"New Politics"? Hah.

Robert Gentel wrote:

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".

Which people?

Even if the word "saint" is taken out of the equation, that's still basically the discussion we just had in the last few pages.

Couldn't it be that it's more naive to accept the media trope that Obama supporters are fainting fankids who don't get what Obama is REALLY about? Who are blinded to his canny politician wiles?

If you're complaining JUST about pandering, what do you mean by that? That is, again, why I started this thread. Kissing babies? Shaking hands? That's pandering, yeah.

I mean, we're not going to get through a presidential campaign with no pandering. (Though Obama's had some bright moments there, as with the gas tax holiday.*)

Particularly, though, I don't think that's the main thing he's been talking about with "new politics." It's less about NAFTA, more about Vince Foster. It's about keeping politics out of the gutter, even if it can give you a strategic advantage.

When he was running for Senate in Illinois, his opponent became (wasn't at first) Alan Keyes. Now, Keyes wasn't much of an opponent. But he's known for being virulently homophobic. The Obama campaign found out -- during the campaign -- that Keyes' daughter was lesbian, but sat on it -- didn't do anything about it. Let her come out on her own once the campaign was over (and Keyes lost).

The Obama campaign didn't touch the bulging Clinton baggage. When the race thing was escalating in SC, and Obama could have easily, easily fanned the flames by staying out of it or being equivocal, he stepped in to calm things down by saying strongly that hey, the Clintons are good people, patriots. All the Democrats are for civil rights. Let's all calm down here. This forced Hillary to respond within an hour or so with her own "uh yeah Barack's a nice guy too heh" press release, and the next day (this all happened late afternoon/ early evening) the headlines were all about the mutual decision to bury the hatchet -- though Obama was the one who made it happen.

Meanwhile, Hillary said that Obama's not a Muslim "as far as I know," and sat there smiling while Bob Johnson talked about Obama's past as a drug dealer, and insisted for a week that's not what he (Johnson) meant (rather than distancing herself quickly and cleanly). (Johnson eventually apologized and admitted that's what he'd meant -- as if there was any serious question.)

Those are relatively minor examples, though -- there are so many things that I think Hillary did that were way, way worse than anything Obama did. Take the whole Michigan/ Florida flap. Ezra Klein's take, circa February 14th, 2008:

Ezra Klein wrote:

If Hillary Clinton does not win delegates out of a majority of contested primaries and caucuses, her aides are willing to rip the party apart to secure the nomination, to cheat in a way that will rend the Democratic coalition and probably destroy Clinton's chances in the general election. Imagine the fury in the African-American community if Barack Obama leads in delegates but is denied the nomination because the Clinton campaign is able to change the rules to seat delegates from Michigan, where no other candidates were even on the ballot, and from Florida, where no one campaigned. Imagine the anger among the young voters Obama brought into the process, and was making into Democratic voters. Imagine the feeling of betrayal among his supporters more generally, and the disgust among independents watching the battle take place on the convention floor. Imagine how statesmanlike John McCain will look in comparison, how orderly and focused the Republican convention will appear.

This demonstrates not only a gross ruthlessness on the part of Clinton's campaign, but an astonishingly cavalier attitude towards the preservation of the progressive coalition. To be willing to blithely rip it to shreds in order to wrest a nomination that's not been fairly earned is not only low, but a demonstration of deeply pernicious priorities -- namely, it's an explicit statement that the campaign puts its own political success above the health of the party and the pursuit of progressive goals, and one can't but help assume that's exactly the attitude they would take towards governance, too.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=02&year=2008&base_name=out_for_themselves

She has shown that whomever she was when she entered politics, she's become one of those bubble-people. She chooses her people based on loyalty rather than expertise (Solis-Doyle, especially Penn). Penn alone -- and the fact that she chose him, kept him, "fired" him, and then still kept him around -- pretty much demonstrates what was wrong with her as a candidate. She has this with us or against us mindset that I think is very dangerous in terms of making decisions. It didn't work well for her during the campaign, and I think that's a very good thing.

