Obama '08?

This phenomenon is not going to get better. The next three months leading up to the mid terms promises to be uglier than any electoral cycle we've seen in our lifetimes in America.

And the period following that will be even worse, regardless of outcome. If this crowd of Republicans maintains control of the House, we'll see broad and pervasive moves to further consolidate power through defunding/disempowerment of Democrat constituencies, through manipulation of governmental processes, through ever more acute attacks on an independent press, through further divisiveness and swiftboat style discourse, and through even greater promotion of citizen fearfulness.

If the Dems gain control of the House, then they will set to investigations and hearings designed to invalidate, in the public mind, what this administration has been up to (and the consequences of that) over the last six years. This will pose a serious threat to the (well acknowledged) goal of a thirty year Republican dominance and to all the hopes that the modern American right (and those who gain so much from it) has vested in that goal.

It seems quite unlikely to me that we will arrive at the 2008 elections without serious constitutional and democratic crises intervening.

It seems the attack on Obama is heavy on innuendo, and light on facts.

But one must always consider the sources...

You think that was an attack?

Let's see, how better to frame what has been done here (and not just by you, Lash)... would you prefer "It seems the pointed questioning about Obama is heavy on innuendo..." ?

"Attack" may have been a tad strong...

Admit you were blindsided already, will ya? I'd wager my kingdom you know, and have seen in print many times, Bill and Hillary's middle names, haven't you? Nothing too slimy about using them.

I wasn't talking about me--

That "questioning of Obama" in print wasn't an attack. May have been testing the fences.

We'll all recognise the attack when it commences.

Context, context...

Edit: that was in re to Bill..

Nope. I don't believe him. He, like Dys and I, didn't immediately realize that was Obama's middle name at first glance... or he's guilty of the most ridiculous over-reaction I've seen recently (not counting your exchange on another thread :wink:). I'd wager 10 to 1 on the former, if there was some way of proving it.

I stand corrected. It's good that we reach an understanding on terms, even though I suspect that Walter appreciates that when I use "liberal," I mean "leftist," but henceforth I will refer to you as a "leftist," and not insult you with use of the moniker "liberal."

Sorry, bill, but you are wrong here. I have been aware of Obama's middle name for a couple of years, actually likely longer. I do read a fair bit, as you know.

So the only point in question is whether or not I correctly attribute Sierra Song's motives in including that middle name. As I pointed out, including politicians' middle names is not a habit with the SS. I would be surprised indeed if there is a single example you might turn up of her doing so in a survey of, say, her last two hundred posts.

Further, it is her style to do as I indict. Where you or finn or asherman or others can, and often do, compose an extended and (at least quasi) logical line of reasoning to make your arguments, SS is rather more fond of that squat n' poop variety of contribution which Just Wonders often gifted us.

If I have that motive wrong, I apologize. But I think the chances slim indeed.

"squat and poop variety of contribution"


good one......

No choice but to give you the benefit of the doubt, my friend, but that still means your reaction was WAY over the top.

OBill, Don't you mean "bottom?"

Thankyou kindly.

I don't agree, and with vigor.

If I intuit her motive correctly, then her post constitutes the worst sort of political discourse. It is bad enough merely because it is a logical irrelevancy but then toss in the slime element (suggestion he is somehow like Sadaam or that he is maybe Muslim so unChristian/unAmerican) and we are at the very bottom of the barrel. Our understanding of Obama is not forwarded but rather is occluded. Truth or accuracy are purposefully avoided and (what is essentially) a lie is presented. It is morally and intellectually despicable.

Meanwhile, Sen. Evan Bayh is preparing his run..

Sen. Bayh seeks edge in Democratic field

On an aside... What strikes me in an article like this, however interesting re keeping track of who's in the running and how they're doing, is that in its 20+ paragraphs, it does not say a single thing about the man's proposed policies, program or even political views, aside from that he's a "moderate". There's just no discussion of what issues he's known for, what positions he took in the Senate, what he campaigned on to get elected, nothing. Its all about style (knows how to work with the other party, etc) and strategy (retail politics, etc), like thats just all there is to policy.

I would not blame this on Bayh. Articles about other candidates, of either party, are the same. I think it has to do with the nature of US politics, and/or the state of media reporting.

Ugh, yeah. "Retail politics," "selling himself,"...



Like that's all there is to getting elected.

Completely agree that as an article, it's distressing. I understand that the angle is whether he's electable/ viable, (my same angle in starting this thread, after all) but they can't get a couple of paragraphs of what he actually has done/ stands for in there? ("Tough and smart" on terrorism is way too general.)

They can't do that. If you give readers hard facts about the politician, they might develop their own opinions about his electability. This in turn would make them independent of you, the journalist-sage, and the wise articles you will write in the future. That's a big, fat, no-no.

thomas

I don't think that's it in this case, though I acknowledge the modern symbiosis of the media industry and the political industry. Rather, this instance seems to me the too typical 'stenography pretending to be reportage' failing...take the text and viewpoint as given to you by a political agent (thus saving dollars necessary for independent investigation and protecting ones' psyche from the travails of actually thinking).

