I just got off a White House conference call in which I asked David Axelrod if he ever heard of the term “hippie punching”.
Silence.
“Are you there?”
“Yeah, I heard you. Go on.”
Basically, after Axelrod told us how wonderful we were and how much they needed us to close the enthusiasm gap in this election, I called him on it. Like, yo Dave, here we are, liberal activists who give money and GOTV, and the White House needs to punch us in public so no one thinks they take us seriously?
And then he said, like, your feelings don’t really amount to a hill of beans in this crazy mixed-up world when we’re TRYING TO SAVE THE COUNTRY, and then I said excuse ME, we’re not talking about my feelings here, how am I supposed to motivate my readers when you treat them like the town ho?
Or words to that effect. I do it all for you, my beloved readers.
UPDATE: Why do people think this is literally what I said on the call? Did the Casablanca quote not tip you off, or the Jerry Springer “trash talk” dialog?
Go read Greg Sargent if you want an accurate depiction.
Thank you for this. He and Obama don’t give a damn, of course; they rather actively wish us harm, I think (see: social security, cutting; etc.)—but it warms my heart that someone finally brooked them in public, in the press. They by the way are the fake dems, but the party leadership have been for a long time now, it’s all about the upper class and how to kiss their asses. Still, lovely to hear someone calling them on it.
i think you all need to get out more
you dont have to accept other peoples viewpoints, but you shouldnt deprive yourself of the information
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/23/a_nation_of_peasants_107275.html
You are my hero, Susie!
Vote for a s spoiled petulant canidate, and get a spoiled petulant president, Who’d have thunk.
Good for you. These people don’t understand any more than W % comp did that THEY WORK FOR US, not the other way around.
Also, I find it interesting that Axelrod didn’t try to argue your points.
“We don’t have to agree” is what I take from this exchange.
Fine, but then, why exactly vote for you again?
You go, girl! Put the spotlight on it.
Awww Susie, did you piss in the punch bowl again???
GREAT JOB!!!
They sure as hell don’t get it. And Axelrod leaving to work on the election campaign instead of hiding in a cave REALLY shows they don’t get it.
Take it from a former Democrat, now an Independent: You cannot force yourselves on a public who don’t want you, who find you repulsive. If only the Democrats in Congress would take a year OFF from their meddling in our affairs, constantly adding new bureaucracies to “rule” us, “nudge” us, and control us–with our own money; then, the economy would likely heal itself. Instead, we get this constant drumbeat of new laws, new interference, and new slush fund creation having less to do with “helping” Americans, and more to do with saving Obama. And, you know what, Susie? Obama doesn’t give a shit about you; he never did. It was ALWAYS about Obama! He’s the quintessential Narcissist; and you’re the quintessential Narcissist’s victim–left under the bus, wondering how it all went so wrong.
Although I get your point, it’s a little presumptuous of you to assume that I look to politicians for validation. I don’t.
It’s politics — it’s about policy, not personalities. Politicians are a little nuts and I haven’t yet met a high-level politician I’d consider a fine human being, although I admit to the theoretical possibility. (I haven’t met Al Franken, who by all accounts is a very nice man.)
I’m with Atrios. Complaining about hippie punching is mostly irrelevant. The issue is THE ISSUES. Is punching a coupla obscure (relative to the electorate) hippies every now and then really what will make the base stay at home? Or is the lack of enthusiasm more due to the crippling cowardice of Dems punting on stuff they purportedly believe in, and that the majority of the country supports? All because some members are afraid of even the THOUGHT of negative campaign ads? That isn’t hippie punching, it’s poor legislating and poor politicking.
To the extent that pushing back against hippie punching helps to sustain or grow the relevance of liberal thought over time, it’s an important thing to do. But this sort of “you hurt my feelings so now I don’t feel like defending you anymore” approach seems largely besides the point and, if I may say, feels a little too close to Scaramuccism.
Thanks,
ISOK
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Duncan, in this particular case, misses the point and so do you. Axelrod was talking about how much he needed netroots support. I replied that if he did, they needed to stop “hippie punching” — and I’m pretty sure Axelrod understood I was saying “At the very least, you need to stop hippie punching.”
And I don’t know why Axelrod (or you) would think I was talking about my feelings, since I clearly wasn’t.
