Obama '08?

snood

Go to the PBS site and watch last nights Lehrer News Hour (might take a while for them to get the various segments up). There's a lot of analysis as to what happened and why. This thesis doesn't even rate a mention from the various people involved (and they are good people).

But it does match the Hillary is evil, dishonest, calculating and do-anything-to-win meme very well.

Blatham,
You're very good at objectively dissecting issues and determining the BS from the real, most of the time. When it comes to Hillary though, all I've ever seen you reply to any criticsm of hillary with is the "sexist persecution" card.

Prove me wrong by at least acknowledging the comments she made, cautioning people in the same manner as Cheney, about the ramifications voting for her opponent would have for safety from terrorism. At least acknowledge them, and then give me your context for them. Don't simply ignore everything negative anyone says about her and make another accusation that she is being demonized.

Snood, I just read the same article and also Andrew Kohut's analysis in the NYT. I haven't time to link it...its in the opinion section. Between the poorer voters voting for Hillary and the "fear factor", I think we can make more sense of the loss. She really tried to push fear and it makes me angry. Haven't we had enough of that? She and Bill are the status quo if she pushes fear.

2004 nominee Kerry to back Obama for president RAW STORY
Published: Thursday January 10, 2008

Barack Obama has won the presidential endorsement of Sen. John Kerry, the Democrats' 2004 nominee who lost to George W. Bush.

Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts, plans to announce his support Thursday at a rally at the College of Charleston, said a Democrat familiar with Kerry's decision. The 2004 nominee will argue that Obama can best unite the country and has the potential to create transformational change, the person said.

The news may come as a surprise to former Senator John Edwards, Kerry's running mate in the ill-fated 2004 race. Edwards is languishing in third place, behind Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton, but may do better in the southern states.

Posted in error

Well, that should sway about three votes.

especially since he's announcing in a state where he did so well

Could it be Obama promised him another purple heart. :wink:

Rep. Barney Frank: Refight the Nineties?
Refight the Nineties?
by Rep. Barney Frank
Posted January 9, 2008

By historical standards -- or any other -- the Democrats have an excellent set of presidential candidates from which to choose this season, and I look forward to campaigning enthusiastically and without reservation for our nominee. But this does not mean that we should be suppressing the discussion of differences, and it is in this framework that I think it is important to express my discomfort with a major theme of Senator Obama's campaign.

I am referring to his denigration of "the Washington battles of the 1990's" and, usually implicitly but sometimes explicitly, of those who fought them. My unease is compounded by the very explicit note of generational politics in his approach. I should note that I cannot be accused of self interest in taking exception to those who lament the baneful influence of baby boomers on our current politics, having myself been born well before the boom. Indeed, being much too young to claim membership in the greatest generation and even being a couple of years short of being a depression baby, I am reconciled to being part of a fairly large birth cohort that goes undesignated in our pop sociology. But since I do not have much intellectual respect for generational politics, I can live with this chronological anomie. I say that because generational politics presumes that I should have a different set of political values today than I had in the sixties when I began my political activity. But I cannot think of a cause that I cared deeply about then that I felt it appropriate to abandon as I aged, nor an important issue in which I had no interest then, but which now gets my attention.

This brings me to my particular concern with Senator Obama's vehement disassociation of himself and those he seeks to represent from "the fights of the nineties." I am very proud of many of the fights I engaged in in the nineties, as well as the eighties and before. Senator Obama also bemoans the "same bitter partisanship" of that period and appears to me to be again somewhat critical of those of us who he believes to have been engaged in it.

I agree that it would have been better not to have had to fight over some of the issues that occupied us in the nineties. But there would have been only one way to avoid them -- and that would have been to give up. More importantly, the only way I can think of to avoid "refighting the same fights we had in the 1990's", to quote Senator Obama, is to let our opponents win these fights without a struggle.

It would have been nice in the nineties not to have had to fight to defend a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, and I would be very happy if that fight ended tomorrow. I was troubled when Newt Gingrich and his right wing band took over Congress after the election of 1994 and sought to put an end to programs to deal with continuing racial discrimination and the resulting inequality, and I am even more distressed that we have to continue to fight that battle against a Republican party largely opposed to all of these efforts -- consider the Bush Justice Department and its role in dealing with people's right to vote. As a gay man, additionally, I would have been delighted in the nineties if our conservative opponents had been willing to recognize our rights to be treated fairly under the law, and I would have saved a lot of time, as recently as this past year, if there was not continued strong right wing opposition to the "radical" position that people should not be denied jobs because of their fundamental nature, or that hate crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity should be treated less seriously than those based on racial or religious prejudice. These are three of the major fights in which I was engaged in the nineties, and I literally do not understand what Senator Obama means when he says that he does not want to keep fighting them. I know that he understands that those who were opposed to all three of those causes in which many of us deeply believe in the nineties continue their opposition, and I do not understand how we can avoid fighting those battles other than by conceding them, which I know he does not advocate.

