MyDD :: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . .

by Todd Bennett on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:38:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No. He attacked the symbols of perceived Democratic failure. Mainly Carter and Johnson. Much like we need to do with Bush, which Obama probably will do.

Re: Reagan Did This (3.00 / 4)

Say huh? Reagan attacked liberalism and the Democratic Party.

Honestly, why are you trying to remake Reagan into what he was not?

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:22:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Todd Bennett on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:19:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Liberalism was seen as a symbol of failure because of how he was able to label Carter. Much like we need to do with Bush.

Re: Reagan Did This (3.00 / 2)

Reagan did not fall from the sky in 1980.

Honestly, I do think you do not know much about Ronald Reagan and his political rise.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:07:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

BTD, these folks did not (3.00 / 3)

live through Reagan; nor do they know history. They have a fantasy view of Reagan. Reagan was a racist and classist. He made jokes about "welfare mon's using food stamaps to buy orange juice and vodka." He was absolutely partisan.

Put simply, they are ignorant of history.

by littafi on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:52:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BTD, these folks did not (3.00 / 1)

All so very true. I don't want to knock the youth because I was once a starry eyed idealist too. But their knowledge of actual history comes from books, not the life experience that some of us have.

Reagan was a horrible man and President. He was just like Bush in ignoring the Constitution. He sold weapons to the Iranians after they held our citizens hostage. And all to fund an illegal war. He was a racist and a sexist and a homophobe and an idiot. He was however very popular with his base and could frame things in a way that allowed him to run roughshod over the Constitution and then pretend to not be able to recall what he did or said. He was a much better actor than Hollywood ever gave him credit for. If Carter had not been so ineffective Reagan would never have had a chance. Geez... Reagan also named names during the McCarthy era. He wasn't a good role model for anyone with any integrity. That is why he is the hero of the Neocons, because they have no integrity.

by DoIT on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:30:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan Did This (3.00 / 1)

Todd, I don't mean to be personal here, but are you old enough to actually remember the Reagan years?

by bookgrl on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:29:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Todd Bennett on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:23:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes. I am old enough to remember.

Hmm, really? (none / 0)

by bookgrl on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:40:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Todd Bennett on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:42:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

1976.

by bookgrl on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:46:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ok, so you're 31. You're pretty young, but still I am suprised you know so little about Reagan.

by Todd Bennett on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:52:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

30. But, I know more about Reagan than you think. You see, he did indeed attack Democrats relentlessly with one hand while at the same time reaching out to the disaffected with the other. Therein lies the difference. He never completely left the center in terms of rhetoric, which is remembered more then his policy.

by Todd Bennett on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:53:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Also, Barack knows how to be unifyingly partisan, which is hard to do.

Re: Hmm, really? (3.00 / 3)

NO NO NO. He didn't reach out to disaffected Democrats, he employed the southern strategy. In fact, Reagan was an excellent divider. He had this way of talking about "Americans" when he really only meant some "Americans". Gays, ethnic and racial minorities, feminists, etc., none of these people fit into Reagan's America. You do Obama no favors by comparing him to Reagan.

by bookgrl on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 03:00:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Todd Bennett on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 03:09:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I did not compare except to point out the similarites in the movement idea. Reagan did reach out to Democrats-I do not recall saying how he reached out to them was positive. However, Southern strategy had nothing to do with it. Check out the electoral map. Carter lost MO, IL, CA, OH.

by bookgrl on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 03:15:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ah, sorry wrong. I meant southern strategy as in picking off white working class voters who were... let's say uncomfortable with minorities.

by Todd Bennett on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 03:22:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

In 1976 Carter was called a moderate on race issues. Jimmy was hardly seen as a racial progressive at the time. So I dispute your assertion. Polling shows economic dissatisfaction and TWA sunk Carter, not race issues.

by bookgrl on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 03:37:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's a quote from an article I found for you: "The failure of the Carter presidency on multiple fronts allowed the Republicans an opportunity to recoup. In 1980, Ronald Reagan used an updated version of the 1968 Nixon class and race strategy, and it worked. The only Southern state Jimmy Carter held on to was his home state of Georgia. Reagan got 51.4 percent of the Southern vote, as compared to 50.5 percent of the Northern vote, and Southern turnout rose to 23.9 percent of the national vote.

In 1984, Reagan faced another Northern liberal, and this time he got more than 14 million Southern votes. His 62.4 percent of the Southern vote was a bit higher than his national percentage."

