Matt Stoller Wants His Dog Whistle Too

Apparently, Matt Stoller, like the Mad Biologist, wants to hear a dog whistle from Obama too (italics mine):

74% of young caucus goers self-identified as Democrats, and 73% self-identified is liberals. Yeah, that's some post-partisan and post-ideological generation coming through the ranks.

This is actually one of my great frustrations with the Obama campaign and Obama supporters. Even when Obama wins a victory on the back of the liberal, creative class vote, both his campaign and his supporters--most of whom are liberals--repeat the mantra that the victory was some sort of post-partisan and post-ideological wave. Obama's self-identified liberal supporters aren't even willing to claim what exit polls clearly show to be the case: Obama won because of liberals. Among moderates and conservatives in Iowa, Obama led Clinton by only a 31%-30% margin, while among liberals, Obama led 38%-25%. Without liberals, this Obama surge wouldn't be happening.

This brings me to one of my major problem with Obama: if his campaign and his supporters can't even credit liberals and progressives for a victory they quite obviously delivered to him, then what possible credit or influence will liberals and progressives ever receive in an Obama White House? Iowa progressives and liberals just handed the nomination the Barack Obama, and his campaign won't even give them credit. In fact, Obama's progressive supporters seem to, in large measure, have been convinced to not give themselves credit, either. If the campaign won't promote progressivism now, and if it has the ability to convince progressives to shift credit for their victory to a false post-partisan and post-ideological narrative, how can we ever think that Barack Obama will promote progressivism? If you are interested in having an ideological progressive movement, that is a question that should worry you.

Mind you, I'm not entirely sure what "progressivism" is, although I know what liberalism is. But Stoller's right: if the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party keeps repeating Broder-esque centrist dogma, we end up marginalizing ourselves.

More like this

'Progressives' are getting all gooey over Obama's stern declaration that he will prevent Republicans from privatizing Social Security. So why am I being so harsh towards Obama? Because this is a sucker play. Given Obama's track record on most issues so far, it's pretty obvious what will happen…
The Washington Post digs in an finds interesting parallels: Sen. Barack Obama offers himself as a post-partisan uniter who will solve the country's problems by reaching across the aisle and beyond the framework of liberal and conservative labels he rejects as useless and outdated. But as Obama…
As you all know, I was not an Obamamaniac. I never thought that he was a super-Progressive. But I am liking what I am seeing right now. A lot of Progressive bloggers are screaming bloody murder how Obama has abandoned them by not appointing the Progressives to various cabinet posts. Hello? He's…
Speculation mounts as to whether Gore will endorse either Obama or Clinton in the Democratic Primary race. My suggestion would be that he stay out of election politics in 2008, except to try to raise the profile of climate change in a non-partisan way. As I describe in this column and in several…

Maybe it's a stealth liberalism campaign? Deny the liberal influence because the general election has to be run from the middle? Probably wishful thinking but the best spin I can think of at the moment.

If self-identified liberals find Obama's positions to their liking, how does it matter what he calls himself?