Another example of what I am talking about. An interview Obama gave to NPR. Not a stump speech for the masses. An interview that will be heard by people who can juggle actual ideas:
Steve Inskeep: Can you name one concrete thing you can do that other candidates would not do to move things forward?
Obama: Well, it is going to require the American people, enlisting them in putting pressure on Congress to make it happen. This is part of the point that I’ve been trying to make, Steve. There’s no shortage of plans out there. There’s no shortage of policy papers. This is not a technical problem. It’s a problem of politics. It’s a problem of getting a big enough coalition of people who are organized, inspired, mobilized and will then put pressure on those who are elected — in combination with a president who is able to lead — in order to get it done. There are no magic solutions here. And the problems that we face, whether it’s climate change, or health care, or making college more affordable, or dealing with our foreign policy is less a problem of, you know, getting the perfectly calibrated policy. It has to do with are we able to get people to work in the same direction, and that’s what I can do.
If we are inspired and work together we are just magically going to defeat the people who have spent the last thirty years opposing single-payer, global warming reforms, etc. Yeah. I am just a concern troll.
In a somewhat related vein, read this Barney Frank piece at the HuffPo.
BTW, for fun, I have decided that I am going to compile a list of things that Obama supporters claim he has transcended. Off the top of my head, we have race and politics.
cleek
You mockingly write
just after you quoted him saying:
did you even read it?
peach flavored shampoo
I really wish John would post a few threads about how he feels about Obama’s seriousness and ability to convey his myriad ideas and platforms. I would like to know his take on Obama’s banality and Clinton’s specificity.
At the moment, I simply have no idea how he feels about this stuff.
Horselover Fat
Based on policy positions, voting records etc. these people all not that much different from each other, all very different from present administration.
So I care more about who can make things happen than give motivational speeches.
Motivational speeches are great for firing up public support. But maybe something more is needed to work with Congress. I don’t think motivation is the problem with Cabinet officers, staff people, etc. either.
John Cole
Of course I read it. You don’t find it amusing he claims there are no magic solutions and then proffers that the solution is for us to “pressure congress” and “work in the same direction..”
diana
John,
Don’t go for the bait.
This is a perfect example of Obama’s lack of specificity and penchant for bloviation.
Of course he SAYS there are no magic solutions. Then he goes onto offer one: “Well, it is going to require the American people, enlisting them in putting pressure on Congress to make it happen.”
How do you “enlist” the American people to “put pressure on Congress” when one of your messages is that they have no power? It’s the President who puts pressure on the Congress on behalf of the American people!!
Obamania is a delirium tremen that will pass.
Grand Moff Texan
Solutions aren’t solutions!
Happiness are solutions!
.
Dreggas
Hmmm, yep lots of plans out there, lots of papers and policies. The problem? Getting people to work together to get them done.
It’s like saying there’s the bricks and mortar and boards as well as the plans to build a house and having the contestants on survivor trying to build it, none of ’em work together and nothing gets done.
It’s fine to have all the fluffy pink plans on the planet but until you get people to let go of animosity and work on them you’ll never achieve anything.
So yeah, maybe his rhetoric is lofty, but I have yet to hear much else from the rest of ’em. Hillary talks of having a plan, edwards talks about tackling corporations, but that’s about it, yet Obama is somehow worse? I can see what your sayin John but you aren’t seeing the forest for the trees. You can have the best freaking idea on the planet, but until you can get everyone working towards the achievement of that idea it’s worthless.
cleek
i just don’t see the magical thinking you keep talking about.
he described how legislation is made and what the President’s role is in the process. what do you want him to say – “I’m the Decider! I’ll Decide what laws Congress writes!” ?
just not seeing it.
myiq2xu
Is he a Transcendentalist?
Face
the answer Cole was looking for was “my solution is to skull-fuck a dozen kittens, buy a Mac, and then move to West Virginia, and give John Cole free escorts for a month”.
Alas…
wvng
I wants a pony too!
The only way to defeat the current incarnation of the reThuglican party is probably to make them radioactive and get them the hell out of office- maybe rapture them right on down to hell.
That said, if anyone can find that unity pony it would probably be Obama. He does actually have a history of pulling off the improbable – like getting the videotaping all police interrogations bill passed in Illinois despite initial very strong opposition from the police, the governor, and the opposition party. And then their is his remarkable trip to the fundy church in California for the AIDS conference a couple of years ago. Remember that one? The preacher invited him, his flock and their ilk were very not pleased, but in the end he said precisely what he would have said to any audience and got a standing ovation.
If there were ever a lion’s den for Dems, that was it.
Dreggas
And not to overuse the cliche here, but when Kennedy said we’re going to put a man on the moon I doubt he had a solid plan for doing it…
myiq2xu
Wasn’t there a French general who told people to “hurry up and decide where you are going, so I can lead you there.”
Blue Neponset
I think Obama’s point was a good one. There are filing cabinets full of health care plans in Washington. The reason none of them have been implemented is because of the lack of political will. Obama is claiming he has the political will to get a health care plan passed. I don’t hear any Republicans saying that. Even Hillary isn’t pushing for that. The idea that Obama is making that a priority is something that separates him from his opponents.
Also, it is beyond stupid to give your opponent a specific plan on anything because they can pick it apart and beat you over the head with it.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Yeah, gotta admit, he’s not showing-off very well, when he should be.
Of course, there’s a chance that they’re still drilling down on strategy at HQ. But we should see it pretty damn soon if it’s there.
Brodude
Nobody’s saying he can immanentize the eschaton, brah.
myiq2xu
I’ll bite. Obama could lay out specific goals, rather than specific plans for reaching those goals.
Kennedy said we’re going to put a man on the moon – a specific goal.
What are Obama’s specific goals?
Universal health care? End the war in Iraq? Give us all a unity pony?
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
It was an excellent point. But he didn’t answer the question. And the question had a serious underlying issue: we want to see him throw-down. We also want to be wowed by technical prowess.
He sidestepped the question, no doubt.
Bubblegum Tate
Off the top of my head, we have race and politics.
Also, space and time as we know them. Obama is an entity, not a person.
Marcus Wellby
Yeah, and that’s why he took two in the melon. Think about it…
Jake
Clinton? Nope, too calculating and possibly a lackey of the GOP/Big Bidness.
Obama? Nope. Not enough substance.
Guess that leaves Edwards or hope Dodd rises from the dead.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Hey, maybe that’s it. Maybe he’s seriously intending to offer us a person to rally around, but he’d sound like a complete ass if he said that explicitly
It would actually be an improvement to function has a coordinated, centered nation for once.
Dreggas
You just named 2
Healthcare
Iraq
of course he has outlined these positions in less specific terms in his campaign but should he be going bullet point by bullet point?
Dreggas
You’re right, guess we should just know our place and not even think about making things better. Just settle for the status quo and not have “false hopes”.
lambert strether
I’m gonna get a pony and I’m gonna name it Fierce Urgency of Now!
And later on, Uncle David Broder’s going to come around and sniff my pony’s saddle LOL!!!!!
I’m s-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o happy!!!
I love my pony!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Justin
HAHAHAHAHA!
OMG! You’re so funny and snarky!
Face
Silly, I thought it was Congress’ job to actually write the law and figure out what their constituents need.
Apparenly the Prez is supposed to decide what the hell is passed, and how, and why.
FAIL i passed has am3i{aN hiz7Ory
TheFountainHead
JC, You’ve gotta be fucking kidding me. Obama’s answer pretty much outlined the constitutional role of the Exectuive branch. He’s a figurehead of the people and is required to guide the legislative process in the way he sees most beneficial to the country at large. THAT’S THE PRESIDENT’S FUCKING JOB! Not to go to war unilaterally, not to create peace in the Middle East, not to keep Congress in a stranglehold and NOT to pander to the vocal minorities simply because they are vocal! Just because we’ve had decades of Presidents who fucked up their job description eight ways from Tuesday, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t consider hiring one that fits the old description!
Dreggas
Yeah you see the president is the decider, the commander guy. It’s not like he’s supposed to work with Congress or anything. He’s supposed to clap and shit happens according to his plan period.
Pb
Interesting–isn’t Obama outlining exactly what Hillary couldn’t do on healthcare during the Clinton administration? She had a plan, but she couldn’t manage to get it through. He’s saying that he’d be able to use the bully pulpit to motivate people to help get his plans enacted, and work with Congress to do so, etc. And it wouldn’t surprise me if he could do that better than Hillary Clinton. I’d still rather see Edwards fighting the good fight, but I think Obama has a point here.
Incidentally, for those who aren’t trolling and therefore might be interested in the wonkish policy disagreements that actually exist between the candidates, here’s an article entitled Substance, not style — which is what we aren’t getting from John Cole here. And, oh yeah, they quote Obama talking about it, too:
Funny, that, more substance–don’t tell John Cole!
Jen
If you don’t follow the link, here is the context immediately preceding the quote:
In other words, they were talking about something concrete — health care availability. And it’s a perfectly fair question to ask what you’ll do that’s different about actually effecting that change in health care that everyone else says they will also do, sure. And I think setting yourself out there as a mobilizer, a community organizer, etc. is a fair answer. It’s not a fantastic answer, but Hillary tried to reinvent the American health care system more or less singlehandledly the last time she tried. I can see the contrast.
LiberalTarian
Actually, his argument that people don’t work together doesn’t really hold up, and neither does his argument about putting pressure on Congress. I *did* write letters to Congress about going to war with Iraq, environmental issues, yadda yadda. I got boiler plate answers back. People came out to protest the war, and got their asses handed to them by swarms of police in riot gear if they showed too much enthusiasm.
He’s playing this unity card for people who are disengaged, haven’t noticed the illegal wiretapping, etc. It may get him over the top enough to get the nomination for president. But I find his rhetoric insulting. He acts as though activists and volunteers that have been working their asses off for the last 7 years (and before) just sat on their hands. He acts as though the problem has been catfights and bitchiness, not that we have had very powerful and well-funded enemies.
I’m not liking Obama.
Neal
No! You can’t have a pony! NOT YOURS!
Anyone ever see that picture floating around the internet with the little girl crying on it?
Sensitive Pony Tailed Girly Man
We’re getting something of a preview of what an Obama Presidency would look like with our own Fearless Leader up here in MA. No, not Coach of the Year Bill Belicheck, who is one of the Great Americans of our time. I’m referring to Deval Patrick. Disappointing so far, and that’s with a Legislature that is more or less on the same wave length. If it comes to pass expect it to take a while for all that touchy feeley stuff to take. If ever.