Glad that you called out the WH, though their problems go a lot deeper than just dissing the left wing publicly. Obama doesn’t really want to dance with them that brung him. If he had, there’d be a good list of solid achievements, or at least hard-fought battles, to motivate his voters.
Hi Susie,
Thanks for the reply. Then how does hippie punching in general (accepting that you’re not talking about it specifically in relation to you) affect your ability to support the election of Dems?
Thanks,
ISOK
I am still wondering why were you on a White House conference call?
Axelrod was asking us to get our readers excited about the election. What I said was, how do you expect us to do that when you (gibbs, etc.) attack us? Just a really counterproductive way to motivate the base, I think.
Most people will still vote D. Some will sit out the election, and some will vote Green or write-in. But we’re way past the point where a pep rally is going to change things.
Because I was invited. If you want to know why I was invited, I guess you’ll have to ask the White House.
Come on now, take a look at how the progressives have pandered to the Afrcian American vote for years and have done nothing to actually help them. Group Identity politics eliminate the individual voice, you and other progressive bloggers were an ends to a means
Again, I’m sorry, I’m not trying to be difficult, but I see very little difference between this view and the bankers’ (in aggregate) view of, “how am I supposed to start lending and investing when you call me bad names?” You lay it into the Admin on the issues you disagree about, they push back. People (your readers) who agree with you on policy may or may not follow your lead if you decide that, despite your disagreements with the Admin, it’s still important to support the Dems during the election. I just don’t see how the hippie punching plays into any of this but on the margins. The policy differences beget the hippie punching, not the other way around.
Thanks,
ISOK
It’s definitely on the margins. I’m not arguing that. But just on general principles, Axelrod et al shouldn’t treat us like crap one day, then ask for our help the next — while acting like he’s doing us a favor.
Ok, I guess it all boils down to that principle. I just simply disagree that the Admin should be sensitive to treating the blogosphere nicely, just as I don’t think you should have to worry about how you’ve treated the Admin in your blog posts. Both sides (of the same side!) have taken their best shots in the past two years. I still see that fact as essentially irrelevant to the blogosphere’s ability to support the Dems in the election.
Thanks,
ISOK
Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is “hippie punching” and is the term in common use?
I can get some sense from the discussion, but otherwise it is a new one on me, even though long ago and far away I was a hippie.
Do I need to worry about being punched?
Do you know what a Sister Souljah moment is? It’s like that. It’s attacking part of your base to prove you’re not beholden to them.
Shoter ISOK: Clap louder!
@ISOK
Well, if the bankers have hurt feelings and aren’t lending because of it, the gov could just say we’re closing the Fed window until you guys start lending instead of using the money to buy T-bills and giving yourselves million-dollar bonuses on the profits you make.
I think Susie’s point speaks to bigger issues: Repubs embrace the base and Dems distain theirs. And if you keep spitting on your biggest supporters, one day they are going to get tired of it. Hence an enthusiasm gap.
The White House finds itself in the position of someone who has been cheating on a spouse for a couple of years and suddenly comes running back begging for forgiveness — not because of love but someone has to do the cooking and the laundry.
Thank you Susie.
We need to make it clear that this isn’t about the base’s feelings either. It is not as if being nicer to us is going open our wallets or free up some time to canvass a neighborhood.
This is about ACTION. They promised change and delivered pocket change. That is what we are upset about, not them calling us names.
I remember the Sister Souljah moment, but that was a specific occasion.
Hippie-punching sounds more generic and like it’s been in circulation for a while, though, god knows, hippies have not, aside from the original Haight St in San Francisco and a few small towns in Northern California and New Mexico.
Is hippie punching, then, a political term among current activists? Was Axelrod familiar with it or was he just piecing it together while he was talking with you?
Folks, is it not abundantly clear by now that the Obama Administration does not and will not ever much care what liberals and progressives think?
Having said that, I applaud what you said.
And as one who was a hippie, it is a popular misconception now that they never punched back. Not so. And it’s time we did.
It’s used in the blogosphere. I think Digby started it, but I’m not sure.
You go Susie! Thanks for saying something that really needed to be stated OUT LOUD.
susie: Thanks. Though you did not originate the term, hippie-punching, I’d say you have elevated it to the national lexicon.
I must say I was surprised that the Obama team, once elected, broke camp for the White House and left their “Organizing for America” folks twisting in the wind.
