Obama appeals to Indy's and Conservatives because he frames his liberal ideologies in very pragmatic and humane terms that all of us can relate to.
It's that simple. Ronald Reagan had the same gift
I remember Ronald Reagan quite well, and I haven't seen anything from Obama that fits that profile. It disappoints me because I believe Obama has the ability.
Perhaps you could cite some examples of Obama persuading people towards a liberal ideology by using universal language.
I remember in 1980 -- even those who would become "Reagan Democrats" were distrustful.
My parents - Carter voters and Carter believers in '76, were disgusted with him '80. They both basically flipped a coin between Anderson and Carter -- Reagan was too "out there" for them, but they were supremely disappointed in Carter. By 1984 - they were talking "our unions suck" (teacher and pipefitter -- both active in local union leadership) - because their respective unions dared go against St. Ronny... completely oblivious to Reagan's policies and such.
If Obama gets the nod - and if he wins the GE (and I worry much more about the nom than I do the GE) - we're not going to see the realignment I think will come for years... but I have absolute faith we will.
Obama sort of lulls and entices -- he doesn't sweep and swamp.
I am not saying you're wrong, but just that every time I have this conversation with an Obama supporter, it always seems to end with "trust me, he will get it done." Maybe he will, but there seems to be a ceiling on the number of people who can be converted with this faith-based approach.
I'm not saying otherwise - I completely understand where you're coming from.
I even readily accept the possibility that I could be dead wrong (either about Obama's sincerity, his ability -- or even both).
I think a big aspect to the whole discussion is also that if it does work -- we're not likely to be the ones that see it, rather, I think we won't see it until it's either well under way or maybe even after the fact. Even with the 84 landslide - I think it's fair to say that it took a decade for even the GOP to buy into the Reagan mythologizing.
Recall that Reagan was not only the long-time governor of California, he was also a card-carrying member of the conservative movement who had built up credibility ever since he gave a speech for Goldwater in 1964. He may have spoken in universal rhetoric, but no one had any doubt where his political loyalties resided.
Exactly. Which is something I find so frustrating in much of what has been said about Obama. I have no doubts about where his political loyalties reside. He doesn't feel the Iraq War vote should be a litmus test for the Presidency but I do. I think is was a litmus test of true liberalism. The man has lived his entire life on a singular path embracing liberal idealism: community organizer, civil rights lawyer, constitutional law professor, State Senator working on health care, and the rights of those coming into contact with the police and justice systems, US Senator working on Ethics. I have no doubts, none, about the card he carries and I don't need him to say Democrat over and over again to convince me.
I don't really trust him to govern progressively.
That is why I am for Edwards, but force me to choose between Clinton and Obama. I know from Clinton's experience and record that she won't govern progressively. Granted it will be better by far than anyone of the GOP side, and I will got out and work for her election (worked on her 2000 senate campaign, although on the WFP line). At least with Obama I can still hope, might be naive, I'll admit.
What makes you think Edwards will when he was so far from that as a US Senator. He co-sponsored the War. Mistake or no mistake, that was a support for pre-emption which went against the history of this country. That can't be explained away by it was a mistake.
Those are good points.
1) Can't source read these years ago, so take with grain of salt, but I remember reading an argument back in college that candidates tend to govern the way they campaign. Edwards is running a progressive, populist campaign. Clinton is running on experience, which means also running on the 90's Clinton presidency, which as a progressive populist, I hated.
2) In all honesty, Iraq is important, but the labor movement and economic inequality are my top issues. I am with Edwards the most on those issues.
Iraq was a mistake, if that vote is your litmus test, I have no problem with that. To me the destruction of the labor movement is critical to the destruction of the middle class and the democrats are a progressive powerful party. I think we need that built back as the #1 priority.
Or maybe conservative hate the Clintons and are all to willing to have the democratic nominee be someone who willingly embraces conservative talking points in a way that says "The Republican Revolution of the last 30 years is right and progressivism is wrong."
30 years?
The GOP picked up 2-3 senate seats and about a dozen house seats in the '78 mid-terms, but were still hopelessly in the minority.... I think the Dems still had a close to (if not?) super-majority in the Senate even after the losses - they certainly weren't more than a vote or 2 from it.
I'd stay away from sweeping generalizations without a better grasp on the facts.
It's basically 30 years. You are really objecting that he said 30 instead of 28?
I disagree with a lot that WD says, but that's nuts.
They didn't win a majority in 1980, either... just defeated a sitting President in an election where the Dem incumbent had the worst breaks in the world working against him.
We didn't get a GOP speaker of the house until 1994.
I don't think you can win this argument other than on the technical point that 28 is not quite 30. The Republicans picked up 12 Senate seats in 1980!
They didn't seem to like it when Bill Clinton did that in the 90's. Rolling back the new deal and declaring the era of big govt over didn't seem to win him many friends.