By contrast, there are many articles that go into Obama's willingness to listen to opposing views -- this one by Cass Sunstein is pretty good.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cass-r-sunstein/the-obama-i-know_b_90034.html

While I think Obama is much better than either Hillary or McCain, Hillary with all of her flaws would have been much better than McCain. With McCain, I have fewer procedural problems and more policy problems.

But he's not free of procedural problems, either. While he's having fun lecturing Obama about the decision to turn down public financing, McCain is playing fast and loose with the primary public financing laws. He seems to be counting on an understaffed FEC, but that might be changing.

*That brings me to another thing I like about Obama -- taking the "lofty" position and gaining a tactical advantage are not mutually exclusive. And Obama supporters can (and in my case, do) appreciate both sides of it. I liked his position in and of itself (the gas tax holiday is a stupid idea), and I liked how it contrasted with Hillary and McCain's (pandertastic) stands.

0 Replies

soz, Good post. Thank you.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Robert Gentel wrote:
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".

Which people?

People who hold an inflated view of Obama's abilities. I'm not sure what you are getting at here, names? I'm not sure how identifying specific people supports my argument unless you contend that there are absolutely no such people.

Quote:

Couldn't it be that it's more naive to accept the media trope that Obama supporters are fainting fankids who don't get what Obama is REALLY about? Who are blinded to his canny politician wiles?

I'm sure it could be naive to "fall" for something like that but I haven't seen that in the media myself to be honest. The media has always been one of the demographics most excited by Obama in my opinion.

Quote:

If you're complaining JUST about pandering, what do you mean by that? That is, again, why I started this thread. Kissing babies? Shaking hands? That's pandering, yeah.

Do you really think I'm talking about kissing babies and shaking hands? No, I'm talking about lying about his positions for political gain and talking out both sides of his mouth.

I'm talking about calling Hillary and Bill Clinton part of the problem when campaigning against her and then calling them the solution when it becomes politically convenient.

I'm talking about opposing gay marriage when it's clear his personal beliefs are that the opposition is immoral (this one needs specific parsing that I can provide).

I'm talking about vociferously supporting public financing and campaign restrictions when he felt the unrestricted campaigning would benefit the Republicans (whose main candidates and whose party were breaking contribution records and had a ominous war chest) but when the tide turned and his own donations were setting records he changed his mind. Forget trying to pin down what his exact promise was, his position was clear in that through outspending Democracy could be compromised. Sure you can argue, as he does, that the problem is "special interests" and big contributors. Then why is he going to sit down with Hillary and her "old politics" big donors tomorrow and go over their interests before taking their big contributions?

Stuff like saying he doesn't support gay marriage because it's politically convenient even though it goes against his beliefs. Saying that he supports the death penalty for Osama Bin Laden just because the question is so very

Quote:

I mean, we're not going to get through a presidential campaign with no pandering. (Though Obama's had some bright moments there, as with the gas tax holiday.*)

I don't fault him for his pandering. I just don't share your view that he's so significantly better in this than the others. Gas tax holiday is a good example of going against the pandering but his GI Bill snipes at McCain were exactly the opposite. McCain could have pandered for more of the military vote and Obama knew that McCain's opposition to the terms of the bill were about retention and the ability to support current engagements and Obama pandered by portraying it as a question of generosity to veterans when reasonable people know it's really a foreign policy difference of opinion.

Quote:

Particularly, though, I don't think that's the main thing he's been talking about with "new politics." It's less about NAFTA, more about Vince Foster.

NAFTA is another great example of pandering. My biggest qualm with the Democrats platform this year has been their pandering on this issue.

Quote:

It's about keeping politics out of the gutter, even if it can give you a strategic advantage.

What gutter? He only says they are in the gutter when they are running against him, now he says they are going to help him govern the country. He's number one priority over the next 3 weeks is to get the Clinton machine's big donations.

Quote:

When he was running for Senate in Illinois, his opponent became (wasn't at first) Alan Keyes. Now, Keyes wasn't much of an opponent. But he's known for being virulently homophobic. The Obama campaign found out -- during the campaign -- that Keyes' daughter was lesbian, but sat on it -- didn't do anything about it. Let her come out on her own once the campaign was over (and Keyes lost).