Now back to Hoodie, if we want him running the show then we can get some Instant Results. Bill does not suffer fools gladly, compared to the current guy who pins Medals on them. I think we can talk him into taking the Gig if we point out that he’d be succeeding the one person on the Planet who would make him sound articulate in comparison. Plus you have to think that beating teams like the Washington Redskins like Rented Mules is getting boring by now.
LarryB
[full disclosure: I’m not an Obamaniac] John, Your criticism is both unfair and fair. I think Obama is really talking tactics here, not policy. It’s about how to get anything done in Washington, assuming you don’t have diciplined control of both Congressional houses. So, it’s slightly unfair to say that Obama’s rhetoric lacks substance, as it marks out an approach to working with Congress to achieve policy. Ah! but it does beg the question: what policy? According to Obama, there’s plenty of good policy proposals out there on the Dem side already and he’s just the man to get one of them through Congress. You can agree or disagree about that but that’s the pitch.
diana
“It’s a problem of politics.”
It’s a problem of LEADERSHIP.
“It’s a problem of getting a big enough coalition of people who are organized, inspired, mobilized and will then put pressure on those who are elected”
Tell me another one.
“— in combination with a president who is able to lead ”
Now you’re getting there.
— “in order to get it done. There are no magic solutions here.”
Where have i heard that before?
Sensitive Pony Tailed Girly Man
Ah, and as I re-read my last post I think there are at least two people who can make Bill sound articlate. Why doesn’t this pissant site have an edit feature so I can clean up after myself? Should I sent some Red State Techs over to help you upgrade?
TheFountainHead
I think you’re reading it wrong. I think he’s saying that for too long those protesting HAVE been treated like fringe groups when in fact they are the majority. It’s my interpretation that he’s saying if we are going to effect change it can’t be just this organization fighting for this here and that organization fighting that there, but there has to be a consolidated movement for these groups to umbrella under. And frankly, he’s right, most Americans don’t have a CLUE about how deep the shit they’re wading in is.
Fe E
Y’know, initially I was a Richardson supporter because of just how wonky he really is, but with more thought It’s dawned on me why it was so hard to really settle on a Dem candidate this year. They are all very competent and have put forth plans which actually attempt to fix a problem, and do so in a way that has a shot at working. As opposed to the GOP strategy of coming up with some BS to give the appearance of action and a bit of political cover: blah blah blah, Health Savings Accounts,blah blah blah tax cuts…
None of them has put forward a plan that is so stunningly brilliant it blows the outhers out of the water–but they are all reasonable.
So now the question is: who will be most likely to get their solutions implemented. I must admit I am intrigued by Obama. I won’t be dog-kickingly angry if Clinton or Edwards winds up with the nod by any means, but there is something about Obama which is….hopeful.
Captain USA
It doesn’t matter how many detailed policy speeches Obama makes, the lazy cynics have already decided that all he ever does is utter vague platitudes, and nothing will ever change their minds.
But then again, who gives a shit what these people think?
ThymeZone
Well, you’re on a new kick now, John, and we all know what happens when you get on a kick.
Fact is, you are talking about a guy who is basically tied with the power structure’s big money candidate for the Dem nomination at this point.
I’m sure with your great campaign advice, he’d be way ahead by now, but hey, not everybody reads BJ.
Note to self, here we go again.
Dreggas
And neither Edwards or Hillary did a damn thing either. Oh wait…Obama wasn’t even in Congress when that happened…
Sadly the view of the protests, prior to the war, was that anyone who believed we should go in (which as it turns out was wrong) was branded as a fascist, as a nazi, as a war monger none of the protests tried to change public opinion, they merely vented outrage not only at the administration but also at the rest of America who were still supporting the president.
NONE of the protests that I witnessed ever made an effort to change a single mind you were either with them or against them…gee where did I hear that one before?
Then again it’s history repeating itself again, and again and again. Eye for an eye and we’ll all gladly remain blind and complacent.
diana
In the middle of a load of bullshit, Obama says that it will take leadership to get anything done. Fine. But he could have said in 10 words what it took him 150. And even that was qualified by fluff and nonsense.
lambert strether
Thank you, Justin. [lambert blushes modestly] The magic Unity Pony is so worthy of derision and mockery because there’s no basis for believing it’s going to achieve the policy outcomes Democrats prefer, and if anything it’s destructive to those outcomes. Maybe at some point Obama’s going to figure this out, and start running as a Democrat for the year 2008, instead of the second coming of Tom Daschle as of 2002. (Anyone remember how well that one worked out?)
I share Mr. Cole’s amusement at “no magic except magic.” Another excellent example is the YouTube where Obama puts Social Security “in play” as a cudgel to beat Hillary with, while claiming in the next breath that Social Security shouldn’t be a political football.
Obama’s smart, knowledgeable, can organize (see Iowa) but the vacuity of the unity message is such a turn-off for me that at this point I’m counter-suggestible on the actual policy outcomes he prefers, if any. And that his fan base seems totally immersed in Republican talking points and uses them to attack Democrats (“trial lawyer”; “special interests”; and the Hillary hatred) is not a confidence builder for me.
I’m with Barney Frank. The reason we fought the battles of the 90s is that they were WORTH FIGHTING. For pity’s sake. And you know what? All the guys we fought back then are as entrenched as they ever were, but now they’re all singing Unity, as if in chorus. Why is that, I wonder?
Blue Neponset
I think he answered the question. The concrete thing he can do that his opponents can’t is use the bully pulpit to get the American people to demand a health care plan or college tuition savings. I don’t think Hillary can do that I don’t think Huckabee can do that. Dubya tried to do it with Social Security and he failed. Clinton did it when the gov’t was shut down and he succeeded. Getting people focused on an issue is a skill and Obama has it and other do not.
Tsulagi
Condensed Obama: I’m a uniter, not a divider.
(Insert crowd cheering here)
TheFountainHead
Your own head?
Scotty
I think at this point in time Obama is trying to gain supporters by showing that he can bring people together to solve problems much more easily than the other candidates will. In other words, that’s his goal for winning the democratic nomination. He can’t really run against his democratic opponents using arguments about his specific reforms because the other candidate have very similar ideas and that won’t really help him pull in voters. By showing that he can bring together everyone politically it does help him pull in voters. If he wins the nomination then he will move onto those reforms and explain why they are better than any that the republican nominee will put forth.
Xenos
I wonder if Obama is just trying to slide by the Conservo-media complex long enough to get the nomination, wait for the first bullshit swiftboat attack, and then go postal for the eight weeks leading up to the nomination.
Kerry could have scored so many points if he had been inclined to defend himself in a knife fight. At this point I have to trust that Obie won’t hesitate to name names and turn the election into a repudiation of the whole GOP criminal racket.
Maybe Edwards could be appointed AG – let him clean up the GOP swamp.
Jake
It would be nice if everyone were as engaged but the sad truth is they’re not. If someone wants to use the opportunity to shout WAKE UP at the people snoozing in the back of the room rather than threaten them with TERRISTS, that’s fine by me.
myiq2xu
I just found out why I’m not voting for Obama – I clicked on the link and his website crashed my computer.
Dreggas
How very American of you… [ / snark]
myiq2xu
I do, because I’m one of them. I’m still waiting to be impressed.
John Cole
By “big money candidate,” I assume you mean Hillary, the person you were gushing over in a most Sullivanesque manner for the previous 8 months. Want me to google your endless odes, TZ?
I don’t dislike Obama. I think he is a fine man. And I think he may be a great president. But I am sick of this empyt unity bullshit. I didn’t leave the GOP to come lick the GOP’s boots while a Democrat was in office.
But most of all, I want a Democrat to win. I don’t think one will peddling all this crap I have seen Obama pushing.
TheFountainHead
So THAT’S how most of America makes decisions….well that explains A LOT.
PK
Everyone knows what the problems are. The war in Iraq, The huge defecit, healthcare, global warming, Israel-palestine, shitty economy etc etc. Whoever comes to power is going to have to deal with all these problems. The basic question for the democrats is, who is going to sincerely try and tackle these issues bfore they succumb to temptation and become lobbyist whores! Who is going to be able to make tough, maybe unpopular decisions? Who has the character and intelligence for the job? I think its Obama. Hillary has already shown piss poor judgement over the Iraq war and Iran vote. Ultimately no one can say for sure who is going to do a better job. But my instincts say Obama. Seven years ago the same instincts told me that Bush was going to be a disaster for this country!
TheFountainHead
Yes, because getting the MASSIVE block of Independent voters out there on your side is such awful campaign strategy.
ThymeZone
Go right ahead John. It doesn’t take ME three years to change my mind and say I was wrong about something.
What’s your point?
And, I have said the same thing all along. She is not my favorite, I hate her voice, but if she is going to win the nomination, more power to her, let’s beat the GOP.
I am saying the same thing now. It’s what any rational Dem would say.
And how does that translate into your gratuitous and useless rants against Obama, now? What fucking purpose does that serve other than stirring up churn?
Oops, silly me. I forgot.
Pooh
For me, Obama’s emphasis on process rather than policy is definitely a feature, not a bug. The short-circuiting of decision making processes is pretty much directly responsible for everything GWB has fucked up – because when you are the decider and god talks to you, you don’t need a process, you just go forth and do. What’s that? Aim first? Fuck that.
myiq2xu
Well, you lost my vote too!
What were you running for again?
dougie
why does John Cole hate black people?
grumpy realist
John, go over the GroupNewsBlog and read Jesse’s analysis of the difference in rhetorical emphasis between Hillary, Obama, and Edwards.
We may get miffed about the soaring rhetoric, but remember, 99% of people aren’t political wonks. They don’t give a shit about fiddlely differences among plans–they’ve heard enough. They WANT inspiring oratory. They want hope. Obama is using the techniques that work to get them on board and pulling in the same direction. He’s priming the pump.
This is why I’m cautiously hopeful about him. We’ve been so battered by the “no, I WON’T work with you because you’re a Republican/Democrat (pick one) nyahh nyahh nyahh” attitude we’ve seen of the past 7 years (plus Dubya’s “my way or the highway” schtick) that the possibility of getting everyone to work together is just, well, enervating. Obama shows he has it–Hillary has not, which is my main reason against voting for her.
TheFountainHead
Amen, amen, again I says AMENS!