But go ahead and google Reagan and Southern Strategy and maybe you'll get the idea.

Re: Hmm, really? (3.00 / 2)

well that explains alot. if you are 30- sorry but that means you didn't even experience the clinton races as they were happening, but instead through second hand knowledge. thats why all this wrapping seems new to you.

by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:47:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmm, really? (3.00 / 1)

My recollection of Reagan is different than yours, at the other end of the same age decade.

I remember a President who relentlessly attacked Democrats - rhetorically, politically, and in terms of policy development.

In light of Rove, et al, who have taken partisan throat-slitting to a whole other level, he may appear somewhat tamer in comparison, but that is really more a function of the context in which he operated as compared to the current context. And he had an entire GOPer/Right Wing apparatus (Heritage, etc.) the arose post-Vietnam to lurch the country to the right (a trend that actually began during Carter's term who many now falsely consider a great liberal given work after his term).

This reach out you are referring to actually worked, in my mind, as demonizing, race-baiting, gay-bating, atheism-bating to make "liberalism" and "Democratic" so tainted that certain demographics previously inside the Democratic tent thought "yuck, I don't want to be lumped in with that".

That's not "reaching out" in my book.

"We live entangled in webs of endless deceit, often self-deceit, but with a little honest effort, it is possible to extricate ourselves from them". -- NC

by Trond Jacobsen on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:40:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Stop being condescending. n/t (none / 0)

The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.

by Populism2008 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 05:27:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop being condescending. n/t (3.00 / 2)

and there you go again- when someone disagrees you play victim. it is only condescending if someone is trying to act better than for hte purpose of acting better than rather than making a point about experience. or doesn't actual experience matter here?

by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:48:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmm, really? (3.00 / 1)

So you were 4 when Reagan ran for President in 1980.

I was 4 in 1972 and cannot remember a damned thing about that campaign. I was, however, 12 in 1980 and remember that campaign very well.

You say that Reagan "attacked Carter and Johnson". That's completely wrong. Reagan didn't ever attack Johnson at all and did not make attacking Carter personally one of his main themes. (In contrast to Atwater/Rove/Bush politics, Reagan didn't demonize his opponents in the same way.)

Reagan did constantly berate the "liberal" and "Democrat" labels. He unashamedly and publicly equated "Republican" with "good". Even when he was shot he famously asked if his doctor was a Republican. The implication always was that Democrats are incompetent.

by RickD on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:27:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

I was 10 in 1980 and I remember the Reagan years the exact same way. Reagan may have won two landslides but he was relentlessly partisan.

by Steve M on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 04:11:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan Did This (3.00 / 0)

FDR tacitly supported third-party candidates and even Republicans in Wisconsin and Georgia, opposed Democrat Huey Long, and refused to endorse Upton Sinclair for California Governor. Call him what you want, but exceedingly partisan he wasn't.

by Nonpartisan on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:26:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan Did This (3.00 / 6)

This is ridiculous.

That FDR formed coalitions in specific instances, and coopted the Progressive movement into the Democratic coalition is not the smae as saying he was not partisan.

You would rarely see a more vicious partisan than Roosevelt.

Partisans have poltical enemies in their camps too.

You confuse the two concepts.

You are absolutely wrong about this.

May I direct you to google my writings on FDR at TalkLeft.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:29:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

In a sense FDR was "partisan" (3.00 / 0)

But his "party" was the New Deal, not the Democrats. One of the "Four Horsemen" on the Supreme Court whom FDR opposed was a Democratic appointee (James McReynolds), and two of the Roosevelt-allied "Three Musketeers" were Republican appointees (Benjamin Cardozo and Harlan Stone, whom FDR later appointed Chief Justice). He opposed Huey Long because Long opposed the New Deal, and Upton Sinclair because Sinclair wanted to go farther than Roosevelt's New Deal reforms; he supported Norris and La Follette because they were staunch New Dealers.

FDR was unquestionably a Democrat. But his efforts to remake the party in his own image were more important to him than simple party labels. He was a partisan for his own ideas first and foremost, with the Democratic Party a distant second. James MacGregor Burns quotes him as saying in 1934, "I am trying to get across the idea that if we have the right kind of people the party label does not mean so very much" (The Deadlock of Democracy, p. 159).

More discussion of this going up at my place shortly.

by Nonpartisan on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 04:36:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In a sense FDR was "partisan" (3.00 / 5)

His PArty was the Democrats. His AGENDA was the New Deal.

