Hillary Forced Obama to Go on FOX

Now that Obama has decided to be a guest on FOX, Big Tent Democrat brings up one of my chief concerns about an Obama presidency.   He says:

I also understand why Obama is dissing the Netroots now. They will never criticize him anyway. Why should he pander to them then?

I'm hoping that if Obama does become president, the Left hammers him relentlessly to do the right thing but I'm guessing they won't because they are in love, because hammering relentlessly is hard and expensive work and because the Right will smash him so completely every day he is in office that the Left will feel like they have to defend their guy even as he capitulates over and over again in a vain attempt to enact any progressive policy he may actually be interested in.    That's all pessimistic guesswork of course so here's some more:  If Clinton wins the presidency, I have a feeling the Left will be happy to hold her feet to their fires even as the Right tries to smash her every day.   I'm thinking that's another good reason to want her to win. An angry Left is much more valuable to me than one that thinks they've got their savior in the White House.

Comments

[BrightNoah]

Wait wait wait.

I'm not defending Obama's decision to go on Fox, but let's be serious here. Hillary Clinton had a private meeting with Richard Mellon Scaife. You know, the guy who devoted most of his life in the 90s to destroying her husband's presidency and who built a large chunk of the "vast right-wing conspiracy."

And just last week, Senator Clinton dissed and dismissed MoveOn as too liberal and too dovish. If BTD is going to paint Obama as hostile to the netroots , then well, Senator Clinton must hate them.

[eRobin]

She's post-partisan! I'm kidding. Meeting Scaife was gross.

I think BTD is only making the point that he's interested to see what the response is from the netroots to Obama's decision. When Hillary did it, it was a betrayal of epic porportions. As for hating the netroots, the Clinton campaign has been much more open to more bloggers than Obama's has in my experience. But the only thing that really matters is where the candidates stand on net neutrality and I don't know that answer and we won't really know until they have to vote or are president and can take some action. I don't follow that issue too closely.

I thought the post was interesting b/c I'm worried that if either Clinton or Obama get elected (but mostly with Obama) then the Left will fall asleep like it did when Bill Clinton was in office. That was a big mistake. Primary-wise, I agree with Digby that it wasn't a good idea for greater blogtopia to jump so completely on Obama's bandwagon b/c once you do that, you lose any leverage you may have had.

[mick arran]

I'm guessing they won't because they are in love, because hammering relentlessly is hard and expensive work and because the Right will smash him so completely every day he is in office that the Left will feel like they have to defend their guy even as he capitulates over and over again in a vain attempt to enact any progressive policy he may actually be interested in.

This is a very good post. And point. You've put my own fears about Obama better than I've managed to do and pointed to the one bright spot in a Clinton victory: the willingness of progressives to beat her up.

And I think you're also right that they'll hold her feet to the fire in a way they never would with Obama. Still, the DLC - an invention of the Clintons', after all - has never had much trouble ignoring the left no matter how much noise it makes on the theory that we've got nowhere else to go.

Having said all that, I also have to say you're the only one who has so far come up with a reason that could lead me to hold my nose and vote for Hill.

Maybe.

[KathyF]

Where to begin? This is such seriously flawed thinking I don't know where to begin with it.

To hell with it all. Hillary won't win, barring a major breakdown, or, as one person said, Obama getting eaten by monkeys. But if that should happen, I won't even bother holding her feet to the fire, nor will I bother holding my nose and voting for her--it's far easier not to vote at all.

How on earth can we hold her feet to the fire when she's not a progressive, nor any longer a Democrat? We might as well be talking about holding McCain's feet to the fire. Please don't bomb Iran! Hillary, or McCain, what the hell's the difference?

And you should stop reading BTD. He's full of shit.

[mick arran]

You make a good point, but you have to remember that Hillary is a Clinton, and they're nothing if not political. We let Bill get away with murder because the Pubs and the RWNM were crucifying him. That was a mistake. They're just politicians and we ought to treat them as such. If we do, they'll respond because they have to.

But first we have to eliminate their belief that we'll vote for them anyway because we'll never vote Republican. Otherwise, they'll think it's safe to keep ignoring us.

Which is why NOT voting is a bad idea. It would be better if the entire progressive community agreed to write in Daffy Duck than it would be to stay home - then you're just taking yourself out of the equation. Basically, that's like telling them it's safe to ignore you.

What we need to do is take a few BD's down. That would make them pay attention.