And five years ago my instinct was that war with Iraq was something only Hitler would do. My guts may have shit for brains but they’ve been right more often than not.
libarbarian
Mortality? Didn’t He die in New Hampshire for our Political sins and 3 days later rose again in the polls.
tBone
So, I guess Obama is officially the new Cindy Sheehan ’round these parts? Batten down the hatches, kids, it’s going to be a bumpy few months.
To someone who isn’t terminally cynical, I think Obama’s point makes perfect sense – the greatest plan in the world isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on if you don’t have the ability to enact it.
Read the quote again:
See anything there that we’ve been missing for the last 7 years?
myiq2xu
If you were paying attention, you would realize that Obama must be a Red Stater – leftists have all the computer geeks.
Fargus
John, sure, you didn’t leave the Republican Party to kiss up to the GOP. That’s not what Obama’s going for.
There’s a hell of a lot of voters who are disaffected with the GOP, but who need some strong encouragement to bring themselves to vote for a Democrat. Namely, they need someone who can palatably package progressive policy. That’s not kissing up to the GOP. That’s reaching out to people who really don’t want to vote for the GOP, but will either stay home or vote GOP anyway if they don’t see enough on the other side to convince them.
ThymeZone
On policy, which is what this thread is supposedly about, the fact is that the Dems are all over the map. Our party doesn’t really have a unified policy message, and that’s one of the things I like about being a Democrat. Our party is a worldview party, the worldview of “govt helps people” versus the worldview of “govt is the the problem.”
But anyway, if my choice is between an Obama who can win, and a HRC who can win, on voice and policy alone, let me put it this way: I plan to work for the Obama campaign here in my state prior to Feb 5, if I can. I think he’s the better alternative. I didn’t think he could get where he is today in this campaign, I underestimated him.
LiberalTarian
I wondered whether the war was a good example, since it is cliche now to point out many many Americans thought it was a stunningly bad idea. Doesn’t alter the fact that in the city I live a 57-year old woman was tazed by the riot police because she didn’t get off the sidewalk when they told people to disperse (they didn’t have permission for a group of people to gather on the sidewalk, they only had permission to walk on the street).
The bankruptcy bill is another example, or the gutting of the Road Rules, or the selling off of mineral rights by 1850 standards, or the budget cutting that happened with OSHA, EPA, state support for things such as children’s healthcare, etc.
Part of the point was that Congress was unresponsive, but the MAIN IDEA is that there was organized, diligent opposition on the part of the public. Obama is saying that he will, with the help of the public, make these changes because he will inspire people. As if people were not inspired and active before. That’s what I find insulting about his rhetoric.
God willing (and the creeks don’t rise) we’ll have a stampeded of Democratic turnout, and we’ll have a strong majority in Congress and have a Democrat in the Whitehouse. That won’t help us much with the courts, since they’ve been pretty well stacked with conservative activist judges. And, more importantly, it won’t do anything about industries that are predatory on the public. He is also promising them they will not be left out of the decision process, as if he believes they will deal fairly.
What will help Obama, or any Democrat, is a straight party vote that puts more Democrats in office. He doesn’t want to be seen as someone trying to gain Democratic seats at the expense of Republicans–the man in fact has said he would consider putting Schwarzenegger in his cabinet. Now, maybe you don’t recall, but Schwarzenegger didn’t run to the center until all his initiatives failed miserably. I recall his battle with the teachers and nurses, even if Obama doesn’t.
I don’t just want our next Democratic president for 4 years. I want 8 with a Dem congress. If Obama wins, but a Republican takes it back from him in 4 years because Obama does not deliver, how much good will he do?
libarbarian
Hillary eats babies.
There, I said it.
Zifnab
Accurate Condensed Obama.
They said only Nixon could go to China (in part because if anyone other than Nixon went to China, he’d brand them a Commie). Obama is, in fact, the Magic Negro come to solve all our problems. Or at least he has the potential to be.
Republicans set a giant bear trap for Hillary Clinton because they assumed she would be the nominee. Their “anybody but Clinton” rhetoric leaves them with an (R) pool running incredibly shallow and a non-Clinton candidate that the majority of America is falling in love with. So now they’re obliged to step in it when Rockstar Obama comes calling. They screamed loudest against Clinton, so the conservative media elites are almost compelled to heap praise on Obama. They’ve already flung flaming poo on Huckabee and Romney. McCain only arouses his own 70-year-old man constituency. The Republicans are basically trapped into adoring the only popular “not-Hillary” candidate in the race.
shaker o salt
yeah, it worked for the republicans.
Robert Johnston
“Condensed Obama: I’m a uniter, not a divider”
Pretty much. I think he’s running as a nonintellectual decider too–i.e. as someone who chooses between competing policies presented to him when forced to rather than as someone who actually engages with and drives the development of policy.
Obama seems largely to be trying to replace “compassionate conservatism” with “conciliatory progressivism.” I’d really rather not be forced to bet that Obama’s conciliation is as vacuous and false as Bush’s compassion.
Scotty
It can’t hurt with the courts. We can get some sane judges through and I’m sure John Paul Stevens won’t be hanging out too much longer around the Supreme Court building.
Spider97
This could evolve into something like those Chuck Norris facts. Were I witty, I would think of one right now.
Jake
Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this son of the Carolinas;
And all the clouds that low’r’d upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
– John Cole
ThymeZone
Don’t count the Hucksterbee out just yet. I think he has a shot.
I welcome whoever the GOP props up for this election, no matter who we nominate. But for sheer crushing Goldwater-class defeat, I would love an Obama-McPain contest.
No matter how you mix and match the two parties’ best hopes, I think the Dems win. And that above all else is what counts.
And I totally disagree with Cole. I think “party and candidate of good deeds for people” wins over “Iraq for 100 years, I love Jesus, and Border Fences.”
myiq2xu
If any Obama supporter (or any other Democrat for that matter) thinks that after the next election it will be all sunshine and pie in Washington DC, they better adjust their meds.
The GOP will in all likelihood maintain at least 44-45 seats in the Senate. The House GOP will remain unified, and some of the Bush Dog Democrats will vote with them.
They will do everything they can to obstruct anything the new President tries to do. They will also have the Right-Wing Noise machine cranked up to full volume, tons of lobbyist money and all of Bush’s life-time appointed federal judiciary waiting to rule legislation unconstitutional.
Back when Billary first took office, Democrats still controlled Congress, but the GOP blocked most of what Clintonia tried to do.
Can Obama transcend that? If so, how?
Xenos
Given that Scalia & Co. is on the verge of overturning Bush v. Gore as soon as the principles it relies on are no longer convenient to the Republicans, the next Democratic president might as well get a new court packing program going. Or maybe we should just impeach them all.
money quote:
diana
This just in: Kerry endorses Obama.
Katy, bar the door!
tBone
Oh, bullshit, TZ. All of that “hope” and “change” crap is a recipe for disaster. General election voters make decisions based solely on the wonkiness of the candidates, which is why 8 glorious years of the Gore presidency are now coming to an end.
TheFountainHead
No one loses more Democratic seats in congress than Hillary does at the top of the ticket. If we want to WIN, we can’t let the Democrats in contested districts dangle because we nominated the woman who ensures the largest Republican turnout in November.
Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill
John,
I, as an Obama supporter, appreciate what you’re going for, here. I appreciate that you’re trying to provide advice on the campaign, and for some one I think you do want to support. I can read between the tone, and see the hard message at the core.
At the same time, you read, just a little, like Sullivan’s diatribes against Clinton. True or not, it takes away from the discussion to have to chew through sneering to get the the meat at the center. And you likely saw that Sullivan just had a major peg taken down over his HRC diatribes.
You may not care if it works or not. It may be of no major import to you. But if you don’t care, why say it, and say it with this tone, to begin with?
But you do bring up one note. I’m not anything but a volunteer on the campaign (when I get a chance, which hasn’t been too often!), so I don’t speak officially AT ALL. But if there’s supports of Obama here, let’s keep out of picking fights with people who are honestly trying to help us, and work to bring people in.
Understand: From what I’m gathering, there’s no proof we can provide John to solve his issues with Obama; it’s not that he thinks Obama himself is empty-headed, but that he’s not talking about any actual positions, just feel-good platitudes. That’s a decent position to take, and a discussion to have, if a bit muddled in the discussion of it with the venom being thrown about.
In truth, Obama (and the Press) have to provide that kind of detail, and show him his concerns are not valid in the long run. And I think when/if we discuss it here, it should be with the kind of respect and understanding Obama is trying to bring to the campaign, overall.
That is what our candidate is about, correct?
lambert strether
myiq2xu:
Ponies!
The unity message translates to me as:
1. More caving ust like with Harry and Nancy or Tom Daschle, with the only difference being that the Republicans are out of office. Maybe somebody can tell me how Harry and Nancy giving Bush everything he wanted (or, as in the case of FISA, more) is operationally different from “unity”? How is giving the other party whatever they ask for anything other than “bipartisan”?
2. No accountability for Bush administration office holders. I want the torturers and the looters and the corrupt exposed and prosecuted. Why would I want unity with criminals?
Dreggas
Yeah, not the entire country tho was it? Plus you had disparate groups barely working together. You had people marching more to “Free Mumia” than to stop the war. Anyone who suggested real organized opposition was suddenly a brown shirt because there was the suggestion of setting up some unifying…uniformity to it. Instead the protests looked like a chance for everyone to carry a sign championing their pet cause along with a dose of street carnival.
Maybe not where you were but that’s what most of America saw on TV. Sure there were people “united” didn’t last much after the bombs fell and sure as hell wasn’t the entire country let alone a majority.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
That’s not Obama’s responsibility, by a long shot. He’ll actually have to restore the Geneva Conventions before the Hague will even talk to us again.
The only significant way to stop a president doing wrong is impeachment. The current crew is the one that blew that, with Pelosi and Reid at top.
Punchy
I find it funny that blogs everywhere are ablaze with Clagina/Osama flamewars, while ignoring what appears to be 2 really crazy-ass stories today:
1) Our Navy/Cheney admits it has NO IDEA where the audio of the Iranians in speedboats saying “wheeze in ure hizz, catchan ure fishes” actually cums from…
2) our FBI lost wiretaps on peeps cuz they refused to pay the phone bill. Think about that a sec.
lambert strether
John writes:
I don’t think it’s “detail.” I think it’s existential.
Which Republicans exactly do we want to have “unity” with since 2000? The torturers? The Southern Strategy types? The election thieves? The Abramoffs? Whoever invented signing statements? Whoever decided that warrantless surveillance was just OK, do it?