That's like defending a thief by citing all the objects he didn't steal. It's meaningless because it works with everyone: McCain has praised his opponents, he's rejected the low Obama (name) and Hillary (bitch) blows when his supporters used them.

Quote:

The Obama campaign didn't touch the bulging Clinton baggage. When the race thing was escalating in SC, and Obama could have easily, easily fanned the flames by staying out of it or being equivocal, he stepped in to calm things down by saying strongly that hey, the Clintons are good people, patriots.

Again, I'm not sure what you think examples of a negative mean to your argument.

Are you saying Obama is above that kind of thing and would not do it if he felt it was strategically necessary? Of course he can't attack Clinton too hard, she's a woman and is playing tough and you need her supporters very soon.

Do you honestly believe Obama is above a dirty play in politics? Because all the examples of times he didn't play dirty (all in cases I think it would have been bad political strategy to do so) don't make that case to me.

Quote:

She has shown that whomever she was when she entered politics, she's become one of those bubble-people. She chooses her people based on loyalty rather than expertise (Solis-Doyle, especially Penn). Penn alone -- and the fact that she chose him, kept him, "fired" him, and then still kept him around -- pretty much demonstrates what was wrong with her as a candidate.

I just want to note that I agree with this. They both pick their insiders very differently and I think Obama is better at hiring people than Hillary.

Quote:

While I think Obama is much better than either Hillary or McCain, Hillary with all of her flaws would have been much better than McCain. With McCain, I have fewer procedural problems and more policy problems.

I agree with this as well. Hillary made it particularly easy to draw a flattering comparison to Obama with her mudslinging. Comparing Obama to McCain on that front is harder but easier to draw a policy distinction.

Quote:

But he's not free of procedural problems, either. While he's having fun lecturing Obama about the decision to turn down public financing, McCain is playing fast and loose with the primary public financing laws. He seems to be counting on an understaffed FEC, but that might be changing.

Did Obama pick strategy over integrity on this issue or not?

Quote:

*That brings me to another thing I like about Obama -- taking the "lofty" position and gaining a tactical advantage are not mutually exclusive.

Yup, it was well branded. But especially cynical since he is perfectly willing to get dirty if he feels it's a tactical advantage.

Now all of this seems to be a lot about how you perceive Obama. But let's get back to what I was saying:

I contended that Obama's message of hope, and call to believe in his abilities has produced much more inordinate belief in his ability than usual. Do you really believe that there's fewer people getting caught up in campaign hype than usual? That, specifically, is what I would find naive.

He's very good at the branding and messaging in politics. I would find the belief that he doesn't have more superficial "brand" supporters than normal to be naive.

I reject the arguments that he's all style and no substance, but to deny that he's significantly more style than any politician of our generation would be to ignore the real reason he's going to be elected. Subtract his charm and he loses to Hillary. He's going to win because of charisma and style and there are plenty of people who are going to get caught up in the hype along the way.

0 Replies

Robert Gentel wrote:

McCain has praised his opponents, he's rejected the low Obama (name) and Hillary (bitch) blows when his supporters used them.

Actually he hasn't always. Town hall person to McCain -- "How do we beat the bitch?" McCain: "That's a good question... [goes on to answer it].

That's a minor point though.

This is what you said originally:

Robert Gentel wrote:

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.

That's why I've been talking about why I like him -- since I'm a liberal (and started this thread, and started the ginormous "Obama '08" thread).

It's not "mainly" because he'll be a winner after a string of loser-types. I think his positions and personal character DO offer an edge over the other options. I'm thrilled to be able to vote for all of that in the same package -- positions, personal character, and political acumen to boot.

Robert Gentel wrote:

I reject the arguments that he's all style and no substance, but to deny that he's significantly more style than any politician of our generation

I haven't denied this part at all

Quote:

would be to ignore the real reason he's going to be elected. Subtract his charm and he loses to Hillary.

Not necessarily. He was the only viable Dem to oppose Iraq from the beginning -- that was huge.

Quote:

He's going to win because of charisma and style and there are plenty of people who are going to get caught up in the hype along the way.

