Obama '08?

I think it's something that's just sort of a political trope, though, especially in times like these. Like, oooh, that politician just kissed a baby, it must be engineered to recall [other politician who kissed a baby].

Among other things, who would be the engineer (or the "tie-inner"?) It seems like whomever it would be would be more likely to support Hillary.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Among other things, who would be the engineer (or the "tie-inner"?) It seems like whomever it would be would be more likely to support Hillary.

I don't actually think the Democrats will use it. If it's used - it'll be at the next stage. That'd be my guess.

From The Man from Hope to The Man with Hope. Look where it got America the last time ... blah blah blah. It's simply too easy. Don't like it.

0 Replies

Can you go into this further?

Who do you think is behind it? What exactly don't you like about it? Why do you think it's a THING -- something engineered -- rather something organic coming from who Obama is and what he's been saying for a long time?

0 Replies

Thanks for restating the question a lot more clearly, soz.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

What exactly don't you like about it?

I don't like how easy it's been made for people who don't like Obama to find a hook.

0 Replies

OK, I think I'm starting to get what you're saying. I thought when you said, "From The Man from Hope to The Man with Hope. Look where it got America the last time ... blah blah blah..." that the "where it got America last time" part was GOOD. Laughing

Economy booming, peacetime, etc., etc. That the Obama camp would be trying to make that association for some reason.

You seem to actually be saying the opposite -- that if Obama goes with the "hope" thing, that it's too easy for people who are against him to use it against him.

Is that about right?

If so, I'm not at all convinced. I mean I have no doubt that there are people who would seek to torpedo his chances in such a way, but I can't really see that one out of everything being effective. Again, there are a lot of people who look to the Clinton years with a great deal of nostalgia -- see Hillary's current front-runner status -- and it's just not a strong enough link to turn off the rest of them, I don't think. There are many other possible avenues that worry me more. (Black candidate + drug use, especially.)

0 Replies

Yup, that's pretty much it.

Man from Hope, Thomason's, Travel Office Scandal ... and on and on and on.

That's why I don't think the pro-Hillary group would use it - but the Republicans can make hay with it if they're in the mood.

I don't see the upside to handing anyone a hook/earworm.

0 Replies

I dunno, I think it's just not that strong. That the benefits of the whole hope thing -- which Obama really owns, it's really him, and has been for a long time -- far outweigh any possible negatives.

But that's a matter of interpretation, a we'll-see kind of thing.

Glad it's been clarified anyway. :-)

0 Replies

beth

I think it oughtn't to worry you. I had to reread the last two pages twice, plus check your link, in order to understand your reference. This would be a matter only REAL wonks would begin to understand and even then it seems a stretch to see it as being an effective negative PR association.

0 Replies

Perhaps it's a generational thing?

"Hope", in terms of American political shorthand, meant Bill Clinton for a long time. He "owned" it.

Quote:

Bush 41 in 1992 ran on his Gulf War victory and elder statesmanship while Clinton ran on "a town called Hope."

a generally interesting blog entry on use of language in campaigning

Quote:

Last week on Charlie Rose, DCCC chairman Rahm Emanuel had this to say when asked about why President Bush could not make his case to the American people to save his party before the 2006 midterm elections:

Bill Clinton's first lesson in politics to me: elections are about tomorrow, not yesterday. And George Bush and the Republicans went into the elections saying "give me credit for yesterday." Big mistake.

They didn't discuss this idea any further, but it struck a chord with me. Certainly, electoral outcomes are the result of myriad circumstances and choices, with poll points lost and won from this television ad, or that vote on an obscure bill, this silly gaffe, or that photo op. The reasons why things come out the way they do are complex and subtle, and that's why we have far more supply than demand for political punditry and analysis (ahem).

But there are always the larger themes, the big picture of any given election, and each side competes with the other to determine what that theme will be. Since 9/11 and until last week, Republicans had successfully made each election about national security, or, more personally, "who will keep you safe?" I thought about that after listening to Mr. Emanuel, and it made sense within the framework of his lesson from President Clinton. It was all about the future tense: al Qaeda will try to attack, and the president and his party will keep us safe. We will defeat the terrorists in this war that will go on for a long time. It is a dubiously positive message, to be sure, promising doom, only to be thwarted by the heroes in the government, but it was forward-looking nonetheless. For the most part, it worked.

<snip>

Quote:

In 2006, I don't know whether or not the Democrats as a whole had a powerful forward-looking message (though there were future-tense promises to clean up Bush's messes), but Emmanuel was right about one thing, the Republicans wanted credit for yesterday.

Obviously, this is not the secret to winning all elections forever. But as I throw myself into this field, what it has taught me is that while the little things - the volunteers, the ads, the talking points - do matter, they do move votes, and they make up a campaign's DNA, in the end all that work has to be framed by big ideas about how great things will be in order to convince people you're worthy of their vote. If I may use a physics metaphor; while at the smallest levels, elections are full of quantum weirdness, it still takes large bodies to gravitationally attract.

It's about hope - and someone's already called dibs on the word itself.

Maybe it'll work a second time. Maybe no one will notice. Maybe no one will care. It's a game of craps.

0 Replies

But hope was a big Kennedy thing too. And I can't believe he was the first politician to use it.

It's a pretty basic political thing. "I offer hope." <shrug>

0 Replies

Sozobe:

Quote:

There are many other possible avenues that worry me more. (Black candidate + drug use, especially.

I don't see "many other" avenues - but the things you named (black man/drug use) are those which I think they will most attempt to use.