When you cross off the Republicans who aren’t torturers, or racists, or election thieves, or corrupt, or out to wreck the Constitution, the list gets very short. Especially when you then cross off the “loyal Bushies.”
The unity message is vacuous, because it pretends that real differences can be papered over by a single charismatic personality.
This is an existential question, which the Obama Fan Base seems unwilling even to engage, let alone answer.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
On second thought, the Hague will probably give us some credit if we put Bush on a ship and let half of the European military crash down on him, but no president will be able to legally do that…
cleek
me too. but who’s going to do that ? i don’t see anything like that kind of spirit from any of the candidates.
lambert strether
Caidence (fmr. Chris) Says:
The unity message gets in the way of accountability. That message is Obama’s responsibility.
Which is why I don’t want a Harry and Nancy equivalent in the oval office too!
And that’s what the “unity” message portends.
Tsulagi
If I register as a Democrat, do I get a pair of Birks and a vegan cookbook? j/k
Daniel Munz
It’s really sort of striking to me that every time Obama says something as banal as “we need to assemble a legislative majority in order to pass some piece of legislation,” people deride it as some kind of pie-in-the-sky, magical solution from Neverland. Yes, it’s hard. But it’s possible. But it’s not possible when you’re a corrupt idiot, which is what the president has been for the last seven-and-change years. Are we really so totally Bushed out that actual competence in the basic skills of political leadership — coalition building, productive legislative dealmaking, pragmatic issue leadership, agenda setting — is simply unrecognizable to us anymore?
lambert strether
I should say: I will happily, happily vote for Obama in the general. It’s the unity idea that I’m out to attack and destroy. There are plenty of ways that Obama can move away from that Villageous dead and and start throwing down. I will be ecstatic if he does.
Dreggas
Let’s get off this whole idea that Obama is somehow anything like “Unity 08”. First off their shit is about the same thing that clinton ran on in the 90’s that was supposed to be unity too, remember? Obama talks about uniting the people, not playing kissy face with lieberman.
Let’s just elect Hillary tho and watch the shit hit the fan, maybe 8 more years in Iraq coupled with gridlock will destroy us.
ThymeZone
Wait…. is John Cole suddenly channeling Broder?
ThymeZone
Maybe, but if you register as a Republican, you get tickets to the Creation Museum.
TheFountainHead
Thank you for bringing these to my attention. John Cole had me all riled up when he invoked Rove the Rat this morning, and I really needed to calm down. That did the trick.
Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill
1) Note his emphasis on bringing GOP disaffected folks in. Right now, the GOP’s playbook still depends on those folks formerly known as Reagan Democrats. If Obama moves them into the Democratic column when he comes into the office, he’s got all the momentum, and the “mandate” is clear. That snaps off the CrongressCritters who are currently “on the edge” and holding on because the Whips are reining them in. It’s basically Reagan in reverse. Bonus: He’s likely to have a SuperMajority to bounce over filibusters, as well.
2) Defuse the lobbyist structure that’s propping up the GOP, right now. You’re not going to get rid of ’em, no more than Corporate Influence on our Democracy, but if there’s anything he’s done in the Senate, it’s to attack the roots of the money structure in Congress. It’s pretty clear he’s theorizing that if you can get the money out, you can move the needle on governance in America.
3) The American people tools to observe and confront their government more directly. This is why his proposals for showing things like cabinet meetings sound crazy, like C-SPAN redux, but make a certain sense. It’s not about just being transparent, but also about getting the American people (the ones paying attention, who are the ones who vote anyway) on your side. Remember that Clinton Health Care got blocked because the other side made up their own, negative narrative, when the meetings weren’t even open to reporters. Opening the discussions on these things to the people, and the media, is risky, but it’s far better than what we have from anyone else out there today.
Rick Taylor
What you’re saying is spot on. I was originally an Obama supporter, simply because he was one of the few candidates who didn’t support the authorization for war against Iraq. It took me a while, but I’ve come around; I don’t trust that Obama to be able to win the general election (especially if the Republicans come to their senses and nominate McCain) or to govern effectively in his first year or two. That’s why I’m supporting Hillary; my respect for her has only grown with time.
Jake
Here, here!
The GOP has spent eight years trashing everything it could lay its paws on, not just with rotten laws but by inserting crooked dumbasses in every Federal agency. This isn’t a one year fix. This isn’t a four year fix. At the end of eight years things might be back to “Not completely FUBAR.”
But well before that the GOP will be telling us that blame for everything from the housing market mess to Sept. 11th rests solely on the shoulders of the DemoNcRats.
Fledermaus
Yep, but they’ll soon find out when gas is $6 a gallon, food prices, when there is actually food available on the store shelf, are up %30 and rampant crime due to poverty, lack of affordable housing, and an unemployment rate over 10%. And Obama’s pony farm will not be able to do a thing except call out the national guard to keep order. Not that anyone else has any better chance of reversing the slide.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Something makes me thing you’re not giving this issue the full shake.
IT’S DONE. Bush fucked us. And he got away with it. And he’s going to be giggling like a little boy for the rest of his life with that depraved smirk of his, and he’ll be like our Jimmy Carter… except we have a serious reason why he hate him.
You lost your chance, and all future issues regarding this are on policy.
More bad people will create other damage, having nothing to do with Bush.
But if Obama is peddling the unity thing, he’s not going to be that bad guy. Maybe he has a dumpy secretary, but that’s a minor issue, also having nothing to do with Bush.
Conclusion: We got fucked. Eat your vegetables and move on to pick the person that will get the country back on the rails. If you think that’s Hillary, great. But drop the revenge shtick. You have it. The law won’t let you.
I’m sorry, too.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
“You can’t have it, that is”
bah, fuck me.
Daniel Munz
Looking through the thread now, I think Woodrow “asim” Jarvis Hill says it pretty well. Basically, Obama is promising that he’ll be the most able to manipulate the legislative system in a way that brings about progressive change. That’s open to dispute, although I have a hard time seeing that Hillary or Edwards can make as strong a claim in terms of sheer skill in the area of political coalition-building.
But if we really think that the basic idea of building a legislative coalition is in-principle impossible, we should just give up and go home, because this is no longer a functioning democracy. It’s just a giant laser-tag arena.
I’m all for the no-surrender strategy the Dems have adopted. It seems like there’s no compromise with these people. But they’re not immune to the fundamental laws of politics, as the 2006 midterms demonstrated. At this point, there’s basically a 30%-sized rump of the country that still supports the GOP; everyone else is up for grabs. That’s a unique moment in American politics; the last such moment, frankly, produced eight years of Reagan. Obama argues that he’s best positioned to seize the current moment and produce not just tactical or strategic victories, but actual, major victories in terms of public policy and public opinion — something that progressives, whatever electoral battles we’ve won, haven’t had in a looong time. If you disagree about the nature of this political moment, or don’t accept the premise that Obama is best-poised to deliver on it, well, that’s respectable. But if you really just don’t think that what he’s promising to do is even possible anymore in American politics, you should just vote for Giuliani. At least then, the end of the republic will be funny, instead of just sad.
Sean Carroll
Obama’s rhetoric is vague, but his actual accomplishments are the kind of nitty-gritty stuff that is useful rather than simply symbolic.
But it doesn’t make for good sound bites on radio interviews.
myiq2xu
The next President will be dealing with a Senate that is going to be about 55 Dem, 45 GOP. That won’t beat a filibuster.
Clinton left office with lots of federal judgeships unfilled due to EIGHT FULL YEARS of GOP obstruction. G-Dub will leave office with numerous GOP moles buried in the federal bureaucracy, like the graduates of Regent University.
It’s far easier for the GOP and the Right-Wing noise machine to obstruct legislation than it is to get it passed. Playing the unity game is playing their game.
dslak
I’ve mentioned this before, and so have others on this thread, but I think Obama’s “unity” message plays on anti-Bush sentiment without being blatantly negative (i.e., we’re all united that we want to move past recent GOP mistakes).
As for John’s complaints, I still plan on voting for Obama, but I think he owes us an explanation for exactly how his administration is going to accomplish anything even with a Democratic majority, when even a politician as popular and charismatic as Bill Clinton was unable to pull it off. He needs to be called to floor on that, and Hillary remaining in the campaign makes that a possibility. If Obama does win the primary after facing such questions, he’ll be a much stronger candidate (and hopefully a better president).
myiq2xu
Wrong. There are lots of people that can be prosecuted for their crimes. Just exposing them is important for the future.
After Watergate and Nixon’s resignation we were supposed to forgive and forget. After Iran-Contra we were supposed to move on, the problem was fixed, no partisan witch-hunts allowed.
But many of the names in the Bush II administration first appeared on the radar screens during those earlier scandals. If we don’t root them out now they will be back.
BTW – The President’s power to issue pardons does not affect impeachment, and an impeachment conviction includes a lifetime bar from holding office (elected or appointed.) Resigning does not preclude impeachment either.
Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill
myiq2xu:
Put simply, I don’t want revenge, I want justice.
And they get away with it because no one calls them on the carpet in public, details to the American people these crimes. Look at the weak tea the GOP filibuster issues is in the media. Without someone driving the issue forward, it’s just not playing, and it’s killing the Democrats in the polls.
A President who’s willing to negotiate and then “stuff ’em”, if they act up, is a more powerful symbol than one who’s coming in as obstructionist as they are. One gives you hope, and encourages the American people to speak on her/his side, the other just makes you look as villainous as the other guy, no matter your intentions.
Example: Budget showdown in the Clinton years. Because Clinton got American sentiment on his side, he was able to use it to push the GOP to cave. Obama’s critique of how to win the bill-passing game is steeped in that sort of gamesmanship, from what my research shows.
rapoli
So “Fired up, ready to go” = “Git ‘R Done!” A Southern Strategy for the 21st century . . . That’s so crazy, it just might work!
dslak
As for revenge, if Obama appoints a feisty Attorney General (like Edwards), he can set him loose on all the offenders from the Bush administration. This has the dual benefit of bringing them to justice (or getting revenge, if that’s your thing), as well as preventing the blame from going directly to Obama himself.
I fear that Hillary would appoint somebody who was a bit more establishment-friendly and who would have very little interest in going after the worst offenders in the Bush administration. The Obama bit is just me being idealistic, of course. He might end up being just another tool of the military-industrial complex when it comes down to the line, but I’m certain that Hillary won’t be putting much pressure on her Justice Department to go after suspected American war criminals.
ramster
Obama has transcended:
– the 2nd law of thermodynamic
– the Peter principle
– all rules of thumbs
– gravity
– pythagoreas’ theorem
that’s just off the top of my head
diana
I find it amazing that when Obama say something as banal as “we need to assemble a legislative majority in order to pass some piece of legislation,” people call it “soaring rhetoric.”