In some cases, Senator Obama does not seem to remember what some of the fights of the nineties were. I agree that it would be a good thing to have the 2008 election be in part "about whether to...pass universal health care" but that in fact is one of the central fights we had in the nineties. The effort of many of us to pass a universal health care plan is precisely one of the battles of the nineties, and it seems to me one that we very much want to keep fighting. Again, the only alternative to fighting it is losing it by concession.

Another major fight of the nineties which seems to me essential -- not simply relevant -- to the current election is tax policy. Few fights that we had in the period when Senator Obama is denigrating our battles was more important than the successful effort to pass President Clinton's tax plan in 1993. That battle was so hotly fought that it contributed, sadly, to the Republican takeover the next year, because a number of the Democrats who had voted for a progressive tax plan which made the tax code less unfair and provided important revenues for important programs lost their seats because of it. I make no apologies for having fought that fight, and in fact I hope that whoever is the President of the United States in 2009 will take up the battle against excessive tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the country, both as a matter of fairness and as a matter of being able to afford fundamental programs essential to the quality of our lives. I also remember fighting hard during that period for the rights of working men and women to join unions, and while we lost that once the Republicans took power in '94, we did score one victory when we were still in the majority in passing, in a "bitter partisan battle," the Family and Medical Leave Act -- the need for us to wage that battle is once again as strong if not stronger in 2008 than it was in 1995.

Finally, I do take pretty strong exception to Senator Obama's evenhanded denunciation of "the same bitter partisanship" of the nineties. It is true that American politics became much more partisan in the nineties, but that was primarily the result of the successful right wing takeover of the Republican Party, embodied at the time--he has since become a little more moderate for some tactical purpose--by Newt Gingrich. Again I do not think those of us who fought back against Gingrich's poisoning of the atmosphere should apologize for that. If anything, the apologies should come from those who were too slow to respond. It was Gingrich and his right wing allies who decided to inject a much harsher note of partisanship by explicitly rejecting the notion that the Democrats were honorable people with whom they disagreed, and instead decided, as Gingrich's own printed and taped materials argued, to portray us as treasonous, corrupt, immoral and otherwise vile. And when Gingrich was forced by his own flaws to step aside, Tom DeLay took up those cudgels with a little less rhetorical flourish but with an even heavier hand. If Senator Obama was denouncing the outrageous tactics of Gingrich and DeLay, I would be very much in support of his comments. Instead, he evenhandedly denounces the "bitter partisanship" of that period and seems to me to be distancing himself equally from the Gingrich/DeLay attack and the efforts of many of us to combat it. The comment calls to mind the marvelous words of John L. Lewis, at a point when Franklin Roosevelt pronounced a plague "on both their houses" with regard to a significant labor dispute. "It ill behooves one who has supped at labor's table and who has been sheltered in labor's house to curse with equal fervor and fine impartiality both labor and its adversaries when they become locked in deadly embrace."

As a Democratic Member of the U.S. House of Representatives today, I close by noting that there does appear to me to be a strong contradiction between two of the criticisms we sometimes receive. One is the approach taken by Senator Obama, which I have just tried to describe, which expresses distaste for too much fighting and too much anger, with too little effort to govern in a way that bridges differences. But contrary to that, I often hear that we Democrats in the Congress have not fought hard enough, that we have not stood up enough for what we believe in, and have been too prone to conciliate. I personally do not think that either criticism is justified, but I know as a fact that they cannot both be true.

I fully agree with Senator Obama that we should be arguing for the policies we advocate and the values from which they derive in a manner that appeals to the broadest possible segment of the public. His own ability to do that is one of our great assets. But I worry when people on my side underestimate the difficulty of our most important work, and I believe that is what Senator Obama does when he dismisses our efforts to fight the right wing in an earlier period because it suggests to me that he does underestimate the difficulty of the job. I think the best way to summarize my concern is that if you tell people that we should not be willing to refight the battles of the nineties -- including many very important ones that we are far from having won -- and if you tell people to refuse partisanship, you may be inviting people to leave the battlefield to those with whom we have the biggest differences. Racial fairness, reproductive rights for women, an end to discrimination against sexual minorities, universal health care, the right of working men and women to bargain collectively with employers -- these battles we waged in the nineties remain essential to our vision today, and I do not understand why we should either be embarrassed about having fought hard for them, ten, fifteen or twenty years ago, or why we should not be determined to keep fighting until we have achieved success.