0 Replies

snood, I'm sure you're right, but the republicans better watch themselves closer during the next election, because they're already seen as hypocrites. They're not exactly "clean" either!

0 Replies

That won't stop the rabid snipers whose whole job is smearing, but I hear ya.

0 Replies

If they do revert back to their smearing campaign, I hope somebody will find dirt on both current and running republicans; and Fitzgerald is still "working" on his investigation that'll probably bring down more top republicans.

0 Replies

This is a fascinating take on the influence Obama's wife will have on his decision...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bella-depaulo/barack-obama-for-presiden_b_34556.html

0 Replies

Quote:

Black candidate + drug use, especially.)

Easily his biggest enemies. Although, I think America is ready to grow up about the "leaders can't have tried drugs" nonsense (didn't they do that with Clinton?), since virtually everyone else has... and earnestly believe America wants to prove they're not racist. Of course, they are, but Obama is a gazillion times easier for the ignorant to swallow than virtually every other Black Presidential choice they've ever had. And who knows when such a palatable Black man may come up again?

Clinton references; I still believe will throw the undecideds at the republicans... but not because Bill isn't immensely popular... he is. Hillary just looks like a dull blade next to him. Remove Hill from the race and Bill would be Obama's greatest asset. As it is; he can do neither of them nor the democrats at large much good.

Canonballing Murtha may prove to be the single smartest thing the democrats have done in years. It tells those who reside anywhere near the middle that the democrats don't see their recent victory as a resounding endorsement of the far left. The republicans dropped the ball badly when they let Bush get away with pretending that their sweeping victory was all about the far right. I suspect the recent change had as much to do with a rejection of that assessment as it did an endorsement of far left fools like Murtha.

Pelosi as speaker is just about as dumb, but the fact that the majority isn't trying to suggest her ilk is what the nation is dying for is political genius. If the democrats found a way to put a moderate at speaker; I would expect the public to respond by trusting them enough with the oval office as well... perhaps even in a landslide. I just don't believe the public wants to be as polarized as election strategy forces the two parties to play. There is a reason that guys like McCain are popular... and it's not his charisma nor good looks.

Mostly, I think the general public is starving for a politician they can trust... or at least feel like they can. Obama, McCain and possibly Guliani are the players in my book... though Rudy will in large part have to sell it. McCain has proven it and it's tough to not just believe Obama is his own man... despite politics making it damn near impossible for him to be open-mouthed in this climate. Virtually anything he says about anything has to be extremely measured, or be dissected into something attackable.

The next election will be won by whomever is perceived as the most middle. Hill's people knew that a long time ago but she won't be able to sell it. Obama is IMO the democrat's best bet... though I still wouldn't be surprised to see Biden make giant strides over the next year

0 Replies

Bill, What exactly about Murtha makes him a "far left fool", in your estimation? Was the fact that he was the loudest and earliest proponent of immediate withdrawal from Iraq enough for you to tag him as such?

0 Replies

Definitely a large part of it... but I suspect it had a lot more to do with his choice of words and lack of alternate thoughts. You'll notice that I don't view Biden, who is every bit as hyper-partisan (and made a HUGE ass of himself at the Alito hearings), with the same disdain. I guess I like to know that a man is actually thinking... and not just grabbing his 15 minutes, if he's going to be that vocal. I've never even once heard Murtha say anything that seemed to require thought beyond what I consider hyper-partisan idiocy. Even Pelosi has on occasion made sense to me. Murtha never has.

BTW, I'm sure you realize that Huffington has seldom said anything that didn't make me laugh (or want to cry foul!), so it probably won't surprise you that I disagree that that last piece was fascinating. Where Powell was always the quiet reserved man who got things done; Obama is overt public servant to his toenails. Hence, I see no parallel that can be drawn between their wives views on a Presidential run. Like Obama's, I'm quite sure Mrs. Obama's concerns are tightly focused only on the viability of his candidacy in 08.

0 Replies

Quote:

Definitely a large part of it... but I suspect it had a lot more to do with his choice of words and lack of alternate thoughts. You'll notice that I don't view Biden, who is every bit as hyper-partisan (and made a HUGE ass of himself at the Alito hearings), with the same disdain.

Well, howdy there, BillyBobJebCheddarRufus

Snood properly takes you to task on Murtha as "far left". And your response above doesn't really help much. You appear to be saying, "I don't like him" and that's fair enough but you probably ought to find some approbation more akin and specific to the complaint.

I don't know much about the fellow, really, but my understanding is that prior to his shift on the war, he had been a dem whom the republicans generally, this administration, and the military itself could always count on for support, philosophical and legislative and re funding. As you likely know, if there are any others in congress who spend more time visiting wounded soldiers than Murtha, they could probably be counted on one hand. Further, his shift in position is mirrored with many others, as with Warner, not to mention with the american electorate.

It seems to me that Murtha immediately became a target for acute derogation from republicans and media affiliated with them precisely because of his prior "pro-military" or "pro-war" contributions and his stature on these matters. The false and intellectually slipshod derogation of him as "far left" is perhaps predictable, but you should know better than to repeat it, you nasty wingnut from Lubbock.

Ps... I understand that you aren't fully enamored of the sitting president (as contrasted with Reagan, the napping president). Do you suppose that george, who apparently conceived that his arrival in the presidency bolstered by a republican congress and a republican senate was a manifestation of Jesus' approval and intention...do you suppose that george is now wondering why Jesus was for him before He was against him?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know