"New Politics"? Hah.

Finn you are such a killjoy.

0 Replies

Beauty, sozobe.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

I guess that means you can't vote for Obama, Finn, because he is trying to get elected.

Who ARE you going to vote for? Who isn't trying to get elected?

So this is to be the stock response of the faithful to the fall from grace of their hero: He's not reneging on promises nor sacrificing principles, he's just doing what it takes to get elected.

Which would be all well and good if the Democratic candidate was named Clinton, Richardson, Biden, Dodd etc, but this one is named Obama and he leapt to national prominence and a zealous following by promising something different and new; by promising change.

So I guess we have to wait until he's elected to get the New Politics and the Change. Once he beats back those damned Republicans and their Swift-Boaters and actually gets in office, then we'll see the Promised One.

Hey, I'm a realist (or a cynic, if your prefer). I expect politicians to do whatever it takes to win an election, and that includes McCain, but I didn't jump on an unknown's bandwagon because he had nothing more to promise than Change.

Now you see there's not all that much change in Change and yet rather than challenge your hero to live up to his pledges, you make excuses for him.

Without Change, without New Politics, without Hope for something different, what is Obama?

If he's THE liberal candidate whom you can rely upon to promote liberal policies over the next four years, fine. Just admit it.

But you can't, because the strategy is to appeal to independents and moderates not as a liberal candidate but a NEW candidate.

The great irony of this election is that McCain will probably shoot himself in the political foot by adhering to his conception of a fair election and refraining from really attacking Obama and scolding anyone who does.

And if he doesn't?

Great!

We need a leader not a savior.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

He's not reneging on promises nor sacrificing principles, he's just doing what it takes to get elected.

Remind me what the promise was again? To pursue an agreement with McCain to agree to accept public financing? I surely was disappointed that he's not going with public financing for the principle of the thing, but it's not like he and McCain actually had an agreement.

Quote:

Which would be all well and good if the Democratic candidate was named Clinton, Richardson, Biden, Dodd etc, but this one is named Obama and he leapt to national prominence and a zealous following by promising something different and new; by promising change.

Well, technically it is change. When was the last time a presidential candidate chose to opt out of public financing in the general election? See? Something different!

0 Replies

FreeDuck, You are a hoot! LOL

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
He's not reneging on promises nor sacrificing principles, he's just doing what it takes to get elected.

Remind me what the promise was again? To pursue an agreement with McCain to agree to accept public financing? I surely was disappointed that he's not going with public financing for the principle of the thing, but it's not like he and McCain actually had an agreement.

Quote:
Which would be all well and good if the Democratic candidate was named Clinton, Richardson, Biden, Dodd etc, but this one is named Obama and he leapt to national prominence and a zealous following by promising something different and new; by promising change.

Well, technically it is change. When was the last time a presidential candidate chose to opt out of public financing in the general election? See? Something different!

One of the things I've learned in my life is to never underestimate the ability of people to rationalize.

0 Replies

The notion that Obama is so different from the morals of traditional politics is merely branding on the part of Mr. Obama. He's a cunning politician who is less about making moral stands than great political strategy.

The real allure in Obama is that he's very good at politics and if you like his positions he's a good horse to bet your hopes on. That he brands himself as such a moral superior to others and gets anyone to buy it is an example of said talent. He panders just like anyone else. See his positions on gay marriage and capital punishment as examples. It's a strategically sound decision (gay marriage was a brilliant Republican play and the Democrats have to punt on this for at least another decade) but he's still compromising his values there for political expediency.

Liberals should be honest to themselves and recognize that they like him mainly because they think he'll be a winner after a string of loser-types. Not because he's a saint. His positions and personal character offer no great edge over the other options and the difference is that he's better at playing the politics game than they are.

0 Replies

Who thinks he's a saint, though?

I first noticed him with his "I'm not against all wars, just dumb wars" speech in 2002. Read it in a local paper and was blown away -- it was great to see someone saying something so in line what I was thinking about Iraq.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

We're used to him now, we're used to what he has to say, but that was honestly shocking at the time.

Since then I've read a whole lot about him and feel like I know him as a candidate pretty well. He's no saint.

I'm not supporting him because of sainthood or anything approaching it.

I certainly don't just support him because (or even "mainly" because) I think he's a winner, though. I've liked him a lot since 2002, when he was nobody in particular; and started my "Obama '08?" thread in March of 2006. At that point I saw potential for him to be a winner, yes, and that was one thing I liked, yes -- but he was the underdog by a mile at the time.

