Wojtek writes: ``I wonder, however, whether this is a strategy to pass clean energy measures - give something that looks good on paper but has little practical impact but gain passage of a climate change bill.''
------------
I am sorry to say, I think it's the other way around. Give the energy corporations what they want on both rounds, while passing something meaningless. I think the strategy is to keep the base confused on where Obama stands, just like he did on the health farce, while he follows corporate policy outlines in a three dimensional chess system.
When he gets called on these manipulations, he will answer, just as he did to his heckler the other day. There was no single payer on the table, because we couldn't get it passed Congress.
So he appears to be a practical minded liberal. He isn't even that. When he talks about stake holders, who does he include? Every corporate lobbyist available, while he systematically excludes `extremist' groups, like the people---who actually represent his popular base.
This strategy seems to make no sense from a domestic political point of view. The reason it doesn't make sense, is because Obama isn't triangulating with his popular base and the `realities' of governance. His concept of triangulation is between competing corporate interests groups. The popular base, the groups from anti-war to proactive environmental groups are not either represented or even allowed a voice in policy. They are ``off the table''. After Obama has found a corporate consensus and designed some policy outlines, then he puts his base on the spot. Support this or we'll lose and the right wing will be back in power.
The general idea of this fain left, move right under the pretext of practical liberalism is well calibrated to undermine any liberal or progressive agenda or pressure coming from the actual constituent base. It functions to effectively exclude all those liberal public calls for the `left' or `progressives' to force Obama to do the right thing.
I am sorry to say that Barbara Lee used this excuse during her phone in town hall meeting, in the weeks running up to enactment of the health insurance farce. In other words we have to support this so we can get something better i.e. the Dennis Kucinich turn, which she then made a public announcement of support for the bill a few days later.
This was a really bad move. Lee, Kucinich et al tossed away the one tool of power they had over Obama and Pelosi. What did they get for that vote? Worse than nada. Lee wanted more job funding, No. She wanted more federal support for schools. No. She wanted support for women's reproductive rights. Forget it. She wanted a independent consumer protection agency. No. She will want immigration reform. No. She will want to cut war appropriations. No.
Why get thrown under the train over and over and keep coming back for more? I have no idea. She doesn't depend on corporate money. Her campaigns are small and popular based. She has more volunteers than she knows what to do with. She is in a secure seat. She can get all the data and liberal public policy experts she wants at UCB for the price of a staffer phone call.
So, I give. Why? It's something that I've got to go mull over...
CG