Gala wrote:Get a grip Cyclo--Kerry was totally on his high-horse, he was the epitome of it. How is this not backing up my "complaints?"
Mostly, I would say for two reasons:
First, Obama isn't Kerry, we weren't talking about Kerry at all, so your injection of him into the conversation is not material to the points you were making earlier.
Second, what do you mean by 'high horse?' Is it a catch-all term for 'someone who I don't like?' Does it mean 'someone who wants to win the election?' I don't know what you mean when you say that. And you don't seem to want to explain it.
Cycloptichorn
Gala,
I am also not sure about your use of the term "high horse".
It would help if you could give us an example of a successful politician who was not on his or her "high horse".
I'd say the Left is going to have to come to grips with the FACT that the majority isn't interested in electing a candidate from the far Left anymore than it is a candidate from the far Right. Riding Moderate is precisely what the majority of Citizens are looking for. Robert was wrong when he suggested "The left is better served by a strong idealistic candidate while Obama is better served by being perceived as a moderate." This isn't true because the Right already figured out Ideal Right would be defeated by Ideal Left and accordingly chose a candidate from closer to the middle than many thought possible even a year ago. Obama's strength to defeat Hillary didn't come from the far Left either. It is precisely the Moderate and Crossover vote that put him in the position he's in today. The Left would be ill served by the Ideal Left candidate because he would be defeated by Right's version of a middleman. (As opposed to the 2 to 1 favorite status that Obama is enjoying now.)
What precisely did people think he meant when he promised to reach across the aisle? Change from hyper-partisan politics is what I'd like to see and Obama still appears to be the candidate most likely to deliver it.
High-horse as in-- all the attention is going to his head.
OCCOM BILL wrote:I'd say the Left is going to have to come to grips with the FACT that the majority isn't interested in electing a candidate from the far Left anymore than it is a candidate from the far Right. Riding Moderate is precisely what the majority of Citizens are looking for. Robert was wrong when he suggested "The left is better served by a strong idealistic candidate while Obama is better served by being perceived as a moderate." This isn't true because the Right already figured out Ideal Right would be defeated by Ideal Left and accordingly chose a candidate from closer to the middle than many thought possible even a year ago. Obama's strength to defeat Hillary didn't come from the far Left either. It is precisely the Moderate and Crossover vote that put him in the position he's in today. The Left would be ill served by the Ideal Left candidate because he would be defeated by Right's version of a middleman. (As opposed to the 2 to 1 favorite status that Obama is enjoying now.)
What precisely did people think he meant when he promised to reach across the aisle? Change from hyper-partisan politics is what I'd like to see and Obama still appears to be the candidate most likely to deliver it.
Eight years of Bush has completely changed the perspective of the center. Like it or not, I think the center now leans more to the right.
ebrown_p wrote:Gala,
I am also not sure about your use of the term "high horse".
It would help if you could give us an example of a successful politician who was not on his or her "high horse".
Aaah. A successful politician not on their high-horse? I'm going to have to think about it.
And, for the record, Nancy Pelosi is high on the list of high-horsers (just so you don't think I'm excluding my gender).
O'Bill, I think your analysis is interesting, but a bit simplistic. George Bush was not a moderate, in fact he was far to the right of the American mainstream. Yet, he was elected two times.
Politics is a marketing campaign. Successful politicians realize that they need to establish a brand that consumers will buy. The key consumers (those that aren't already firmly in the pocket of one party or the other) are very fickle indeed.
Obama is making choices about where he wants his brand to go, and whatever choices he makes are going to annoy some people.
Some of the choices (the faith based charity) thing I accept. Some (the capital punishment thing) I understand strategically.
The FISA thing is an interesting case. I feel that this is an important enough issue that he should have taken a stand. This would have pushed his brand from the "post-partisan" image he is clearly trying to establish, but would have helped his image of principled leader.
The big fallacy of this thread is the idea that a politician in a heated campaign can get anywhere without having winning as the goal. Strategy is important, and no matter how good a president Obama can be, it won't matter a bit if he doesn't win.
It is up to Obama and his closest staff to figure out where to take his campaign-- and for them to give themselves the best chance of winning is the right thing to do.
ebrown_p wrote:O'Bill, I think your analysis is interesting, but a bit simplistic. George Bush was not a moderate, in fact he was far to the right of the American mainstream. Yet, he was elected two times.
He is also the reason
no far right candidate would stand a chance against
anyone this cycle.
Frankly, I think the Left fielded one of very few candidates that couldn't defeat Bush last time. Kerry was a disastrous choice. Self identifying Republicans and self identifying Democrats are
way down. Those of us who reside in the middle are every bit as sick of both camps as those camps become of each other.