Daniel Munz
Diana, I know that was snark, but I think you’re frankly right to tag that as the flip-side of the Obama coin. I find his rhetorical style orders of magnitude more pleasing to the ear than the other candidates, but that’s my personal preference. But you’re right that it’s surprising that something as simple as that strikes us, in this moment, as inspirational.
Mike P
I like this point from Dan Drezner:
“Taking the survey, I discovered — yet again — that I’m a social liberal and on the economic right. The only candidate even close to my orbit is Ron Paul. Among the Democrats, the closest candidate to my ideal point is Barack Obama. Among “contending” Republicans, it’s Rudy Giuliani.
This, by the way, is why things like pesonality and leadership style are relevant to voting decisions (and are tough to capture in suveys). A candidate’s policy positions are not the only thing that matter. The way in which the candidate will try to implement these policies matters too. I would’nt vote for a candidate who shared my precise policy positions but decided to implement them by constitutionally questionable methods, for example. Process matters just as much as substance.”
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/003660.html
myiq2xu
Meanwhile, Michael Bloomberg is hearing calls for him to run as an independent.
The crowds are staying away in droves.
Katherine
Actually I don’t think this Obama’s the “inspirational but airy generalities” problem. I think this is the “goes all meta when talking to journalists” problem. He does correctly identify what he needs to do strategically: get specific about exactly what he intends to do. But he doesn’t start doing it in this interview; he just SAYS he’s going to do it.
Doesn’t mean he won’t on the stump in South Carolina, though. We’ll see.
Ike
You see Unity Pony. I see a pragmatic. The only tools the President has at his disposal are the military and the bully-pulpit and he/she wouldn’t have the military if our Congress had any spine whatsoever…
In reality, there are no magical-solutions, save for the ability of the American people to put pressure on Congress to pick one of the many acceptable solutions put forward. Obama knows that convincing a legislative body of the need to act in a specific manner is an exercise in futility when dealing with over 500 people representing cross-country constituencies as diverse as those found in the United States. Going directly to the American people, with a framework for a solution in order to convince Congress of the need to ACT on a particular issue is the President’s greatest asset at his/her disposal. History shows that Congress’s desire to act is directly proportional to the the President’s ability to make the status quo untenable for Congressional members.
The ONLY question in play then becomes; how this is accomplished. Will it be done through fear or through the presentation of balanced arguments that allow for the citizens to push for a choice that’s acceptable
I’m not naive, the fear method is an effective one, especially considering our Constitutional barriers to change. Fear, if nothing else, is one hell of a motivator, but, is a FACT that using fear as a basis for change often results in bad policy. (See Iraq). Your argument for the putting the “Unity Pony” to pasture is that a Democratic President and Congress will use the fear method towards better (not just different) ends than those of the current Administration.
How confident in that are you?
Larv
The problem with accountability is that if the next Dem President goes after the Bushites, that’s going to be all he does. Maybe that’s necessary, but I can’t see any of the candidates embracing it. Prosecuting members of the Bush administration gives the Repubs an opportunity to play the persecuted victim of those eeevil Liberals, and that’s a role that they like and perform well in. They’ll do everything in their power to claim it’s all about partisanship, and in doing so will prevent anything else from getting done. You want something done about health care? Forget about it in a climate of partisan warfare. The Republicans can’t govern worth a shit, but they are master obstructionists. A President who wants to enact any sort of a progressive agenda is going to have to convince enough voters who aren’t already partisan Dems of the necessity for it.
Incidentally, that’s essentially how Bush managed to wreak such havoc: he used fear-mongering after 9-11 to convince a substantial number of centrists and right-leaning Dems that curtailing civil liberties and engaging in aggressive warfare was necessary to keep them from being killed. I don’t want a Democratic president to engage is such manipulative tactics, so he’s going to have to do it a different way – like lofty rhetoric and appeals to the national interest. It won’t be easy, but it can be done.
I simply don’t understand the people opposed to any reaching out to Republicans. Dems just don’t have the numbers to overcome Republican obstructionism otherwise. Also, there seems to be some confusion over just who Obama is trying to reach out to. It’s not the Rushbots and RNC types. He’s trying to reach people like my parents, who may be Republicans, but who don’t understand the current legislative priorites of the national party and are sick of Bushism. They’re religious people, but don’t agree with the fixation on abortion and homosexuality of the social cons. There are a lot of these people, they are reachable, and even if they’ll never become Democrats, if a Dem can convince enough to support discrete progressive policies, a rollback of Bush’s assaults on civil liberties, and/or an attempt to restore our international standing, the organized Republican party won’t be able to effectively oppose him. No politician like going against the polls.
Shorter me: I’d love for people who’ve been responsible for screwing up the country to pay for what they’ve done, but I’d rather see the country unscrewed. I don’t see a route to getting both.
Tractarian
How about this for an answer: Obama is trying to create “unity” with GOP voters, not GOP politicans. Is it that hard to understand? Think “Reagan in Reverse”.
myiq2xu is right – there will be 44-45 GOP Senators for the foreseeable future that can block any legislation. And I think everyone will agree that Obama and Clinton are similar on their plans for most issues. So here are the pertinent questions:
Who will be most helpful to Dem candidates down-ticket?
Who is more likely to be a popular and persuasive leader that will generate pressure on Senators, to peel off the handful of Republicans necessary to pass progressive legislation?
For the life of me, I cannot figure out why anyone would think Clinton is the answer.
Tractarian
Oh, and I wish I shared TZ’s optimism about the chances of any Dem candidate vs. any Republican in the general election.
Think about this (very real) possibility: Hillary vs. McCain. He won’t need to run any ads because the cable nets will be 24/7 McCainamania.
Tractarian
btw, Larv nailed it.
Jeffersonian
“I agree that it would have been better not to have had to fight over some of the issues that occupied us in the nineties. But there would have been only one way to avoid them — and that would have been to give up.”
Barney Frank
___________________________________
Congressman, please.
As the talented legislative tactician that you are, you know very well there was a way to avoid some of those fights, at least the aspects of the fights that had the real potential to do harm; and it sure as heck wouldn’t have been to give up.
Had our party not lost our majorities in the House and the Senate (and a tremendous number of state legislative bodies in 1994) and remained in the minority until 2007 (excluding the brief Senate majority held after Jim Jeffords decided to caucus with Democrats), we could have avoided a significant number of battles and fights as well as a serious amount of lunacy.
Yet when Gingrich, DeLay and their little Dick Armey took control of the Congress, they skillfully managed the legislative process to attempt, sometimes successfully, to reverse decades of social and economic progress, to keep Democrats on the defensive legislatively and to give aid and comfort to the forces of reaction in the country at large.
So, why did we have to fight those fights? More accurately, why did we have to face 12 years of mostly rearguard actions simply attempting to prevent harm rather than being able to press a progressive agenda?
Well, Newt et al. didn’t come to power by somehow managing to steal the keys and take up occupancy in the majority cloakroom in the dark of night. The Republican landslide of 1994 did occur for a reason or, as with any electoral sweep of such magnitude, several reasons: a degree of arrogance of power after decades in the majority, some scandals effectively exploited, changing demographics, etc.
Yet all of the studies and all of the analysis of survey research that I’ve seen suggest that there was one paramount reason that voters so overwhelmingly flocked to the GOP that year: the perception that, after about 2 years in office, the Clinton administration was woefully inadequate and appeared to be incapable of governing effectively.
And the prime contributing factor to that perception? The Hilary Clinton/Ira Magaziner health care reform proposal:
— promulgated in what must be one of the oddest attempts ever to formulate public policy;
— lobbied for in Congress and presented to the public ineffectively; and finally
— abandoned with the administration’s/Mrs. Clinton’s unwillingness to compromise and seeming inability to negotiate a deal that might not have had the Magazineresque purity of the original proposal but that still would have made a positive difference in the lives of millions of Americans.
So, yes, Barney, we could have avoided a lot of the battles of the 1990’s, most of which we seemed to lose or, at least, not win. Senator Clinton, however, would not have had such a full complement of that valuable experience she cites so frequently.
The good news, I suppose, is that the Senator asserts she learned a great deal from the health care reform debacle.
Certainly, she displayed a defter touch during the second Clinton term when she was, de jure, in charge of the administration’s responses to the Whitewater Special Prosecutor. Most all of us remember what an effective legal and political strategy that turned out to be.
If you don’t remember, just ask President Gore. The progressive achievements of the second Clinton term certainly laid the foundation for his election.
dslak
I worry that, should Hillary get the nomination, she won’t be able to hold onto all the new voters Obama has managed to bring in, and that will be a serious loss for the party, as well as encouraging more voter apathy.
MNPundit
Actually the quote proves the opposite to me. That’s exactly what has to happen, we all have to get off our asses, and not just a few, everyone. Obama puts the screws to them from the top, and we from the bottom, and with his style they look like extra-crispy assholes for resisting.
Of course that’s the best case. But having a president who says “I can’t do it alone, you have to work with me” is exactly what I think needs to happen.
ThymeZone
Well, you are assuming at least two facts not in evidence.
One, the media will fluff McCain. I doubt it, but, if they do …
Two, that fluff will make a difference. The media don’t have the power to influence that most people suppose. The media fluffed Obama into having HRC drop out of the race Wednesday after she lost New Hampshire. Most people think the media are full of shit.
Because, in large part, they are.
LBNL, I agree with Kevin Drum on this topic: He’s not afraid of McCain, he thinks HRC wins over the old weasel. And so do I.
Z
I am on the page with a lot of you, this is what I said in the other thread:
Negotiation isn’t just talk. It isn’t holding hands and singing happy songs together. And when you act like it is, you are absolutely parroting Repub talking points. In order to successfully negotiate, you have to be bargaining from a position of strength. You have to have something to hold over the head of the people you are negotiating with. You have to be willing to filibuster if you’ve got the votes, and you have to be willing to veto. You also have to be willing to call people on the carpet for being obstructionists. The problem we’ve had is that the Repubs knew their power and have used it ruthlessly. Democrats have been too scared or been too outnumbered to effectively use their power. Repubs haven’t needed to play nice or negotiate because they knew they had the Dems over a barrel. But look at where it got us, and consider how much faith has been lost in the political system. You act like it is Us vs Them, but the truth is it is Them vs Them, with most of the American people caught in the crossfire, divided, confused, and angry. I don’t want a warrior who is going to pick my side and start lobbing grenades. I want a negotiator, someone who has the charisma to make a strong reasonable case to the PUBLIC. I want someone that my parents might not agree with, but who nonetheless, won’t send them into angry, Rush & Savage loving spasms of hysteria. That is what’s missing here. The true partisans will continue to jerk off to their angry rhetoric, no matter who gets elected. What I want is get someone in office who will stop inspiring the folks in the middle to side with the partisans. Hillary is definitely not it.