Obama needs a lot of growing up before he is qualfied if he ever is for higher office.

Obama's song. Promises, promises. Dazzle them with promises.

So, where does he need to grow? Isn't he educated enough? Is he not a good father? Husband?? Caring? Knows what;s needed to heal America, from 8 years of dictatorship? Where?

When politicians offer nothing, and the people demand nothing, then the powers-that-be are free to continue doing whatever they choose. The death knell of participatory politics can often be a very noisy, celebratory affair - such as we have witnessed in the call-and-response ritual of “Change!” “Hope!” and other exuberant but insubstantial campaign exercises

And now we are left only with the politics of “Change” — which is anything the various audiences want it to be. Through relentless pandering to white desires for an end to Black agitation and reminders of enduring institutional racism, Obama has proven his ability to amass huge white support. As a result, much of Black America may become convinced the last hurdle to putting a Black Face in the Highest Place has been overcome, and shift overwhelmingly to Hillary’s estranged Black political twin. Corporate America, never threatened by either candidate, has long been comfortable with the outcome of this race, whichever way it goes — that’s why they put their money on both Barack and Hillary.

After Obama thanked his supporters for making him a close second in New Hampshire, the sound system blared a Stevie Wonder song with the hook, “Here I am, baby, signed sealed, delivered, I’m yours.”

For whom were those lyrics meant?
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/01/barack-hillary-and-the-sinister-nothingness-of-“change”/

teenyboone
Some of the stupidest people I've ever met were well educated and did not have once of common sense.
As far as Obama knowing how to undo the damage of the Bush presidency, did he also promise to walk on water.

au has it spot on! Obama can't change our government with promises. The democratic congress can't get through over 90% of the important legislation to help our country, because they are deadlocked. That's not going to change just because Obama becomes president.

Americans have lost their ability to whistle.

blueflame wrote-



Best job offer I would imagine.

Re: Rep. Barney Frank: Refight the Nineties?


Great article, BBB. Thank you very much for posting. I think the above paras especially should be considered thoroughly by Obama and the Obamaites.

Re: More than Croc Tears or Nasty Bill Attacks

Right. Colour me sceptical.

Since the article cites the exit poll as evidence, let's look at it. Let's look at that very question the article cites.

The article recounts how 73% of the Democratic voters said they were "very" or "somewhat" worried "that there will be another major terrorist attack in the United States". So far, so factual.

It concludes that the fear factor was a significant element in voting, that Hillary empathically played it, and that this is a major reason why she won. But apparently, the author either didnt read the rest of the numbers that came with that question, or considered them just too inconvenient.

First off, only 21% was "very worried". The far larger share covered here is the 52% that was "somewhat worried". Being "somewhat" worried doesnt immediately sound like a massive vote-changer. Hell, I am "somewhat worried", and I dont even live there. Meanwhile, 58% of the Democratic voters was "very worried" about the direction of the economy, and another 40% "somewhat worried". Sounds to me like that was more at the forefront of people's minds.

Secondly, if you actually look at how those people who were very or somewhat worried voted, it offers little ground to deduce that this is where Hillary's win came from. Among those who were "somewhat worried", Obama actually beat Hillary, if by a hairwidth (39% vs 38%). And even among those who were "very worried", Obama still scored 39% of the vote - more than he got overall. And just 6 points less than Hillary.

A 6-point margin among a group that itself made up just 21% of the vote - that's close to nothing. Even if all the people who were very worried about an attack based their vote wholly on that ground - which is highly unlikely - you're still talking about a statistically insignificant 1.3% advantage to Hillary.

Now you can say, of course, argh - polls - who cares about those. They were all off anyway. But the author of the article bases much of his argument on one cherrypicked number from that same poll. He argues that this one number shows that terrorism was a major concern, that Hillary must have had "similar polling information in hand" and that's why why she engaged in fearmongering - and that it worked. In fact, that "it just isn't possible that" it didnt have a more significant effect than the story that dominated news coverage the whole day before the elections. And yet, any look at the actual voting numbers that came with that question proves him wrong. I smell rhetoric, or denial.

FWIW, my take on Obama's failure to win NH is here.

I hadn't realised he was being as clear and precise as that Mac. Thanks.