The Dem Party in Mass is not run or primarily supported by mass movement institutions like unions, etc... it is far more Cambridge, Boston, Newton, Northampton, Amherst than it is Worster, Lowell, New Bedford and Springfield that dominates the party. They coulda run any number of people in any number of neoliberal-friendly ways and won that seat but they nominated an incompetent who ran even more incompetently.
Also, your point about bipartisanship would be more robust if bipartisanship actually seemed the goal as opposed to just the words. Are you saying that the neoliberal dems know what they are doing but aren't able to sufficiently discipline members of the House and Senate - despite their majorities - to get actual bipartisan agreements? Or are you saying that the neoliberal dems are generating a planned gridlock and gridlock is what bipartisanship actually means?
I think the public's affection for Clinton, after 1994, came from the fact that his Admin actually got things done - even if it was neoliberal - and times were "good.". I think the public's (esp. swing voters') disaffection with Obama is that his Admin seems constitutionally incapable of getting things done, even if they are neoliberal and disciplinary. I think that Obama would be far more popular if he and his Admin actually led us in neoliberal directions, which you say they mean to do, and we all know they have had the majorities to do, but they're not even really doing that.
A
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Alan Rudy wrote:
> >
> > Just to be clear, Carrol: You are saying that the National and State Dems
> > lost the Massachusetts Senate seat on purpose and on principal. [clip]
>
> Not exactly. 'They' want to win, but they want to win without unleashing
> dangerous mass currents. I would assume that the leadership knows as
> well as you and I do that their current policies are very apt to lose
> elections. This would almost certainly be true of the national
> leadership and probably of most state leadership. It is very dangerous
> to regard people as fools.
>
> I am NOT assuming some elaborate conspiracy here. I'm just assuming that
> it pays to take people at their word without strong evidence to the
> contrary. Specifically, I assume that Obama and the varius circles he
> relates to, are convinced that current conditons demand bipartisnship.
> It is clear to you, to me, to almost everyone on ths list that (for
> example) the Democrats _could_ in fact push something like single-payer
> through the Senate by a combination of strong-arm tactics and utlizing
> the "bully pulpit" power of the President. They have chosen not to. The
> obvious reason for that choice is that they too oppose single-pafyer.
> They too choose not to empower union organizing. Instead of devoting
> ourselves to ranting at the DP' stupidigy, etc. I think we should
> seriousoly inquire WHAT it is that would drive intelligent men and women
> to feel so strongly the need for bipartisanship (i.e., the need to avoid
> conflict within the ruling elites themselves _OR_ encourage dangerous
> mass currents among the public.
>
> They _do_ remember the '60s and the '30s and even the days of the
> Haymarket riots and the Pullman stike. They do not, at all costs, wish
> to awaken sleeping dogs.
>
> Carrol
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>