ImJohnGalt
Why does anyone think appealing to Republican voters will help get progressive legislation through? How well did that work with SCHIP? THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS HAS NO INTEREST IN NEGOTIATING PROGRESSIVE CHANGE. NONE. They have one rule: obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, until the Dems give up.
Also, until Obama comes forward with some pretty clear talk on what he wants to do in a way that is broadcast to the masses and not just on his website, I quite frankly have no idea how he’s going to be able to claim a “mandate” on anything except bending over and letting Republicans continue to fuck democrats at every turn. Mebbe the Republicans will throw a wet washcloth on the Dems when their done in a spirit of “unity”, but that’s about all I’d expect from those ratfuckers.
Or perhaps he’ll claim a “mandate” the way Bush tried to claim a mandate on privatizing SS, when he talked about it exactly never on the campaign trail.
Oh, and OFB, please quit telling me what Obama really means, and show me where he said it explicitly.
And finally, Dreggas: how many times have you sat with Hillary and had a chat? I’m intrigued by your intimate understanding of the woman and her character. I’m sure it’s not just formed by the things you’ve seen put out there by the most fucking hostile media in the last 4 decades, right? Please continue to share your unique insights into this person that you seem to personally so close to.
For fuck’s sake, I don’t even want her as president, but your posts are so far over the fucking top about her that you’re going to bring about a Matthews-esque sympathy vote.
ImJohnGalt
“when *they’re* done”. Unbelievable.
myiq2xu
Uh, no. Nope, not even close, no cigar.
I’m too tired to go into detail, so go check out Digby’s post the other day that lays it out.
Shorter: Millions of dollars in lobbyist money and GOP obstruction done with the specific intent to prevent anything passing at all, plus the emergence of the VRWC and the Right Wing Noise Machine were what enabled Ginginch’s Contract On America to succeed.
If the Clinton’s were so bad, how did Bill cruise to victory in 1996?
Gore won – Bush stole the election. Really, go check it out, Gore won Florida, but SCOTUS selected Bush as the winner. And Clinton left office with about a 60% approval rating, about double what G-Dub’s will be.
Reality has a distinct liberal bias.
Larv
So what, then? We just give up on enacting legislation? In the quote JC posted (out of context, as Jen noted upthread) Obama says he’ll try to get around obstruction by building sufficient public support to make it unfeasible. Can he do it? I dunno, but it seems like a better plan than just crying about Republican obstructionism. I mean, that they’ll do so is a given, so how does on combat it without a filibuster-proof majority in Congress?
crw
Uhm. SCHIP expansion passed. Twice. Just not with veto proof majorities. That seems to me to actually prove Obama’s point. With a better President who was willing to work on areas where we have common ground, we could get a helluva lot of work done.
Daniel Munz
crw, I agree, but the example that I think really proves Obama’s point is Bush’s efforts to privatize Social Security.
Sure, it didn’t work, but that was because (a) Social Security is a widely-beloved program that was being challenged by (b) a bumbling, inarticulate president with no reputation for policy mastery, who faced (c) totally, completely united legislative opposition. And even then, he came close enough that a lot of ink was spilled trying to save it.
Now, picture President Obama trying to (a) replace our current system of health care over which, Harry and Louise aside, not much love is lost by the American public, with Obama being (b) an articulate, well-informed, and persuasive advocate, in the face of (c) a shrinking and, while intractable, hardly un-fracture-able legislative opposition.
You’re telling me that won’t pass?
I don’t know about you, but I’d get a helluva kick out of watching him try.
HyperIon
a couple of comments:
HRC has been acknowledged to be a pretty effective senator, by Dems and Repubs. I’m not sure that community organizing (my take on Obama’s background in coalition-building) is analogous to what goes on in the senate/house or what a pres does.
Barney Frank made a SUBSTANTIVE arguement at HuffPo. i encourage others to read it. BTW i like the table of sites linking and resulting page views. evidently over 300 juicers have wandered over there already.
But having a president who says “I can’t do it alone, you have to work with me” is exactly what I think needs to happen.
myiq2xu
Okay, this thread has gone on all day and we’re no closer to solving anything than when we started.
Obama makes pretty speeches, and puts out detailed policy proposals, but is really vague as to how he will accomplish these goals.
“Working together,” “reaching out,” “compromise” and “unity” are all nice sounding words and phrases, but will mean very little in the face of the GOP’s obstreperous behavior.
But I have to question the theory that negotiations should start by taking a position in the middle when the other side starts at the far right. You end up somewhere between 2/3 to 3/4 to the right.
Start at the left, then meet them in the middle.
HyperIon
sorry…i hit submit when i mean to click B-quote
so is president obama going to tell us to shop, like w did?
how exactly can i work with him? i can write a letter to my congress critter but what else?
i want him to lead congress to pass good bills on health care, defense, and education.
crw
And more specifically, SCHIP only failed because of House obstructionism on the veto override. Assuming a Democrat in the Oval Office, and only modest gains for the Democrats in Congress, all the action for the next four years is going to be in the Senate.
House Republicans can scream bloody murder, but they’re powerless without Chimpy in the Whitehouse backing them up. And it’s the House Republicans who are the most intransigent obstructionists. I think there are enough Senate Republicans who are wobbly on this or that issue that working majorities can be put together to get things through, even if it’s 55-45. The right President stands a chance of ending some of the Spectering, and they wont stand in the way of genuinely popular initiatives because they don’t have the benefit of gerrymandered districts.
myiq2xu
Been there, done that.
crw
Where they = wobbly Senate Republicans from purple-ish states. e.g. Olympia Snowe.
nrglaw
Can I get someone to post a list of substantive bills (no declarations of holidays or anything similar) that Obama introduced or cosponsored, pushed for in a lead capacity, and succeeded in getting through Congress and past W’s desk? Ok, I’ll settle for a bill that passed Congress even if it was vetoed by W.
I’ll take my answer off the air.
Daniel Munz
myiq2xu, that’d be a good point if Bill had been the public face of health care reform, but he wasn’t. As it is, I’d say that particular example is a good argument against…someone whose name rhymes with “shmillary blinton.”
nrglaw – This kind of stuff?
lambert strether
Two proverbs for dealing with Republicans from a position of strength. I know they’re tactical.
1. When your opponent’s drowning, throw ’em an anvil.
2. When you’ve got ’em by the balls, the heart and head soon follow.
I know JRE knows this. I know that HRC, bless her heart, knows this. I know the Republicans know it. Harry and Nancy may know it, but they don’t show it. I’d like to believe that Obama knows it, but the unity pony isn’t helping me.
This is why we have primaries, to sort this out. Obama is going to have plenty of chances to throw down, and if he does, good for him and us.
We had Nixon down, we let him up, and we got Reagan. We let worked with Reagan, and we got Bush I. All Clinton could do, really, was play defense (Exhibit A: UHC). And then Bush II. Each time the wave kept crashing back, but higher. We’re dealing with the consequences of 30 years of Movement Conservatism, culminating in 8 years of full spectrum dominance and we’re going to let Bush up, now that we’ve got him down? Why on earth? To be nice?
Gee… “Fired up”….
Jake
Great. Moar pictures of Deflated McSoccerball makes the Baby Jeebus scream bloody murder.
Tractarian
Right, the Republican congress has no interest in negotiating change. That’s why Obama is reaching out to Republican voters – the idea is that, with someone they admire and trust in the White House, those voters will pressure their elected officials to stop being so obstructionist.
myiq2xu
#1 is a quote from James Carville, #2 was from Lyndon Johnson. I prefer #3:
“You can get more with a gun and a smile than with just a smile.”
That was from Al Capone
Bubba Dave
Exactly. The thing to remember is the Republicans DEPEND on a polarized electorate. Look at all the Congressional districts they gerrymandered to a 53-47% Rep/Dem split, increasing their numbers at the expense of their security. If your president is Hillary, Congressman Cletus of Gerrymander Gulch knows that reflexively opposing her will make 53% of his district happy and 47% unhappy and he’ll win reelection. If President Obama just won an election preaching unity, there’s a good chance that he’s got the support– or at least acquiescence– of many of those 53%. Now the math changes, and suddenly Congressman Cletus feels the hot breath of the popular will on his neck, and suddenly he becomes a lot more willing to compromise.
Bill Clinton had three handicaps Obama won’t face:
1) Ross Perot meant that he never had a majority of voters behind him, so the Congressman Cletuses of the world were freer to oppose him in lockstep. (Okay, this assumes that Wankery08 does not unite behind Bloomberg, but that feels like a safe bet from here.)
2) The Democratic party at the time was on the tail end of its Southern phase, so the Democrats in Congress were far more conservative than Democrats today.
3) The degree of screwed-upedness of the current system wasn’t totally apparent in ’92; it is today. The fact that Republican governors in MA and CA have both developed health care plans is just one example that there is a critical mass of support that can be triggered by the right leadership.
Larv
I don’t know what this means. Bush won’t be president anymore, so whether he’s up or down is irrelevant. As for the tactical advice, what does that mean on a practical level? It seems to me that the best way to throw the Repubs an anvil is to actually get some popular, progressive legislation passed on something like health care. Otherwise the Repubs can just obstruct and then point to Democratic inability to get anything passed as evidence that government isn’t the solution and that Dems are weak and ineffective. That plays to their strengths, not ours. Given that Republican obstructionism is inevitable, the question is how well a Democratic president can work within those constraints and actually do something. Obama seems to me to have the best chance of doing so. A lot of the anti-Obama faction seem to want a candidate to fight for the sake of fighting, which I don’t really get.
Chris W
I have to agree with everyone who thinks Obama is being way too starry-eyed and unrealistic and extremely overconfident in his own abilities. Our political opponents have to be soundly defeated first; only after they’ve cried “uncle” can we think about sitting across the table from them. And that will take running like a Democrat, not like some poofy idealist.