And the rest of what I liked had to do with his thinking. His pragmatism, his approaches. His ability to throw elbows when needed. (Does anyone doubt that now? I had a lot of arguments about that months ago, about his toughness or lack thereof.) His unwillingness to engage in true gutter politics, even given two "target rich environments" (Hillary and McCain). His ability to listen and synthesize -- his appetite for the opposing view.

And much more than that too.

I think he'll be a much better president than either Hillary or McCain -- not just similar, but significantly better.

But (hence the thread), yeah, politics is going to be played. I get tired of the "see, he's no better than anyone else!!" stuff that happens over perfectly reasonably decisions. While I haven't agreed with every decision he's made, I've seen the point pretty much every time. And yeah, I think he's significantly better than the competition. "Better" can and does stop well short of sainthood.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Who thinks he's a saint, though?

That is the question, isn't it. Finn says

Quote:

We need a leader not a savior.

OK, but the only people calling him a savior are his detractors. I for one can echo Sozobe's comments that I like his politics. His stands on war, taxes, protection of rights match mine. The way he solicits opinions from across the spectrum rather than surrounding himself with people spouting the same line agrees with the way I think a President should run his staff. There are a few issues I disagree with him on as well. I don't see saints and sinners when I look at Obama and McCain, I see one who will lead the country generally in the direction I want to go and one who won't. The "Obama claims to be a saint" chant comes from the right, not the left.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Who thinks he's a saint, though?

I first noticed him with his "I'm not against all wars, just dumb wars" speech in 2002. Read it in a local paper and was blown away -- it was great to see someone saying something so in line what I was thinking about Iraq.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

We're used to him now, we're used to what he has to say, but that was honestly shocking at the time.

Since then I've read a whole lot about him and feel like I know him as a candidate pretty well. He's no saint.

I'm not supporting him because of sainthood or anything approaching it.

I certainly don't just support him because (or even "mainly" because) I think he's a winner, though. I've liked him a lot since 2002, when he was nobody in particular; and started my "Obama '08?" thread in March of 2006. At that point I saw potential for him to be a winner, yes, and that was one thing I liked, yes -- but he was the underdog by a mile at the time.

And the rest of what I liked had to do with his thinking. His pragmatism, his approaches. His ability to throw elbows when needed. (Does anyone doubt that now? I had a lot of arguments about that months ago, about his toughness or lack thereof.) His unwillingness to engage in true gutter politics, even given two "target rich environments" (Hillary and McCain). His ability to listen and synthesize -- his appetite for the opposing view.

And much more than that too.

I think he'll be a much better president than either Hillary or McCain -- not just similar, but significantly better.

But (hence the thread), yeah, politics is going to be played. I get tired of the "see, he's no better than anyone else!!" stuff that happens over perfectly reasonably decisions. While I haven't agreed with every decision he's made, I've seen the point pretty much every time. And yeah, I think he's significantly better than the competition. "Better" can and does stop well short of sainthood.

But, isn't part of the worry some people express re the Obama "thing" that there is a sort of uncritical adulation/messiah fervour on the part of many of his supporters?

I am not in the US, so I do not think it possible for me to guage the truth of this concern, unless I immerse myself far more than I intend to in the minutia of your election....but this seems to me a not uncommon political phenomenon...that unrealistic dreams and desires get projected onto some politicians.

Do you completely disagree that this is occurring, Soz?

0 Replies

I think engineer kind of answered that for me. I really haven't seen many of these people that are supposed to have swallowed the messiah line. The people I volunteer with like him a lot but aren't uncritical types.

You've probably seen as much as I have on A2K. Roxxxanne and Cyclo get a bit too-too sometimes (and I try to say so when I think they are), but by and large the Obama supporters here are pretty nuanced I think. (And there are Roxxx and Cyclo counterparts on the right -- I don't think those two tip the balance that far.)

One of the main things I see "on the ground" is that the young people who scream at rallies are also pragmatic, thoughtful people -- that's part of why they like Obama! They're not all star-struck or whatever.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

But, isn't part of the worry some people express re the Obama "thing" that there is a sort of uncritical adulation/messiah fervour on the part of many of his supporters?

I am not in the US, so I do not think it possible for me to guage the truth of this concern, unless I immerse myself far more than I intend to in the minutia of your election....but this seems to me a not uncommon political phenomenon...that unrealistic dreams and desires get projected onto some politicians.