It seemed to me that they missed a bet there. I don’t know if they were just overwhelmed or incompetent or simply manipulative and figured that they didn’t need OFA anymore.
I’m not sure what you mean, because OFA is alive and well. One of the things the Obama team did was convince big donors to give money to them instead of the liberal groups. That’s why it’s so ironic that Axelrod is now whining that he doesn’t have those special interest groups to run ads — because OFA siphoned off all the money.
In response to ISOK: I agree with you to the extent that “it’s just politics” and sometimes the WH needs to position itself more in the center through symbolic rejection of the left. fine.
However, what the GOP has learned so well, and which Digby (for one) is often trying to drive home, is that if you diss your base in exchange for credibility more than once in a blue moon, the very definition of “center” begins to change. The media narratives begin to shift. David Broder wets himself and the beltway conventional wisdom begins echo that, for example, the Public Option might make perfect sense on the numbers, but is Just Too Radical. And who can provide the counterpoint? Well, the hippies of course, but they’ve been quarantined, in large part by the White House.
So I get Axelrod on a tactical level, but there are some strategic losses flowing from the decisions to hang the base out to dry – and it has nothing to do with the feelings of the Left, but of the Center, which is where the long term margin of victory lies.
“Obama’s MIA Volunteers: Organizing for America Shrinks
–Time, 09/09/2010
What happened to Barack Obama’s once vaunted political machine? The outfit that put upwards of 8 million volunteers on the street in 2008 – known as Organizing for America – is a ghost of its former self. Its staff has shrunk from 6,000 to 300, and its donors are depressed: receipts are a fraction of what they were in 2008. Virtually no one in politics believes it will turn many contests this fall. “There’s no chance that OFA is going to have the slightest impact on the midterms,” says Charlie Cook, who tracks congressional races.
Neglect is to blame. After Obama was elected, his political aides ignored the army he had created until it eventually disappeared. No one was in charge; decisions were often deferred but rarely made. By the time they realized they needed more troops, says longtime consultant Joe Trippi, “their supporters had taken a vacation from politics.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100909/us_time/08599201697300
The article goes on to state that this year the White House gave $30 mil to OFA, but my point was that after the big win in 2008, the Obama team let OFA languish, rather than continue to build that core of volunteers.
Sure, they are trying to rebuild OFA now, but I can only imagine that early neglect have been disappointing to many OFA volunteers. While it was not active hippie-punching, I’d say it is part of the problem you were raising with Axelrod.
Awesome work, Susie!
We need to hold the Dems accountable– to remind them of the widening gap between what they promise, and what they are actually WILLING to do. What they are able to do is another matter altogether, understood.
I love the sound of the cutting through of the bullshit!
Thank you, Susie.
I’m not sure how this is structured, but they’re now under the wing of the DNC. And while they’ve lost most of the eager volunteers, they do still have a lot more of the money than the other liberal groups.
@#75 weinerdog43: I refer you to ” just as I don’t think you should have to worry about how you’ve treated the Admin in your blog posts.”
@#76 GreenGuy: I understand that dynamic. What I’m saying is that, in my view, complaints about hippie punching are informed much less by policy differences (relevant to the election!) and much more by hurt pride (irrelevant to the election!). If the complaint was, as Atrios implied, “How can you expect us to generate enthusiasm for you when you can’t even stand up for Social Security?” or “Why would middle class Americans, even with all my pleading, come out to vote for YOU when you were too afraid to even hold a vote on their tax cuts, particularly given the fact that it polls incredibly well, even across independents?” well, that’s incredibly relevant to me. But that wasn’t the complaint.
@#85 Anselm: I completely agree with you, which is why i wrote, “To the extent that pushing back against hippie punching helps to sustain or grow the relevance of liberal thought over time, it’s an important thing to do.” However, I still fail to see how hippie punching has anything to do with the ABILITY of the blogosphere to support Dems in the election (policy differences would persist without the hippie punching, right?). It may hurt the DESIRE to enlist support, but that’s precisely the problem I’m driving at.
Thanks,
ISOK
awesome! I have been whacking them at HuffPo for a year now. I just love that exchange.
My love won’t make up for your lost access to those precious conference calls, but please accept it.
