Today (yesterday for most of you), Firedoglake’s Jane Hamsher branded Obama’s staunchest supporters “the dumbest motherfuckers in the world”. Why is Jane Hamsher trying to sabotage the possibility of Democrats regaining control of the House of Representatives in 2012?.
Progressives can’t demonize Obama and his supporters and be successful in 2012. Down-ticket candidates, especially the most progressive ones, are handicapped by this type of vitriol. We need a huge turnout in 2012, and we won’t get that without widespread support for Obama.
For example:
Take Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly (D), who's facing another cycle in GOP crosshairs and counting on Obama to help him retain his northern Virginia congressional seat.
In the 2010 cycle, Republican challengers ousted three House Democrats in Virginia, with Connolly hanging on by the slimmest of margins. Heading into 2012, Connolly is listed as one of the party's 15 most endangered incumbents by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. But the former chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors is shrugging off his party’s concerns and predicting a major Democratic turnout boost thanks to Obama's bid for a second term.
Turnout in the 11th district in 2012 "will double,” says Connolly. “The president being on the ticket will help me in my district. He will help drive that turnout.”
Kiplinger's David Morris puts it this way:
Much depends on Obama. In 2008, Democrats won 48 seats in districts where Republican John McCain outpolled him. While Republicans won back three-quarters of those seats this year, Democrats can reclaim some of them if Obama reignites the interest of younger voters, minorities and women, who played big roles in his winning coalition in 2008. Since the president can't win a second term without getting those folks to the polls, it's a safe bet his team will do everything possible to make that happen. If he succeeds in boosting turnout, look for long presidential coattails.
And from the New Republic:
Democrats are likely to be much more involved in 2012, given the stakes of a presidential election. A higher turnout is likely to benefit Democrats, particularly if President Obama is able to inspire young people and minorities to vote at the same rates as he did in 2008.
Is Hamsher trying to depress the vote in 2012?
Obama was elected due to a huge turnout, especially by young, ardent, Obama voters. This turnout helped the Democrats dramatically increase their margin in the House in 2008. Low voter turnout in the midterms helped the Republicans regain control of the House. The Democrats' hope for retaking Congress in 2012 depends on a resurgence of voter turnout for President Obama. Whether or not Democrats are successful will rely in large part upon the effectiveness of Obama's "ardent supporters" getting out the message, and vote, for Obama in 2012. Why would Jane Hamsher want to undermine those efforts?
I understand that Hamsher has her disagreements with President Obama. Who doesn't? But what point is there in disparaging the very supporters that Congressional Candidates nationwide are counting on? Right now, across the country, young, ardent, OFA volunteers are mobilizing turnout for Obama, and by extension, down-ticket candidates. I've met some of them. They aren't dumb, and they aren't motherfuckers.
We Democrats eat our own. That’s what we do best, and as a result, good, progressive candidates lose.
Argue your point. Challenge Obama’s positions and strategies, but don’t call his supporters – the very ones we are counting on for Congressional victories in 2012 – the “dumbest motherfuckers in the world”. That’s just too dumb for words.