I'm sure some of that is true for both candidates, but you certainly don't see evidence of that on A2K. I see that argument as a way to dismiss the candidate without comparing the candidates on their positions. To some extent, it made sense for Clinton to take that line since their positions were virtually identical, but Obama and McCain have staked out radically different positions and agendas. The real debate from here should be who is going to take us where we want to go. Obama detractors don't seem to want to have that conversation.

0 Replies

Larry Niven summed it up pretty well for me (in regard to detracting Obama because all/some/any of his supporters are swayed by his charisma rather than his politics):

Larry Niven wrote:

16) There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it.

To prove a point, one may seek out a foolish Socialist, thirteenth century Liberal, Scientologist, High Frontier advocate, Mensa member, science fiction fan, Jim Bakker acolyte, Christian, witch, or fanatical devotee of Special Interest Lib. It doesn't really reflect on the cause itself. Ad hominem argument saves time, but it's still a fallacy.

0 Replies

I want to echo soz and engineer about the messiah nonsense.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I think engineer kind of answered that for me. I really haven't seen many of these people that are supposed to have swallowed the messiah line. The people I volunteer with like him a lot but aren't uncritical types.

You've probably seen as much as I have on A2K. Roxxxanne and Cyclo get a bit too-too sometimes (and I try to say so when I think they are), but by and large the Obama supporters here are pretty nuanced I think. (And there are Roxxx and Cyclo counterparts on the right -- I don't think those two tip the balance that far.)

One of the main things I see "on the ground" is that the young people who scream at rallies are also pragmatic, thoughtful people -- that's part of why they like Obama! They're not all star-struck or whatever.

It's funny, for I do criticize Obama - I can go back and find dozens of posts in which I do so, his positions certainly don't always match mine. How many times have I said that he's not a 'messiah,' or perfect, in any way? I certainly don't believe the pablum that Finn spouts on the subject.

But; that's no reason to sit back and let him be slandered and maligned by a bunch of people who have supported and cheered on abuses of every sort of law one can imagine over the last several years; who have made a policy and practice of attacking people's associations and past, who - and this I do agree with Obama on - use patriotism and terrorism as Clubs to hit people with. I don't agree with everything Obama does, but I see no reason whatsoever to not aggressively respond to slurs against him....

Kerry's failure to do so is a large part of what cost him the election; we're not going to let that happen this time.

On a separate tack, as I said long ago, this is the Politics forum, not the play nice make friends forum. I like to argue, and am happy this cycle that we have a strong position from which to argue from.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I'm not saying you're always "too-too" -- but I think you are, occasionally.

I'm sure I am too.

I have no problem with arguing per se.

0 Replies

Well, I'm sure I've carried an argument too far on more then one occasion.

But it certainly isn't out of any worship or 'messiah-ism' factor that Obama inspires.

I would add; that Obama's 'new direction' in politics is used by his opponents to slander and attack him every time he does something which gives him an advantage. He wouldn't last very long if he tried to adhere to the unrealistic standards proposed by many on A2K, in which he never did anything that anyone might consider to be inappropriate or offensive or something a 'regular politician' would do.

It has never meant that to me; it has always meant a future in which we focus less on trashing the other guys, especially based on their personal lives, and more on working together and running a clean campaign. And it's always had a strong element of denunciation of the Bush/Republican way of doing business; that is to say, to stop turning our government into the enforcement arm of the Party in power.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

One takes the high road the same way one climbs a hill: one step at a time.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Who thinks he's a saint, though?

Saint is a poor choice of words on my part. I don't think that many Obama supporters believe he is infallible or saintly but I think it's naive to not recognize that his campaign of "hope" has made people take a leap of faith as to his real ability to bring about his "real change".

He asks that you believe in his ability to change Washington and decries political pandering. That he is perfectly willing to pander when he needs to get elected is a legitimate criticism of the inordinately lofty pedestal he puts himself on.

He asks people to have hope and believe in his ability. You clearly do as you think he'll be a "substantially" better president than his opponents.

Why? His positions are not that different from Hillary. He dons the mantle of "new" politics and criticizes the self-serving old ways but as soon as he's past Hillary he's claiming that Bill Clinton is one of the most intelligent politicians of our generation and that he will be availing himself of Bill's "wisdom" not only to win the election but to govern the country.

Why are they no longer the problem they were weeks ago? Forget saint and messiah and just explain how his "new" politics is different from the "old" politics he promises "change" to.

0 Replies

"New Politics"? Hah.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know