That you did not5 see how FDR made them synonomous is a demonstration of how folks seem not to understand PArty branding.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:15:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The "Portland Speech", September 21, 1932:

And how did he talk?

Was it smash-mouth, in-your-face, anti-Republican rhetoric?

When questions like these are under consideration, we are not Democrats, we are not Republicans; we are a people united in a common patriotism. This is the spirit of my entire campaign.

How about FDR's 'Forgotten Man' Speech, April 7, 1932
Just into the speech, the SECOND sentence is:

I do not want to feel that I am addressing an audience of Democrats or that I speak merely as a Democrat myself. The present condition of our national affairs is too serious to be viewed through partisan eyes for partisan purposes.

And that's the very last time in the speech any party name is given.

Your dislike for this style of rhetoric has little bearing on whether the population at large will react. But FDR certainly had no problem positioning himself as above/beyond partisan posturing.

by jacortina on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:38:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In a sense FDR was "partisan" (3.00 / 2)

Oh for crissakes. link:

This is a funny campaign. It is a strange campaign. Here it is almost the day of election and it is still impossible to determine what are the principles of the opposition party. What is it that the Republican leaders would do during the next four years if they were given a chance?
They have made campaign speeches on all sides of all questions.

On a Monday we hear that this Administration has done a good job in its foreign policy; but on Tuesday we hear the foreign policies of the United States condemned.

On a Wednesday we understand that our policy toward agriculture should not be changed; and on Thursday we learn to our amazement that the farmers have been the victims of the New Deal and are forced to exist on a dole.

And so it goes. On a Friday we are treated to the encouraging thought that the social gains of labor during the past seven years should be continued; and on Saturday we are told to weep because labor has been the principal sufferer under the New Deal. (Laughter)

To one group, further and bigger relief is held out; and to the big taxpayers, cuts in expenditures are promised.

One day they say they would continue our good neighbor policy; the next day they hurl insults at certain of our good neighbors to the south.

That is the way they seek to catch a vote here and catch a vote there and pick one out of the air.

There is, however, one explanation for these contradictions, rather a sad explanation. It is found in the very strange assortment of political bedfellows who have been brought together in the Republican political dormitory.

Many conflicting interests, many irreconcilable social outlooks, many fundamentally opposite economic attitudes, have been thrown together under one political roof.

The only common philosophy and the only common purpose they have is to get wholly rid of all the New Deal--lock, stock and barrel--and to get control of Government in their own hands for their own purposes.

Just as they have not been able to foist their falsifications on the American people, they will never be able to foist this only common purpose of theirs upon the American people now.

We will all see to that next Tuesday.

We all know the story of the unfortunate chameleon which turned brown when placed on a brown rug, and turned red when placed on a red rug, but who died a tragic death when they put him on a Scotch plaid. We all know what would happen to Government if it tried to fulfill all the secret understandings and promises made between the conflicting groups which are now backing the Republican Party.

There is something very ominous in this combination that has been forming within the Republican Party between the extreme reactionary and the extreme radical elements of this country.

There is no common ground upon which they can unite--we know that-unless it be their common will to power, and their impatience with the normal democratic processes to produce overnight the inconsistent dictatorial ends that they, each of them, seek. . .

You compare a speech of a pol cruising to a landslide victory to one locked in partisan battle. And you think the "non-partisan" speech is the one that is the true example of FDR's political style?

FDR was one of the most divisive politicans we have ever seen. He as demonized hated reviled by the Republican Party. And he hated them.

FDR was one of the high practioners of the Politics of Contrast.

Let me remind you of a phrase - "economic royalists."

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:09:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by jacortina on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:23:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Learn some history.

The 'Forgotten Man' speech was at teh beginning of his run for the nomination.

He used the rhetoric that happened to be working at the time.

And bozos sniping in from the sidelines about his 'style' made no difference in how he decided to speak. And his agenda was the same no matter how he talked about it.

It's really not that hard to understand. My teenage daughter gets it fine. What's wrong with you that you can't?

Re: In a sense FDR was "partisan" (3.00 / 2)

Learn some what?

How about you understand what FDR's political position was in 1932.

How about you listen and watch and see everything FDR said and didd from 1933 to 1940 and se if you can with a straight face argue he was not partisan.

This is simply anti-historical.

I see no point to discussing the idea of political partisanship with someone who is arguing that FDR was nonpartisan.

Imo, it is simply a ludicrous statement.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:45:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Campaign Address at Columbus, Ohio, August 20, 1932:

Learn to read first, I guess I should have said.