I see an ironic parallel to Muntadar al-Zaidi. The stunned look on Bush’s face as the Shoe of Vengeance came hurtling toward him – “what, I got rid of Hitler and they’re throwing shoes at me?” – could be a mirror image of this administration’s aspect as it suddenly realizes the base doesn’t like being called crazy and is finding other things to do (gotta fold that laundry) while the party goes down to defeat in the midterms. I’m not sitting on my hands, but every low-info I talk to is saying “meh, what is this crew gonna do for me?” I can think of a few responses:
They’re gonna hand your civil liberties over to the Pentagon
They’re gonna hand your paycheck over to the insurance industry
They’re gonna hand your social security over to Wall Street
and while they’re doing it, they’re gonna call you crazy for complaining about it.
We have no way to sell the Democratic Party to low infos and it was WAY beyond time that someone called them on it. I award you the First Annual Shoe of Vengeance, Excellence in Journamalism Award.
Awesome. Just awesome.
susie @ 89: Yes, the Time article also states that that $30 mil was half of the money the White House had available for organizing purposes. The article further intimates that the money for OFA was preparation for Obama’s 2012 run, not for the 2010 midterms.
In any event, though, it’s clear that between this neglect and the left’s sense of being used that you brought up, the Obama team will have a tough time rousing the troops in 2010 or 2012.
There is much that Obama can’t control but leaving OFA and its people to languish in 2009 was an unforced error. For someone as savvy about campaigning as Obama, I was surprised to see it.
One thing I just don’t get about you FDL types.
The way you get, just really, really, really, really, angry when you’re criticized for criticizing the administration without even the slightest twinge of your irony meters. The administration says, “it’s really unhelpful when you demoralize yourselves and those you follow you by heaping abuse on us for not doing exactly what you want, when you want, the way you want and give us no credit for the things we have done.” And you say “waaahhhh!!!! how am I supposed to motivate the base when you’re criticizing me for critizing you? I hate you, I hate you I hate you!!! How dare you criticize me?”
Yes, I’m being unfair to you. No doubt, in your mind, you’ve been much more adult and the adminstraition’s been far more perfidious than it seems to me and I’m not able to get myself deep enough into your mentality to be fair to you. But the fact is, you guys have a bad case of “dish it out but can’t take it” syndrome. And, like all people with that problem, pointing it out only seems to makes you more furious.
There just a basic level of manichean immaturity driving that instant furious rejection of the slightest pushback from the targets of your ire that is entirely destructive. It’s the product of a failure of introspection combined with a degree of self-rightous certitude that you have all the answers and anyone who disagrees you, even if that disagreement is merely about tactics and timing, is evil that makes you utterly worthless as political allies.
The current progressive philosophies and stances are quite close to urging this Field Negress to cast my vote(s) in other places. Do not agree with either Lux nor your precepts.
Since 1960’s high school daze have been a life long liberal .
Steve
I would ’86’ my comment (if it were allowed) and say
HEAR HEAR instead. Wait! I CAN say it.
HEAR HEAR!!!!
Steve @ 95: Well, that’s the other possibility explaining why the Obama administration deserted their OFA volunteers. Perhaps the Obama team saw OFA as loose cannons who could not be satisfied in the political hardball battles to come no matter what.
My own theory is that Obama didn’t expect to win (no one with as little experience has won the Presidency that I can think of) and consequently he is overmatched, making mistakes, and playing catch-up.
At this point I’m not sure what Obama can do. His presidency has been damaged, his 2008 aura of invincibility has completely dissipated, and even strong supporters like Susie Madrak and Velma Hart are disappointed.
The current wisdom is that Obama can still turn things around in the second half of his term, as did Reagan and Clinton, but those men had much more experience and had already taken some hard knocks. I doubt Obama can do it.
Given another ten years of seasoning in the Senate and in life, Obama might have been a much more interesting and capable leader.
I also don’t know what people like Susie can do. Obama really did make big promises then fail to deliver on quite a few of them. They are right to speak up for what they want. On the other hand, the Obama admnistration really is fighting for its life right now, facing an invigorated Republican Party and Tea Party, with the possibility of terrible defeats in November.
I read the preceeding posts encountering all of you Obamaphobes so I simply must leave Friday’s word for y’all:
Fafolas!
Senorita Bonita: Well, that’s one response, though it doesn’t seem particularly constructive.
What do you think Obama, Axelrod or Susie should do in this situation? It seems to me that all three have hard hands to play.