For myself, I think “unity” is too often the last refuge of those who don’t have confidence in the victory and dominance of their ideas. And I can’t support someone who isn’t willing to pillage and raze the GOP.
myiq2xu
I’m not anti-Obama, and I haven’t seen many on the left who are. I’m undecided, and leaning towards a different candidate. If Obama gets the nomination, I will support him.
I don’t want a candidate to “fight for the sake of fighting,” but I also don’t want a candidate who compromises for the sake of compromising.
I’m looking for a candidate who is willing to make peace with the GOP, but who is willing to go toe-to-toe with them if he or she has to.
And I want the lawbreakers and traitors of the Bush Administration rooted out and thrown in prison.
Daniel Munz
myiq2xu, in reverse order:
And I want the lawbreakers and traitors of the Bush Administration rooted out and thrown in prison.
Me, too. But it’s not going to happen. Certainly the GOP won’t do it, and why would any new Democratic president with a Democratic congress expend enormous political capital on this?
I’m looking for a candidate who is willing to make peace with the GOP, but who is willing to go toe-to-toe with them if he or she has to.
I don’t disagree, but can you really say that stuff like “go toe-to-toe” is less platitudinous than the stuff Obama says?
I don’t want a candidate to “fight for the sake of fighting,” but I also don’t want a candidate who compromises for the sake of compromising.
For the life of me I can’t find it, but there’s an Obama quote from an interview where he says something like, “I’m not looking for compromise for the sake of compromise. The whole point of this is to get progressive policies enacted.” (I guess it’s sort of weak tea without the actual quote, but that’s what you get near midnight…)
Duane
Here’s my opinion on why Obama isn’t catching on with a lot of Democrats: He is running as a leader. That just doesn’t happen on the Democratic side and so Democrats are rightly shocked and horrified. Our candidates are wonks and panderbears. WE LEAD THEM.
I remember I was so excited when Wes Clark got in the 2004 race because I thought he would change the paradigm and run as a leader. First speech he gave was typical boilerplate Democrat: hit all the interest groups, pander, pander, pander, recite some incredibly boring wonkery and move on to the next fundraiser. In that kind of race, the best panderbear wins.
Barack is trying something different in terms of campaigning. He is trying to run as a leader. He is trying to say HOW he will lead. He is asking folks to give him a movement to lead. He is literally going event to event asking for the people-powered movement that Kos has been pushing for years.
Republicans are responding because they are genetically programmed to find a leader to support. I’m confident that more and more Democrats will come around as they understand what is going on and how fundamentally different this is from what we are used to on the Democratic side.
Jeff
John you are missing the point,
If he can unify many independents and some republican VOTERS, along with the Democrats, he won’t have to lick the GOP’s boots, because he’ll have a sufficient enough of a coalition pressuring congress that the GOP will be under tremendous political pressure to cave in. Now is that a sufficient cause to get those things done? No, but he’s arguing it’s a NECESSARY cause, and he because of his more unifying nature is the only one that can bring it about.
Also, I’m utterly sick of people saying he’s not substantive on policy. You want to know his policy proposals? There’s plenty of pdf documents detailing his proposals at his campaign website.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Jeff
By the way, Obama has explictly said he is not talking about compromising. In fact he argues that actually being more confrontational and divisive actaully LEADS to compromise in the end, because your tactics turn off voters and you can’t form a strong coalition to pressure the legislature.
I can pretty much guarantee you Hillary and Edwards will have to compromise more than Obama, because they won’t have enough of the public backing them up.
Jeff
Here’s just one of his proposals that goes far beyond what I’ve seen any other candidate propose
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/
Create a Transparent and Connected Democracy
* Open Up Government to its Citizens: The Bush Administration has been one of the most secretive, closed administrations in American history. Our nation’s progress has been stifled by a system corrupted by millions of lobbying dollars contributed to political campaigns, the revolving door between government and industry, and privileged access to inside information-all of which have led to policies that favor the few against the public interest. An Obama presidency will use cutting-edge technologies to reverse this dynamic, creating a new level of transparency, accountability and participation for America’s citizens. Technology-enabled citizen participation has already produced ideas driving Obama’s campaign and its vision for how technology can help connect government to its citizens and engage citizens in a democracy. Barack Obama will use the most current technological tools available to make government less beholden to special interest groups and lobbyists and promote citizen participation in government decision-making. Obama will integrate citizens into the actual business of government by:
1. Making government data available online in universally accessible formats to allow citizens to make use of that data to comment, derive value, and take action in their own communities. Greater access to environmental data, for example, will help citizens learn about pollution in their communities, provide information about local conditions back to government and empower people to protect themselves.
2. Establishing pilot programs to open up government decision-making and involve the public in the work of agencies, not simply by soliciting opinions, but by tapping into the vast and distributed expertise of the American citizenry to help government make more informed decisions.
3. Requiring his appointees who lead Executive Branch departments and rulemaking agencies to conduct the significant business of the agency in public, so that any citizen can watch a live feed on the Internet as the agencies debate and deliberate the issues that affect American society. He will ensure that these proceedings are archived for all Americans to review, discuss and respond. He will require his appointees to employ all the technological tools available to allow citizens not just to observe, but also to participate and be heard in these meetings.
Jess
Duane:
Those are excellent points. Especially about the Republican response.
Joe in SF
“Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation…want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening…. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”
Frederick Douglass, 1857
I guess Mr. Douglass just wasn’t that into bipartisanship. If only he had had oratorical skills, he might have lead an effective movement.
fleinn
So basically Obama is suggesting that people, and political organisation among citizens, should be the basis for legislation in Congress? Hm.
(insert foreigner snark about spreading democracy here)
dnA
I think people miss the fact that one of the important things that Obama’s offering that is different from the other candidates is a rhetorical strategy that has the potential to draw people to progressive policy positions who might otherwise be opposed.
For example, on the issues of criminal justice and recidivism, Obama is light-years ahead of his opponents. The word “recidivism” does not even appear on John “I’m going to eliminate poverty” Edwards’ website, but transitional programs for ex offenders are part of Obama’s “strengthening families” plan. This is a perfect example of Obama couching a progressive idea in a conservative-friendly framework; transitional programs for ex-offenders as a FAMILY issue, rather than an issue of fairness and justice.
But who expects a black man to run on reforming the criminal justice system? On this issue, the Clintons are almost indistinguishable from Republicans. For me, that’s the biggest distinction. The Clintons are to the Right of the Roberts/Alito supreme court on judicial discretion for mandatory minimums.
There are policy differences, but you have to look for them. It’s not all rhetoric. But I also see why he is avoiding specifics for the moment.
myiq2xu
The more I hear from Gobamites the less I like Obama.
All I hear is Obama’s magical power to bring people together will make him an unstoppable power as President.
Next thing they’ll be telling me “Drink the Kool-aid and you’ll understand. All your questions will be answered”
“Just drink the Kool-aid”
myiq2xu
If I could shit gold bricks I wouldn’t have to work anymore.
I’m skeptical of Obama’s magical unifying nature. That’s gonna last about .05 seconds after he finishes taking the oath of office, if that long.
There are plenty of GOP congressmen from districts that are safely red and they won’t feel any pressure. Neither will the lobbyists who hand out wads of cash, and green is the most important color in Washington DC.
I ain’t drinking the Kool-aid, even if they call it “magic punch.”
myiq2xu
WTF? That’s the dumbest damn thing I’ve heard yet.
Yes, being confrontational and divisive DOES lead to compromise, but that’s a good thing. Giving up before you start leads to LOSING.
Tractarian
So therefore we give up on trying to generate political pressure on the more moderate GOP members?
What I hear Obama skeptics saying is: half the country is delusional and stupid, there’s no point in trying to win them over to our side, let’s just beat them into submission.
The fact is, the nation’s problems are crying out for progressive solutions, but that will only happen when there is a critical mass of public support. We’re almost there – 2006 was a good start – but we’re not there yet. Elect Hillary and we may never get there. Why? Because a good 40-50% of the country will oppose her policies just to stick it to her.
Yes, there are right-wing ideologues that will demonize Obama as soon as he takes the oath of office. The object is to reduce their size and influence until, say, they are small enough to drown in the bathtub.
Call it “magic” if you want. I call it persuasion. Who can better persuade the masses that our problems require progressive solutions? Because simply having a Dem in the White House isn’t going to be enough to generate the change that we need.
Tractarian
Wait a minute, I thought compromise was bad?
Why do you assume that “not being confrontational and divisive” = “giving up before you start”?
Did it occur to you that you can support genuinely liberal policies while, simultaneously, not being confrontational and divisive?
Do you really think being confrontational and divisive is the best way to get people on your side?
The Other Steve
It should be noted that beating the other side into submission was the Bush strategy.
I’m not sure it worked in finding solutions to problems.
It did benefit the gun industry, however.
myiq2xu
But it sure as hell got their agenda passed into law.
Tractarian
That analogy depends on the presumption that the Republican congressional minority will respond to vitriol and hate-spewing in the same way that the Dem minority did earlier in the decade – by cowing and crumbling.
It’s possible, but I wouldn’t bank on it. Especially if half the country is already pre-disposed to distrusting the occupant of the Oval Office.
Larv
If so, it’s only because that’s what you want to hear. Several people, including myself, have given fairly detailed explanations of why they support Obama’s approach. In return, you sneer about “magical power.” How about an argument as to why it’s an unworkable approach, or why you think one of the other candidates would be better able to accomplish progressive goals?
Plus, what Tractarian said.
Larv
I’m beginning to suspect that the “2” in your handle should actually be “1/2”. If the logic escapes you, I’m not sure how to help.
Good thing nobody’s suggesting that, then. Keep on whacking at that strawman, though. Vote no to President Scarecrow!
myiq2xu
Y’all sure don’t have the magical persuasive powers of your messiah. When are you gonna start burning nonbelievers at the stake?
I’ll tell you what, send Obama girl over to my house, I bet she could convince me.
Larv
Ah, I see you’re just trolling. My mistake.
myiq2xu
No, I’m not. I’m being sarcastic. There is a difference.
The basic theme I keep hearing is that Obama will use his magical persuasive powers to enact his proposals. That theory is extremely naive.
What happens when the GOP doesn’t join hands and sing kumbayah? What happens if the Right Wing Noise Machine successfully gins up opposition the way they did with Hillary’s health care plan?
What is Obama’s plan to overcome the big money that will be spent opposing his attempts at reform? The GOP has their own freaking network, plus talk radio, plus numerous print media. What does Obama have?