I at no time indicated he wasn't partisan. Not once.

I indicatred that in his run up to his initial nomination and election, he used rhetoric which was quite often absolutely non-partisan. which 'reached across the divide'.

I do note ALL the examples you give of this pre-presidential period. Oh, that's right, you completely failed to back up your assertions. Way to support your argument.

You think that the two examples I gave aren't indicative? There are more -

Campaign Speech in Atlanta, Ga., October 24, 1932:

I am confident after the 4th of March next that the American people will find a greater co-operation between these two great branches of government - a better relationship in which not only democrats but republicans as well take part.

Damn his 'Kumbaya'-singing, come-together tripe.

I regret that necessity, for destructive criticism is never justified for its own sake. And yet, to build we must first clear the ground. We must find out why the Republican leadership--and mind you, all the way through this campaign I am not talking about the millions of fine men and women who make up the Republican Party, I am addressing my remarks to the Republican leadership--why that Republican leadership built so unwisely.

Way to hammer those Republicans! Pandering to the Republican BASE (as opposed to its leadership in the then-current administration) is NOT the language of unabashed partisanship.

Sorry, but you can't simply declare history to be the way you wish it to be. Of course FDR was the strongest of Democrats. But while he was seeking to become president, he used quite a bit of specifically non-partisan and even conciliatory language.

by jacortina on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:12:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:23:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not hearing me.

In 1932, FDR was headed to a landslide victory.

In 1984, Reagan was headed to a landslide victory.

Candidates in those situation stay above the fray.

I suggest you look for statements by FDR outside of that campaign to buttress your point.

You'll find that history is on my side on this point.

Facts, schmacts... (none / 0)

Your whole problem here is that you are relying too much on your head, instead of your gut. Don't you know that you have more nerve endings in your gut than your head?

It's no wonder that those advocating for "post-partisanship" reject your bookish history, after all reality has a well known liberal bias.

The funny thing is that the Radical Right also wants to get to a post-partisan world, which will come to be when they are finished vanquishing their true "enemy". No, that "real enemy" is not Al Qaeda, not China, not N Korea, and not Iran. The "real enemy" is liberals.

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics

by Alex Urevick on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 09:16:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by jacortina on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:25:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And I note that you can only give an example of FDR speaking from the strength of the incumbency.

And you can't actually figure out that that makes a difference?

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:46:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Indeed I can.

Can you figure out that a political candidate headed to a landslide victory doies not need to be partisan?

See, eg, Reagan, Ronald, 1984.

And he was an incumbent too.

Does that mean anything to you?

by jacortina on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:19:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I include quotes where he was not yet the nominee.

And since it took four ballots for him to actually be chosen, any attempt to claim that he was inevitable when making those earlier comments are, to say the least, mistaken.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:23:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He was running for President throughout 1932 even though he became the nominee in the summer.

That is a silly distinction.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:50:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

BTW, the Portland speech is a great speech where FDR strongly and ably defends government intervention against laizzez faire capitalism.

He does NOT say "on the one hand . . "

Could you find the sdpeech by Obama that you think most resembles that speech?

I can find none.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:51:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

In fact, you have inspired to write another diary, this time on that speech comparing it to the typical Obama speech.

Thank you.

If you do, you should use this one. (none / 0)

In 2005, Obama gave a commencement address at Knox College. It's an incredible speech about a robust, American liberal worldview.

From the TNR review:

What happens when a prominent political figure who's usually a media star gives a great speech that doesn't get much news coverage? If the pol and the staff are smart, they'll keep using the frame and the phrasings until the news media, political insiders, and, eventually, a national audience start paying attention--and the speech that once was ignored becomes the politician's trademark. That, at any rate, is what happened to Ronald Reagan's case for conservatism, Mario Cuomo's tribute to "the family of America," and John Edwards's populist stump speech.

Much the same fate may await the commencement address Barack Obama delivered at Knox College on June 4. The speech got little coverage outside local papers and has been largely ignored by columnists and talking heads. Perhaps that's because few national journalists or even Chicago-based reporters are inclined to visit Galesburg, Illinois, on a Saturday; or maybe because Obama's speech didn't make news in the conventional sense--it contained no attacks on his adversaries, no announcements of new policy proposals, no slurs on entire segments of society.

All Obama did was make the best case for liberal politics in recent memory, with a panoramic view of American history that made public investment in job training and new technologies sound like the logical descendents of the Civil Rights movement, the New Deal, the Progressive Era, the abolitionists, and the American Revolution.