It is that, but I think it's also more than that. It seems the idea that wondering about the candidate's actual political positions, program, proposals just doesnt even come into the journalist's mind - or, equally possible and more disturbingly - that he automatically assumes that the reader isnt interested in any of that "dry" stuff.

It is of course a professional risk for anyone who works reporting the day-to-day political developments to simply start overseeing basic questions, like who stands where, and narrow one's perception to purely the margin of difference of things changing from one day to the next - the horserace. Who's ahead now? who's tripped up whom? whom are the odds going for? Politics becomes sport, parliamentary journalists become sports reporters ("and it's Hillary far ahead, but Warner is the dark horse, in the inside curve its Bayh, will he have a chance, aaand its a attack by Feingold he's out in the far left curve, he's up 40 feet out from the group pursuing the front woman, but oh no he's tackled by Reid, and.." etc). I acknowledge that.

But it would also be easy to keep an open eye about that. I think it gets so trivialised purely out of the assumption that the readers, too, are only interested in the game, the race, the personalities. That nobody cares about what people actually stand for in concrete terms, beyond the tired, uebergeneral cliches of liberal, moderate, conservative.

Of course, that could even be true, too, which would be the other problem. But I dont think it is to the extent reporters assume it to be, and I think they serve democracy badly by basically removing all content beyond hot-button issues from the discourse of day-to-day political reporting, and present it purely as the infotainment of action, winners, losers, us, them.

Then part of the problem too is the he-said, she-said interpretation of objectivity. Objectivity is equated with neutrality: you ask someone of the one party his take, someone of the other party; a conservative commentator, a liberal commentator. End of story. Whereas IMO that's only where a journalist's work starts: he's gotta find out if the respective claims are true, report the facts and data of the matter, and present those alongside the partisan commenting. That still leaves the reader to make up his own mind, but gives him more to go on than merely taking sides for which side's commentator he likes best / thinks sounds best.

Actual assessment of the sides' positions is left to columnists, but freed of the demands of journalistic doublechecking they are in turn just political hacks. What about just simple journalistic fact-checking? Actual evaluation of respective claims, but within the standards of straight journalism? Its like journalists are so afraid to present any assessment of what's going on that they've just delegated anything remotely like it to the commentators and columnists - except that those do not have to worry about backing up anything they say.

Course the US political system doesnt help. When elections loom in Holland, or Hungary, or pretty much any European country (and thats including Britain), the parties will draft and present an election program, that is the basis of their campaign. This is what we stand for. This is what we want to do when we get into power. Vote for us if you want this. Whereas a couple times, I must admit, I went on doomed errants when a conservative here demanded, "so, what does the Democratic party stand for?" To my surprise, it is very hard to find a simple straight-up list of the party's program points, its promises and proposals. But then its no different for the Republican Party.

Without the enforced break of party congress, party platform and election program, US races seem to dump straight into the trivialities that end up dominating any election campaign: something someone said, some minor but symbolic scandal, the leader's feel-good image or accusations of dishonesty. That happens everywhere, but elsewhere you always simply have the election program to fall back on. Noone is going to read it all, but the parties in turn will do their best to summarise in leaflets, on websites: 10 promises! 10 reasons why you should vote for us and not our nearest rival! And then an explanation of the differences in positions.

In Holland, the various internet "Vote-tests" that appear before elections are hugely popular. Something like one in three or one in four voters last time used it. But those tests, too, are based on there being election programs, and it being possible to ask questions about different issues and test exactly where each party stands on it.

Lost my train of thought...

It is clear that the Expert on Europe is highly confused. Professor Nimh wrote:

Course the US political system doesnt help. When elections loom in Holland, or Hungary, or pretty much any European country (and thats including Britain), the parties will draft and present an election program, that is the basis of their campaign. This is what we stand for. This is what we want to do when we get into power. Vote for us if you want this. Whereas a couple times, I must admit, I went on doomed errants when a conservative here demanded, "so, what does the Democratic party stand for?" To my surprise, it is very hard to find a simple straight-up list of the party's program points, its promises and proposals. But then its no different for the Republican Party.


I ask the professor these questions:

l. if( in) Pretty much any European Country, the parties will draft and present an election program" and if this is supposed to be SUPERIOR to the US model, why has the politics of Italy been akin to a Three Stooges comedy?

How many governments has Italy had since 1945.

2. Did the German program points promise a reduction in Unemployment figures? If they did, they lied.

3. What good is an "election Program" if it is just sheer bull hockey? The Germans are laboring under an 11% Unemployment.


IT IS CLEAR THAT PROFESSOR NIMH KNOWS N O T H I N G ABOUT US POLITICS AND US CAMPAIGNS. He apparently knows nothing about the Contract for America produced by the Republicans in 1994 which was the instrument which helped the Republicans take over the House and Senate since then.

Professor Nimh should do more reading on the US elections, It is clear he does not know what he is talking about. But that is to be expected from Europeans who do not live in the USA.