snood
 
  1  
Tue 4 Apr, 2006 03:31 pm
[I thought this was some thought provoking commentary. I believe Obama is a promising and hope-inspiring politician (terms I'd have heretofore opined were oxymoronic), but I also think some of the furor about him can be explained by the pitiful lack of other viable Democrats. ]



http://159.54.227.3/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060320/OPINION/60320016/1005


Sen. Barack Obama is not the savior of Democratic Party
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Tue 4 Apr, 2006 03:38 pm
Yeah, I know what that guy's saying.

My question is, what's the alternative?

If I don't want to wait, if I want to make something happen, what do I do?

He doesn't really offer anything compelling about why Obama SHOULDN'T be the Democratic presidential nominee, or who would be better than him -- it's a more a general complaint about the Democrats. (And I agree with much of it.)
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Tue 4 Apr, 2006 03:40 pm
Screw it! Lets just elect Hillary and really piss off the right wingers!


Anon
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Tue 4 Apr, 2006 03:43 pm
Little problem there with the "elect" part, Anon...

(By the way, an answer to my own questions is to do local, grassroots Democrat stuff, too -- get good local people into office, not just focus on the presidency.)
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Tue 4 Apr, 2006 03:49 pm
sozobe wrote:
Yeah, I know what that guy's saying.

My question is, what's the alternative?

If I don't want to wait, if I want to make something happen, what do I do?

He doesn't really offer anything compelling about why Obama SHOULDN'T be the Democratic presidential nominee, or who would be better than him -- it's a more a general complaint about the Democrats. (And I agree with much of it.)


Well, he actually does offer a "why shouldn't he be", in there...
He rightfully points out that the man hasn't been around long enough to have a track record to judge him on.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Tue 4 Apr, 2006 03:58 pm
I think that is a bootless objection. One of the advantages which Governors have traditionally had over Senators in Presidential bids is precisely the fact that there is no record upon which to judge. In our own recent times, witness Carter, Reagan, Clinton and the younger Bush--all former Governors, all running on their promised programs, as opposed to a track record in office. Had those track records been prominent, very likely none of those candidates would have looked as good as they did.

I do acknowledge, though, that as a Senator, Obama's "record" will be subject to more scrutiny than would be the case if he were a Governor and a dark horse.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Tue 4 Apr, 2006 04:04 pm
Yeah, that's the experience question, which we've talked about a few times here. I'm still undecided on that aspect. Personally, I like someone with more experience.

In terms of what the electorate as a whole seems to be interested in, though, many people seem to think lack of experience is a selling point -- throw the bums out, fresh start, new face, non-insider, etc., etc.

He has something like 15 months (? when do they take office? elected November '04, then start January '05?) of Senate duty so far to judge him on -- that's something. He'll have four years by 2008. And he has offered plenty of information on who he is, what he believes, and what he'd like to see happen, as well as backing that up with various actions. (Introduction of legislation, promoting certain causes, bipartisan initiatives both for the content and the fact that they're bipartisan, etc., etc.)

But, yeah, I still don't know if the lack of experience is a fatal flaw.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Thu 6 Apr, 2006 06:15 am
I just bought Obama's book online. I'll read it as soon as it gets here; hopefully I'll get some useful insights into who he is...
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Thu 6 Apr, 2006 07:10 am
Quote:
Say what you will about the Republican Party and its leader, our regrettable president, but give them credit for this much: They know what they believe and they know how to package it in the simplest, most attractive way: traditional values; fighting terrorism; tax relief.

Granted, some of us think it would be more accurate to describe the foregoing in terms somewhat less simple and attractive [..]. But you know what? Tomato, to-mah-to. The Republicans have their vision, and it works. By contrast, can anybody tell me what the Democratic Party stands for?

Yes, I know that's a setup that will have the GOP faithful slipping in their own saliva to offer a punchline, but leave it stand. Because if anything has characterized the Democrats in the years since George W. Bush won the 2000 election, it's an inability to articulate a coherent competing vision. It is not enough to be the anti-Republicans. Those who are so inclined already know what they are voting against. It is incumbent upon the other party to offer an alternative people might want to vote "for."

This, the Democrats have, for six years, failed to do.

You hear this tack a lot. Mostly from mocking Republicans, often from disgruntled liberals.

I've never quite understood it.

Yes, of course I would have liked the Dems to come up with more forceful as well as appealing candidates than Kerry, Gore and Hillary - and yes, I would like it to engage in self-confident opposition rather than cautious muddling-through.

But seriously; is there really anyone out there who simply does not know "what the Democratic Party stands for" - like, period? In as rough and basic terms as outlined for the Reps above?