Link to review:
http://obama.senate.gov/news/050620-stum ped_barack_star/index.php

Here's a sampling:

The true test of the American ideal is whether we are able to recognize our failings and then rise together to meet the challenges of our time. Whether we allow ourselves to be shaped by events and history, or whether we act to shape them. Whether chance of birth or circumstance decides life's big winners and losers, or whether we build a community where, at the very least, everyone has a chance to work hard, get ahead, and reach their dreams.

We have faced this choice before.

At the end of the Civil War, when farmers and their families began moving into the cities to work in the big factories that were sprouting up all across America, we had to decide: Do we do nothing and allow the captains of industry and robber barons to run roughshod over the economy and workers by competing to see who can pay the lowest wage at the worst working conditions?

Or do we try to make the system work by setting up basic rules for the market, and instituting the first public schools, and busting up monopolies, and letting workers organize into unions?

We chose to act, and we rose together.

When the irrational exuberance of the Roaring Twenties came crashing down with the stock market, we had to decide: do we follow the call of leaders who would do nothing, or the call of a leader who, perhaps because of his physical paralysis, refused to accept political paralysis?

We chose to act - regulating the market, putting people back to work, expanding bargaining rights to include health care and a secure retirement - and together we rose.

When World War II required the most massive homefront mobilization in history and we needed every single American to lend a hand, we had to decide: Do we listen to the skeptics who told us it wasn't possible to produce that many tanks and planes?

Or, did we build Roosevelt's Arsenal of Democracy and grow our economy even further by providing our returning heroes with a chance to go to college and own their own home?

Again, we chose to act, and again, we rose together.

Today, at the beginning of this young century, we have to decide again. But this time, it's your turn to choose.

Link to speech:
http://www.barackobama.com/2005/06/04/re marks_of_us_senator_barack_o.php

by rashomon on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 05:36:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He made them synonymous (none / 0)

by going OUTSIDE his party as needed to change it.

FDR wasn't bipartisan, but he was more interested in shaping his party around his agenda than shaping his agenda around his party. He made them synonymous by talking bipartisanship while acting in a highly partisan way. That could very well be what Obama is doing, though I don't think it is. But the problem with Obama is not his rhetoric, it's his actions, which are not in line with party-building.

by Nonpartisan on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:57:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He made them synonymous (none / 0)

look stop making shit up. support whoever you want, but you are making up history

by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 05:18:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He made them synonymous (none / 0)

FDR crashed the gates is what you are saying.

And you are right.

So what is your point? Obama is not doing that.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 06:59:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, he's not (none / 0)

My point isn't about Obama -- I agree with your characterization of him. I disagree with your characterization of FDR.

by Nonpartisan on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:30:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan Did This (3.00 / 1)

Are you kidding me with this stuff? Packing the court, threatening the GOP in Congress to name just some of his actions. His agenda was based on it. I have to ask- are some of you people really Democrats because you seem to know nothing of your own history.

by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:19:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Just because you disagree with me (none / 0)

doesn't mean that I'm not a Democrat, or that I "seem to know nothing of [my] own history." On the contrary, lobbing such accusations at me paints a rather bad picture of your own ability to debate honestly and honorably.

I've answered your points in detail in my response to BTD above.

by Nonpartisan on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 04:42:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just because you disagree with me (3.00 / 1)

honestly i dont give a shit whether you are a democrat. the fact you bring it up in the middle of a discussion about fdr is why i find most o fyou illogical and hightly emotional rather than saying anything remotely useful toward understanding the subject matter. and as for all the rest of what you say- i suppose all the historians. courses i took in college on the subject, and multiple other sources both anectotal and through books are wrong, but now with this revisionist history we have always been about non partisanship. it's just plain stupid feel goodism and i dont care if you don't like it.

by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:50:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by skeptica on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:23:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Reagan might have mercilessly attacked liberals and specific contemporary Democrats--but in his presidential campaigns he repeatedly quoted and thus identified himself with DEMOCRATIC presidents and heroes such as FDR and Truman. He coopted democratic symbols and ideals and rhetoric to get elected. It was maddening at the least. He captured conservative Democrats with the idea that they weren't leaving the party; the party had already deserted them.

Re: Reagan Did This (3.00 / 2)

Oh really? Like in Philadelphia, Mississippi to kick off his 1980 campaign?

You must be joking.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:11:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan Did This (3.00 / 1)

I don't remember Reagan once comparing himself to any Democrat. Obviously he would not compare himself to Nixon, but I always got the sense that he was trying to inherit Ike's mantle.