Yes, any Democrat will face the same problem, but I’m told that I should vote for Obama because he’s different and can get things done.
When I ask how, all I hear is he can bring people together by starting in the middle.
Daryl
He sidestepped the question, no doubt
Right. In a sense I understand what he is saying which basically amounts to using the power of the bully pulpit. And yes he has the verbal skills to take it to the next level.
But all of that doesn’t mean anything if you cannot point to a specific plan/s that he is going to preach from the pulpit. It may be a head fake. Speaking in generalities to get a wider appeal. You figure that even being in the Senate a short time told Obama that you can’t end partisan bickering.
Who knows maybe he believes it? If he does, I’m in John’s camp.
Larv
No, you’re constructing strawmen (see “magic”, “kumbayah”, etc…) and then sarcastically dismissing them. You admit that any candidate is going to face opposition from the Republican party, but then you rhetorically throw your hands up and say “Well, what are you gonna do? Damn Republicans!” How is a Democrat supposed to accomplish anything if that’s how you see the political landscape?
That’s a Democratic problem, not an Obama problem.
Strawman. I won’t repeat myself, reread the thread if you feel like responding substantively.
myiq2xu
So far this year the GOP has filibustered more legislation than ever before, in fact they are on a pace to double the previous record.
They reflexively filibuster everything, including at least one bill they supported.
Even kos doesn’t foresee gaining enough seats in the Senate to make it filibuster-proof, even if they can hold all the Dems together.
The main argument in favor of Obama is his ability to rise above partisanship and unify people. I am a flaming liberal. If Obama can’t easily persuade me to support him, how is he going to win over conservatives, especially the racists?
I will support him if he wins the nomination, but right now I’m supporting Edwards.
myiq2xu
I am not creating strawmen and you do repeat yourself, ad nauseum
Tractarian
That is most definitely a strawman argument. Obama is not “starting at the middle” and if that’s not apparent to you by now, there’s probably nothing Larv or I can say to clarify things for you.
He’s not going to win over the conservative racists. (But, I submit, racists constitute only a small fraction of conservatives.) He may, however, win over mainstream conservatives by listening to their concerns, assuring them they are not crazy
After listening to myiq2xu and other Obama-skeptics, I can only surmise that they have a cartoon vision of this country where all Republican voters are either bible-thumping paleocons or war-mongering fascists. They obviously do not have any friends or family members who identify as conservatives or Republicans.
I believe Americans want, above all, for their president to be forthright, honest, transparent, and trustworthy. Specific issues always take a back seat to those primary concerns. That is how he wins over conservatives – and how he wins over liberals not blinded by their thirst for revenge.
myiq2xu
And I was accused of setting up strawmen.
Larv
Yes, you are, and the only reason I’m repeating myself is because certain commenters keep responding with the same bullshit about singing Kumbayah. At least my repetitiveness is substantive.
Christ, now you’re repeating me. I said upthread that this was a problem. So how do we get around it?
What do you know, a legitimate question! You state the problem yourself: you’re a flaming liberal. I think a lot of flaming liberals are too fixated on making the Bushies pay for their sins and destroying the Republican party in perpetuity, rather than enacting liberal policies. I stated my argument against this upthread. Do you disagree? If so, why?
Of course Obama can’t reach the racists, but he doesn’t have to. There are lots and lots of Repubs who aren’t racist. Shocking but true! I know a lot of Republicans btw, I’m the token Dem in my family. Almost all of them are reachable on the issues that are most dear to me: Health care, Iraq, and civil liberties. But Hillary just isn’t the one to do that, and I’m not at all sure Edwards can manage it either; he’s tacking to the left for the primaries, and will have a hard time reaching out to the middle without pissing off his current supporters.
myiq2xu
Yes – because I want justice, not revenge. We tried “forgive and forget” after Watergate and Iran-Contra, and all we got was the same bad apples turning up in the G-Dub administration.
What is the incentive for the GOP to obey the law if we let them violate it with impunity?
If they aren’t going to compromise no matter what, and judging by their current behavior, they won’t, then what’s the point of moving to the right at the beginning of negotiations?
Duane
Yes – because I want justice, not revenge. We tried “forgive and forget” after Watergate and Iran-Contra, and all we got was the same bad apples turning up in the G-Dub administration.
What is the incentive for the GOP to obey the law if we let them violate it with impunity?
If they aren’t going to compromise no matter what, and judging by their current behavior, they won’t, then what’s the point of moving to the right at the beginning of negotiations?
What’s your plan to get it? Hillary or Obama?
Keifus
“Uniter, not a divider” is just exactly right.
The way I see it, it’s the same as Bush’s folksy 2000 redneck schtick, only played to a different crowd. Yes, I understand that Obama has plans and stuff, but that particular bit of marketing is one that I find insulting to my intelligence, and I suppose I can understand why St. Barack would employ it if it gets him that seat of power, but the earnest saps that lap it up as if he’s the second goddamn coming–no excuse at all.
K
myiq2xu
Right now it’s Edwards
Duane
How’s that working out for ya? No need to answer. I see him tanking. And one of the reasons for that may be because you Edwards supporters can only find time online to slam the other candidates.
myiq2xu
Wow – you guys really gotta work on this “unity” concept.
Tractarian
(Slightly) Shorter Keifus:
Bush said he would be a “uniter, not a divider”, but he turned out to be full of shit.
Obama also says he will be a “uniter, not a divider”.
Therefore, Obama is full of shit.
Tractarian
This is really the crux of the issue, isn’t it. It certainly makes no sense to compromise if there’s no one there to compromise with.
But I disagree with your premise: I don’t think Obama is “moving to the right” at all. No, his policies aren’t identical to Hillary or Edwards; some are more moderate, some are more liberal. Does anyone deny that?
It makes me wonder why so many think he is “moving to the right”. Please don’t tell me it’s all based on his health-care plan not including mandates.
Duane
Have you forgotten that quickly that you said you didn’t wnat unity, bonehead?
myiq2xu
I thought y’all were in favor of it, but maybe not.
PS – work on your people skills, Bonehead.
Duane
Act like a person instead of an anti-Obama troll and I’ll see what I can do.
myiq2xu
Being a skeptic is not the same as being opposed to someone.
Duane
If you are really a skeptic then shouldn’t you be evaluating Edwards’ current rhetoric in context to the six years he spent in the Senate, in context to his campaign in 2004 and in context to the way he debated Dick Cheney in 2004?
At best you are very selectively skeptical.
myiq2xu
Who said I wasn’t skeptical of Edwards too?
Duane
I didn’t even know you were an Edwards supporter until you claimed it. You’ve posted about four hundred anti-Obama comments in this thread and not a word about Edwards, who you are now just as skeptical about?
myiq2xu
I said I was skeptical, not “just as skeptical.” And since this thread was about Obama, why should I discuss Edwards?
Duane
I’ll give you one great reason. You could contrast Obama’s message that he is going to try to sweep up a coalition of Democrats, Independents and disaffected Republicans in an effort to get majority support behind desperately needed initiatives with Edwards approach that he is going to “fight” someone.
I understand exactly what Obama is suggesting. I don’t know if he’ll be successful or not but I understand how personal popularity combined with firm principles and the bully pulpit can get things done legislatively because I’ve seen it done before by other Presidents.
Now, your guy (and to be fair, I like Edwards a lot) is pledging to fight someone, everyone. Tell me how that specifically translates into legislative successes as opposed to, ya know, just being empty rhetoric to move a jury folks into the Edwards column?
myiq2xu
I’m not pimping Edwards, you’re supposed to be pimping Obama.
I’m not trying to convince you of anything.
Duane
But you are. Are you not even reading what you are writing?
myiq2xu
I keep saying I’m not sold. You’re the ones with a crush on Obama. You go ahead and vote for him.
Duane
1. You aren’t saying that. You are setting up strawmen arguments about his positions and message and retreating when called on it, then advancing them again. Repeat, ad nauseum. You’re just anti-Obama trolling, taking the lazy way through this race, because nothing is as easy as tearing someone else down.
2. I don’t have a crush on Obama, dumbass. Really, you should think about changing your handle. I’d be willing to bet that, at least in this case, your IQ isn’t 290. But surprise me: say something intelligent.
3. If he is still a viable candidate, I will.
myiq2xu
Now you’re goldberging.*
*Goldberging: Making shit up to win an argument.
Duane
You were called on it by others. Are they also making shit up? Are we all in a conspiracy to make you think you are doing something you aren’t doing so you’ll get confused and support our candidate? Is it working?
myiq2xu
No, it’s not, quite the opposite.
Duane
No, it’s not, quite the opposite.
I figured as much.
Keifus
No. I think it’s an shallow, annoying marketing ploy is all. Importantly, I respect the people who buy it even less than the ones who make it. Doesn’t necessarily mean the product is bad (or good).
lambert strether
BREAKING!
Unity Pony still available on E-Bay.
Larv
Keifus,
So, even if we’re right we’re wrong, eh? Obama might be a good candidate after all, but his supporters are still idiots for believing him. That makes sense.
myiq2xu,
You started out in this thread complaining that Obama didn’t have any actual policies. It was pointed out to you that 1) he has plenty of good policies, and that they aren’t too hard to find; and 2) that Obama’s reluctance to make specific policies the centerpiece of his campaign is a strategic decision. As he says in the quote JC posted, Democratic failure to get progressive policies enacted has very little to do with a lack of position papers or policy statements. It has much more to do with the lack of a strategy to combat Republican obstructionism. You responded with some lame statement that you weren’t able to check his policies because his site crashed your computer, and from there on you’ve been snarking about Kumbayah and troll-baiting his supporters with whole bales of straw.
In truth, I have no interest in convincing you to support Obama. I think that’s probably futile, and I have no problem with Dems supporting Edwards or Hillary in the primaries, so long as they vote for the eventual Dem candidate in the general and don’t stay home in a fit of pique. My purpose here is to point out that many people (including JC) are mischaracterizing his arguments, and to point out that the specific reasons given for why Obama’s strategy is unworkable apply at least as much to the other candidates. These, then, are not arguments against Obama, but arguments against Democrats in general.
You’ve also said you wand justice, not revenge, but that’s sufficiently nebulous that I don’t know how to respond. Who wouldn’t like justice? My problem is that I don’t see a way of getting justice and getting anything else done, and I’m not at all optimistic about the prospects for justice. Like the Repubs won’t obstruct that too, and like they’ll pay much attention to any convictions obtained. Elliott Abrams, anyone?