I think the "nobody knows what the Dems stand for" line is mostly used, on the left, as frustrated shorthand for "I wish they spoke up louder and more brazenly, like the other side". Whereas in reality, of course it's not hard to come up with a trinity of Dem values in contrast to Bush's.

Here:

Republicans: traditional values; fighting terrorism; tax relief.
Democrats: inclusive society; working with our allies; "it takes a village"

If you dont like the Hillary reference, replace "it takes a village" with "community", for example, or "common responsibility". Same thing.

<shrugs> I mean, am I missing something?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Thu 6 Apr, 2006 08:32 am
Hey, that's a good point.

I've bought that "nobody knows" thing, but what you say makes sense.

I guess maybe it's that we pick up these messages by paying attention, whereas the Republican messages are more blunt instruments -- hard to miss 'em whether you're paying attention or not.

?

Not sure... thinking.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Thu 6 Apr, 2006 10:43 am
By the by, continued thanks to Soz and to Snood for interesting links.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Thu 6 Apr, 2006 10:49 am
Thanks for the acknowledgement, Set, appreciated.

Snood, I'll look forward to your take on the book.

I swear that Obama is setting himself up for something. The new book ("The Audacity of Hope") that will be coming out 4 weeks before the 2006 elections, the series of large-scale initiatives and announcements and legislation and such that he's been doing lately. I'm just not sure what he has in mind.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Thu 6 Apr, 2006 11:25 am
He can certainly make a run at the primaries and see where it takes him. He'll get national exposure (as if he isn't already) and get a pulse on where he stands vs Hillary from a broader base.

There should be many hopefuls that start out in the primaries and it will be a good test for him.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Thu 6 Apr, 2006 11:27 am
That's certainly my take on it at this point.

Hope he does.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Thu 6 Apr, 2006 12:06 pm
sozobe wrote:
Thanks for the acknowledgement, Set, appreciated.

Snood, I'll look forward to your take on the book.

I swear that Obama is setting himself up for something. The new book ("The Audacity of Hope") that will be coming out 4 weeks before the 2006 elections, the series of large-scale initiatives and announcements and legislation and such that he's been doing lately. I'm just not sure what he has in mind.


I hear ya. Of course, it may be just that he's that type of overachiever. Anyone looking at how busy he's stayed in his life up 'til now could make that case.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Mon 10 Apr, 2006 09:00 am
I've got to tell you, I am more than a little discomfited by Obama's cozying up to McCain and Lieberman.

I guess I'd hoped he wouldn't have to play exactly the same game by exactly the same rules...
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Mon 10 Apr, 2006 09:01 am
Can anyone win without playing the game? (Sincere question...)
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Mon 10 Apr, 2006 09:34 am
sozobe wrote:
Can anyone win without playing the game? (Sincere question...)

Maybe not, but the point is not to win but to make a difference. If Obama wins the presidency by becoming a charismatic version of Lieberman, that may not be a desirable outcome for some. Personally I would like this, as I think America did pretty well when the last charismatic version of Lieberman was president. But if you hold political opinions that don't currently command a majority of voters, your best hope may well be a candidate who sticks to his principles, loses spectacularly, galvanizes your side in an `Alamo' moment, and makes it win one of the next elections. On the Republican side, Goldwater and Bork both made a big difference by being defeated.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Mon 10 Apr, 2006 09:45 am
Has there been further cozying to Lieberman?

I don't think there has been any reasonable suggestion that he is a more charismatic version of Lieberman (nor that Clinton was a more charismatic version of Lieberman); Obama's "endorsement" was tempered and politically pretty much unavoidable, from what I found (and laid out a couple of pages back).

The "political opinions that don't currently command a majority of voters" part is exactly at issue. As nimh has mentioned several times, even Kerry got 48% of the vote -- it's not at all unreasonable that Obama, as he plays the game with integrity, would not spectacularly lose. (I've never really bought the thing about losing spectacularly galvanizing anyone. If Bush isn't galvanizing the opposition with his idiocy, I can't see a losing candidate doing any better.)

So far -- with Lieberman and McCain -- I've seen Obama playing the game with integrity, doing what has to be done to enable him to get stuff accomplished. He's a politician. That's what politicians do. I want one who is both skilled at the game and who will, by playing the game well, get important stuff accomplished.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Mon 10 Apr, 2006 09:48 am
Quote:
I want one who is both skilled at the game and who will, by playing the game well, get important stuff accomplished.

another Lyndon Johnson?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 25
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 06/17/2025 at 12:55:17