Sure, plenty of people are going to get caught up in the hype, of any candidate. (See that great Niven quote.) What I have been arguing is whether it's reasonable to consider Obama better than Hillary or McCain. Not perfect, not saintly, but a better candidate for the presidency than either of them. I think that's reasonable, and not justifiably dismissed as being "caught up in the hype."

0 Replies

soz wrote: That's why I've been talking about why I like him -- since I'm a liberal (and started this thread, and started the ginormous "Obama '08" thread).

It's not "mainly" because he'll be a winner after a string of loser-types. I think his positions and personal character DO offer an edge over the other options. I'm thrilled to be able to vote for all of that in the same package -- positions, personal character, and political acumen to boot.

Robert Gentel wrote:
I reject the arguments that he's all style and no substance, but to deny that he's significantly more style than any politician of our generation

soz:
I haven't denied this part at all

Obama's "style" has much more substance than Bush ever had; that's a positive in most voter's minds.

0 Replies

We can do some A2K research, but most of you Obamanics bought into his BSl from the very beginning and tried to tell us this was the guy to support because he was "different."

With every passing week he proves he ain't so different and yet you modify the basis of your support to meet the reality of your candidate's actual character.

Fine.

He's a Liberal and so are you. Vote for him, and hope he wins, but please spare us all of this crap about him being "different."

He is not.

0 Replies

Finn, you might do better at starting an argument if you actually pick someone to accuse and then back it up by doing the research.

He's still "different". He's still a good candidate. But, surprise, not all of us agree with every position he has taken and will take.

0 Replies

Free Duck, That's true! The reason I've been swinging towards Obama isn't because of his flip-flops or his "change" message, but because he's good at the politics game.

That's a skill he'll need in Washington and for the diplomacy he talks about. He has a way to transcend the minor stuff, and still get the majority to follow his lead. I also believe he will listen to his expert advisors and make the right choices. That's the kind of "change" I'm looking for in a president.

0 Replies

Yeah, a change to competence from incompetence.

0 Replies

Freeduck. I think a better description would be transition from incompetence to incompetence.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

Freeduck. I think a better description would be transition from incompetence to incompetence.

Yes, but this has far more to do with your status as a bitter old person, then it does a recognition of reality.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

Free duck. I think a better description would be transition from incompetence to incompetence.

There's always that possibility, but with Obama, his "past" performance gives him the benefit of the doubt. He's now "winning" over 50% of Clinton supporters; something not foreseen just one month ago.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

Freeduck. I think a better description would be transition from incompetence to incompetence.

I think from your perspective it's more like a transition from unknown incompetence to speculated incompetence.

0 Replies

OK. I guess we'll see in the future. It looks like Obama is going to win the presidency warts and all. I hope im wrong but as Cyclo said as an bitter old man who has a he-l of a lot more experience than an collage educated know it all I don't think so.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

OK. I guess we'll see in the future. It looks like Obama is going to win the presidency warts and all. I hope im wrong but as Cyclo said as an bitter old man who has a he-l of a lot more experience than an collage educated know it all I don't think so.

Now, why is it that people without college educations think that those with them are somehow less able to judge situations? You will note that I never brought up the level of your education...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

If you had you would find that I did attend some collage to implement my job as an electrician with the equivalent of 2 years of collage education. No piece of paper telling everyone how much smarter than them I am. I did work along side many so called engineers who couldn't wipe their a-s without help, thus the lack of respect for collage education. Paper dosent an education make.

0 Replies

rabel, They don't need your "respect." Their average earnings tell the whole story.

0 Replies

No? People like CI and left eye seem to get real upset when some undereducated person like me points out that an education does not mean that you are smarter than those around you. It only means you have a piece of paper that states you completed 4 years or so of requirements for the compilation of a course in school. It dose not mean you really know what you are doing.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

No? People like CI and left eye seem to get real upset when some undereducated person like me points out that an education does not mean that you are smarter than those around you. It only means you have a piece of paper that states you completed 4 years or so of requirements for the compilation of a course in school. It dose not mean you really know what you are doing.

I for one don't get upset when you 'point that out.'

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I don't know what education has to do with any of this or, for that matter, how you could possibly determine the education level of people posting on anonymous message board absent them telling you.

0 Replies

"New Politics"? Hah.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know