nimh wrote:Foxfyre wrote:You may have a point. When all there was to say about Obama was WOW, there wasn't much incentive for those who are not Obama-ites to hang around the thead. How do you argue against a WOW?
So then when there was actually something substantive to discuss, this did generate interest among those who enjoy discussing something instead of just saying WOW.
I guess you didnt actually read any of this thread back in those days, because it was a far cry from "just WOW". Back then there actually
was substantive discussion. About the strengths but also flaws of Obama's platforms and proposals - those who
were reading along will remember the rather exhaustive criticisms and defenses of Obama's health care plan, for example, thanks to Obama critic Thomas and Obams defender Soz, among others. About the strengths but also flaws of Obama's vision - inspiring or just vague? About strategies - is he able to expand the Democratic coalition, or vulnerable to even more erosion of the party's FDR-era voter base? About the role of race in America, and class - does Obama make enough of a priority of bread and butter issues of poverty, employment, income, is he not too wedded to the agenda of postmaterialist feel-good liberals?
The "substantive" contributions you claim for you and yours in this phase of the thread, on the other hand, basically come down to ever again dredging the mud of guilt-by-association with the Wright thing; recounting how some people (not you, of course, never you yourself, but
some people) think Obama doesnt love his country and is at heart some black militant radical; and an endless flow of gotchas and "liberals suck! no, conservatives suck!" type exchanges.
Some substance.
You make valid points and no, I didn't overlook the more substantive analysis of Obama and his programs. But my perception was that the Hillary supporters who found fault with Obama's point of view were not treated so much as wonks but more as distractions or the ideological 'enemy'. But that was months ago, so my perception (and memory) could definitely be flawed.
As a realist, I know very well that the next President may be a Democrat and while both Obama and Clinton are too far left to earn my vote, I was strongly preferring Obama between the two. But I wasn't particularly interested in the differences between Hillary and Obama since I had already picked my dog in the fight. I was happy with Obama's WOW factor.
The Wright affair, however, shook my confidence and caused me to back up and take a second look.
The Wright bruhaha was not invented by those on A2K, but something so prevalently on the front pages and something that at least temporarily affected Obama's approval rating was not an insignificant interruption of more benign wonkism. To have ignored that or to assume that it would not impact the public perception of who Obama was would have been extremely naive. The only reason it was relatively quickly blunted was because Hillary's manufactured 'Bosnia under fire' story was even more compelling (and easier to understand) on the evening news. Once Hillary is out of the picture--which seems probable--Obama will come under ever increasing scrutiny. He wont have Hillary drawing off some of the fire.
Part of wonkism, I think, is knowing what storms are brewing on the horizon, which ones might regenerate, and assessing his ability and credibility to weather them.
Having said that, I dislike mud slinging as much as anybody and try very hard not to personally participate in that. I think throwing out stuff just to see what might stick is the ugliest side of American poltiics. I don't see analysis of whatever PR problems a candidate might have as mud slinging, however. (Okay, I'll admit I came close myself with the Obama/Clinton collaboration theory, but that was more fun than mud slinging.)
Like you I would very much appreciate a forum where the nuts and bolts of policy, etc. could be explored without ugly partisan ideology sidetracking substantive discussion.