I happen to think Faith based help is fiscally sound and quite logical.
I'd also like to see swift executions for child rapists.
I'd also like to see single payer health care.
I'd also like to see easy immigration reform.
Etc.
Polarized politics means approximately half of what I'd like to see will never happen. A thinking man who makes up his own mind may or may not be better, but that's what I'd like to elect.
I don't much care for pandering if it's just hot air. I do care for compromise. I think McCain and Obama are their respective party's best candidates to cooperate. Both had little choice but to move to the corners for the primary, but I would expect neither to stay there for the general and even less so if elected.
I could easily be wrong about either or both, but that's why this Independent is quite content this cycle.
OCCOM BILL wrote:Self identifying Republicans and self identifying Democrats are way down. Those of us who reside in the middle are every bit as sick of both camps as those camps become of each other.
Well, I would guess that your impression as an independent is different from the impression a Republican or Democrat might have, but, for what it's worth, this is from a
Pew poll tracking voter self-identification:
Quote:The balance of party identification in the American electorate now favors the Democratic Party by a decidedly larger margin than in either of the two previous presidential election cycles.
In 5,566 interviews with registered voters conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press during the first two months of 2008, 36% identify themselves as Democrats, and just 27% as Republicans.
The share of voters who call themselves Republicans has declined by six points since 2004, and represents, on an annualized basis, the lowest percentage of self-identified Republican voters in 16 years of polling by the Center.
The Democratic Party has also built a substantial edge among independent voters. Of the 37% who claim no party identification, 15% lean Democratic, 10% lean Republican, and 12% have no leaning either way.
By comparison, in 2004 about equal numbers of independents leaned toward both parties. When "leaners" are combined with partisans, however, the Democratic Party now holds a 14-point advantage among voters nationwide (51% Dem/lean-Dem to 37% Rep/lean-Rep), up from a three-point advantage four years ago.
OCCOM BILL wrote:I'd say the Left is going to have to come to grips with the FACT that the majority isn't interested in electing a candidate from the far Left anymore than it is a candidate from the far Right. Riding Moderate is precisely what the majority of Citizens are looking for. Robert was wrong when he suggested "The left is better served by a strong idealistic candidate while Obama is better served by being perceived as a moderate." This isn't true because the Right already figured out Ideal Right would be defeated by Ideal Left and accordingly chose a candidate from closer to the middle than many thought possible even a year ago. Obama's strength to defeat Hillary didn't come from the far Left either. It is precisely the Moderate and Crossover vote that put him in the position he's in today. The Left would be ill served by the Ideal Left candidate because he would be defeated by Right's version of a middleman. (As opposed to the 2 to 1 favorite status that Obama is enjoying now.)
What precisely did people think he meant when he promised to reach across the aisle? Change from hyper-partisan politics is what I'd like to see and Obama still appears to be the candidate most likely to deliver it.
You are correct, sir.
I think that many fail to realize that the center moves; it moves a lot. Obama doesn't have to be super-liberal to make the 'center' more Liberal; he needs to show some successes with mildly Liberal programs and thought, and the center moves all on it's own, with a hell of a lot less bellyaching then if you try and force people one way or the other.
OE is totally correct, though; self-ID as a Dem is at a pretty high level at this time. Thanks Bush!
Cycloptichorn
So stipulated. My assumption was incorrect on the Democratic side, but the gap still leaves Independents as the largest block
and since the bookends are pretty reliably bookends; Independents make all the decisions anyway.
Well, today, Obama is looking better. On a surface level, I think the faith based thing is a good idea-- a really good one from the vantage point that government cannot do as good a job as a church in giving those in need a helping hand up.
I'm not sure about the funding part-- whether tax dollars ought to go into it-- then again, the government programs are loaded down with red tape and inefficiency.
Again, on the surface, this makes Obama look really good.
Still mulling this one over.
Re: Obama's starting to get on my nerves
Gala wrote:FreeDuck wrote:Gala wrote:
His weighing in on Supreme Court decision: the one I heard was his objecting to rapists of children Not getting the death penalty. This one bothers me the most...because, Obama is saying this to appeal to a certain base, and he's moving more toward the center.
This one actually doesn't bother me though I disagree with him. He's never been anti-death penalty and has often taken a nuanced view of it. Let me see if I can find a quote.
I agreed with the court on this one-- as horrendous as the crime is, and it goes beyond words how horrible.
