer, but I can’t find it now.

My point wasn’t that the Obama administration sides with the Blue Dogs on the Stupak amendment, specifically. In that paragraph I was referring to the Blue America ads, and generally referring to points of policy contention between liberal and conservative Democrats, hence the “change their minds about issues” line.

For example, Rahm Emanuel reportedly cursing and threatening liberal groups telling them to stop running ads against conservative Democrats.

Can you point me towards one of the Arkansas polls you mention? Additionally, can you provide some evidence for the assertion that “The Obama administration itself has made it clear it sides with the Blue Dog Democrats” on the Stupak issue. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just asking for more information. I don’t have as much time to read into these things as I used to.

I know Digby and FDL are ardently assert that Obama is on the verge of betraying the left at every turn, but they are agitators, and that’s simply what agitators do.

I’m not sure if Daniel will respond to your comment, but I thought I’d offer my own two cents.

You appear to be accusing Democrats of “being hostile towards what might be legitimate expressions of local discontent with the national Democratic agenda.”

I’d beg to differ, since polls in Arkansas have consistently shown that people favor a public option, while Senator Lincoln has been the one to say she wouldn’t vote for a bill with a public option. Blue America is a liberal group influencing a so-called moderate politician in a seemingly conservative state to act in the best interest of her constituents.

The ads run by Blue America are also in no way representative of what the national party or DC establishment want done to members of congress. The Obama administration itself has made it clear it sides with the Blue Dog Democrats and has condemned attempts made by liberals to criticize and put pressure on these conservative Democrats to change their minds about issues.

glick: “i looked the man in the eye. i found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue. i was able to get a sense of his soul. he’s a man deeply committed to his country and i appreciate very much the frank dialogue and that;s the beginning of a very constructive relationship”

fool me once…

“You knew” Bush cared deeply about the poor, even if his economic policies left them out in the cold. How did you know? You just knew.

It’s also convenient ground to take a stand on any Bush/Obama comparisons. Because what Glick claims to “know” is actually something no one could ever know, and therefore could never prove her wrong. It’s impossible to know someone else’s inner thoughts and feelings, so Glick can just make any assertion she wants. She can say Obama visited Ft Hood (respectful act) because he wanted the media attention (vile motive!). And conversely, that Bush destroyed our standing in the world (awful blunder) because he loved his country too gosh-darn much (saintly virtue!).

By dragging her analysis into the murkey area of motive guessing, suddenly no one has the upper hand in comparing these two presidents. It’s all speculation on who loves America more, who has the better principaled intentions. It’s a comfortable place for her to be, because making the case for “missing Bush” on the merits would be quite a task.

I was wondering if you have any thoughts about the Blue America ads currently running against Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas. They’ve been the topic of the week amongst liberal bloggers, and I find the contrast in response between these ads and the NY-23 GOP effort to be telling vis a vis the health of the two major political parties.

Specifically, it seems that you are right when you write that GOP efforts to “nationalize” local races leads to disaster for them. However, as evidenced by the assumed effectiveness of the ad campaign against Lincoln, it seems that Democrats are actually able to bolster their agenda by browbeating their members in their own districts, and thus being hostile towards what might be legitimate expressions of local discontent with the national Democratic agenda.

It might be tautology to state that recent winners of national elections have an advantage over their opponents in such a regard. After all, the national Republican agenda was rejected by a slim majority of the populance just a year ago, so it’s not surprising that the Democrats might choose to wave the popular mandate card in the face of obstinate members.

I was wondering if Glick attempted to explain how one might “know” that Bush valued American allies, despite the fact that he “didn’t always do right by them,” so I went over and read her entire post. As far as I can tell Glick simply has an emotional response to President Bush that makes her sure of his good heart and his good intentions, and she extrapolates from his personal decency (e.g., visiting wounded soldiers at Fort Hood) that he must have conducted a good and decent foreign policy.

There’s a lot that could be criticized in this, but what struck me is that she derides Barack Obama as sliding by on charisma and style even as she defends George W. Bush on the same grounds. She finds some of Bush’s personal virtues appealing, has a strong emotional reaction to Bush as a result, and therefore takes for granted that he had good intentions even when, to use her own example, he wronged America’s allies. That kind of nonsense (“His heart must be in the right place, and he seems like such a good guy”) is what annoys Obama’s critics when it’s used in his defense.

There may not be much overlap between Americans who found Bush charismatic and compelling and those who feel the same way about Obama, but the sentiment and the defenses it spawns seem identical. The difference is that Bush’s supporters more or less cop to what Bush really is (a sentimental simpleton, though they use language that makes this seem like a good thing), whereas Obama seems to employ his eloquence and charisma to convince people that he’s something other than a cautious go-along-to-get-along type. Neither is exactly the ideal of effective and admirable leadership, but at least Obama’s caution is less likely to result in the kind of deadly blunders and serial incompetence that were hallmarks of the Bush years.

When you leave, it’s polite to shut the door behind you.