Listen, my beef is Obama's weighing in on it as a political opportunity to appeal, more than likely, to the blue collar Hillary supporters. He sounds so freakin' pompous when he does. I hope he knocks it off soon.
You don't think his being the father of two young daughters has anything to do with his position?
OCCOM BILL wrote:I'd say the Left is going to have to come to grips with the FACT that the majority isn't interested in electing a candidate from the far Left anymore than it is a candidate from the far Right. Riding Moderate is precisely what the majority of Citizens are looking for. Robert was wrong when he suggested "The left is better served by a strong idealistic candidate while Obama is better served by being perceived as a moderate." This isn't true because the Right already figured out Ideal Right would be defeated by Ideal Left and accordingly chose a candidate from closer to the middle than many thought possible even a year ago. Obama's strength to defeat Hillary didn't come from the far Left either. It is precisely the Moderate and Crossover vote that put him in the position he's in today. The Left would be ill served by the Ideal Left candidate because he would be defeated by Right's version of a middleman. (As opposed to the 2 to 1 favorite status that Obama is enjoying now.)
What precisely did people think he meant when he promised to reach across the aisle? Change from hyper-partisan politics is what I'd like to see and Obama still appears to be the candidate most likely to deliver it.
OB "gets" Obama. If he was doing any pandering, he was pandering to the extreme left. Obama's base of support comes from the middle spectrum of American politics where it's about middle America and not which side you're on. He's woken up the beast and that makes people on both sides nervous.
Re: Obama's starting to get on my nerves
Butrflynet wrote:Gala wrote:FreeDuck wrote:Gala wrote:
His weighing in on Supreme Court decision: the one I heard was his objecting to rapists of children Not getting the death penalty. This one bothers me the most...because, Obama is saying this to appeal to a certain base, and he's moving more toward the center.
This one actually doesn't bother me though I disagree with him. He's never been anti-death penalty and has often taken a nuanced view of it. Let me see if I can find a quote.
I agreed with the court on this one-- as horrendous as the crime is, and it goes beyond words how horrible.
Listen, my beef is Obama's weighing in on it as a political opportunity to appeal, more than likely, to the blue collar Hillary supporters. He sounds so freakin' pompous when he does. I hope he knocks it off soon.
You don't think his being the father of two young daughters has anything to do with his position?
I'd hate to think that he is unable to sympathize with others who have lost children to murder--and that his personal feelings drive his policy.
Brooks: The two Obamas
By David Brooks Published: June 20, 2008
God, Republicans are saps. They think that they're in running against some academic liberal who wouldn't wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn't proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they're running against some naive university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson.
But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there's Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who'd throw you under the truck for votes.
This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He's the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he's too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.
But he's been giving us an education, for anybody who cares to pay attention. Just try to imagine Mister Rogers playing the agent Ari in "Entourage" and it all falls into place.
Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Barack could have taken positions on politically uncomfortable issues. But Fast Eddie Obama voted "present" nearly 130 times. From time to time, he threw his voting power under the truck.
Barack said he could no more disown the Reverend Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Reverend Wright escalated and Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck.
Barack could have been a workhorse senator. But primary candidates don't do tough votes, so Fast Eddie Obama threw the workhorse duties under the truck.
Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works.
John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the country. But favored candidates don't go in for unscripted free-range conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the truck.
And then Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He's spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system.
But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform.
And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama's got more money now.
And Fast Eddie didn't just sell out the primary cause of his life.
He did it with style. He did it with a video so risibly insincere that somewhere down in the shadow world Lee Atwater is gaping and applauding. Obama blamed the (so far marginal) Republican 527s. He claimed that private donations are really public financing. He made a cut-throat political calculation seem like Mother Teresa's final steps to sainthood.
The media and the activists won't care (they were interested in campaign-finance reform only when the Republicans had more money).
Meanwhile, Obama's money is forever. He's got an army of small donors and a phalanx of big money bundlers, including, according to The Washington Post, Kenneth Griffin of the Citadel Investment Group; Kirk Wager, the Florida trial lawyer; James Crown, a director of General Dynamics; and Neil Bluhm, the hotel, office and casino developer.
I have to admit, I'm ambivalent watching all this. On the one hand, Obama did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny political advantage. If he'll sell that out, what won't he sell out? On the other hand, global affairs ain't beanbag. If we're going to have a president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking inside.
All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo.
Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I'd use to describe Barack Obama. He's the most effectively political creature we've seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn't smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics
Re: Obama's starting to get on my nerves
Butrflynet wrote:You don't think his being the father of two young daughters has anything to do with his position?
Definitely, and it's a good point, but it was also an opportunity for him to appeal to the right wingers on the fence.