And he was very pro-Goldwater.

All of the stuff about the Democratic party "deserting" Democrats (i.e. "Reagan Democrats", who were basically Southern Democrats) is an after-effect of the Civil Rights movement. Southern Democrats were not all that fond of the Civil Rights movement. Remember that, before Nixon, the Democratic party was the locus of Southern racism, while the Republicans were the party of Lincoln. Nixon and Reagan changed that dynamic to what it is today, where Southern racism is located in the Republican party.

In no way does this mean that Reagan was anything less than a partisan Republican. After all, he personally started out as a Democrat. But there were no vestiges of what we currently think of as "Democratic" ideals even in the 1960s.

by RickD on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:34:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (3.00 / 3)

Are you familiar with Nixon's southern strategy? That had a whole lot more to do with Democrats voting for Reagan than redefining the Republican brand in a "positive way". And, by the way, Dem's are in the best position they've been in in decades. The Republicans are at their lowest ebb. Now, is not the time to run away from the Party. This has alot more to do with Obama running as the "outsider" and probably banking on getting indies into the primary in order to win than it does redifining politics.

by bookgrl on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:45:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (1.00 / 2)

You realize of course that we are not popular. It's just that voters prefer the taste of Milk of Magnesia (us) to Castor Oil (them). We desperately need an independent Democrat to create excitement about our party.

by Todd Bennett on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:51:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (none / 0)

Not true, absolutely untrue. Obama is no more "independent" than any one else running. And, whomever the next President, they can create support for the Party by proper governance, something sorely lacking the last 8 years.

by bookgrl on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:54:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (none / 0)

Though it took me a while to realize this, Obama's 2002 "Dumb war" speech to me proves you wrong. He was an independent thinking Democrat we could have desperately used.

by Todd Bennett on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:57:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (3.00 / 2)

He wasn't in the Senate. He was in a district that was heavily anti-war. Well, I was against the war from the start and this stuff doesn't move me at all. Obama is a Cook county career politician. I stand by what I said, he's no more independent than Hillary, Edwards or Richardson. That's not a knock on him. I think all four are good Democrats. But I don't prescribe to the notion Obama is anymore independent than the next. We'll have to agree to disagree I guess.

by bookgrl on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:05:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (none / 0)

His district...of Illinois?

by faithfull on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 06:52:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (3.00 / 1)

You realize of course that we are not popular.

WRONG (shout intended!)

What ISN'T popular are the namby pamby afraid to stand up to the Neocon Democrats: Democrats that let people like Gingrich/Limbaugh/Hannity/Cheney/Coulter /McConnell/Boehner (the seven headed beast) define our party and obstruct Democracy. Leaders like Harry Reid that wait till now to finally grow some. Democrats that allow these Neocon assholes to get away with calling us immoral baby killers and godless so and sos.

I GUARANTEE you that if we start standing up to these Neocons liars and thieves we WILL be popular once again. The fact that we haven't as a party stood up to them has disenchanted our base.

by DoIT on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:25:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (3.00 / 2)

We desperately need an independent Democrat to create excitement about our party.

We have an independent Democrat in the Senate: Lieberman. I don't want one in the White House.

by domma on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:31:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (3.00 / 2)

I think this comment says it all. You don't actually believe in the ideals of the Democratic party.

Many of us think that voters prefer the policies of the Democratic party, but dislike the unending stream of weak leaders that this party seems to offer. Having yet another leader who feels embarrassment about his own constituency (i.e. 'Democrats') is not going to solve this problem. To have real political power Democrats need to do more than win individual elections using triangulation strategies. (Look at how little Clinton got done in the White House.) To have real political power will require a sea change in terms of getting people to respect Democrats.

A person like yourself who views Democrats as "Milk of Magnesia" is unlikely to help our cause.

by RickD on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:41:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (none / 0)

I hope you are right.

That would be heartening to me believe it or not.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:09:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (none / 0)

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how Reagan operated politically.

Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up

by Peter from WI on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:13:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (3.00 / 0)

You're just feiging shock. Give up the act. If you are for real, than you are more loyal to the party than to progressive values. The two are not synonomous. And if you thinl they are than you are truly out of touch. Many of us find that the Democratic values does not speak to our concerns as much as it should, though of course far more than the republicans. Indeed, there are many things that I find very disturbing about the party.

For people like me, then, I'm not content with the party as is and not willing to devote my blind loyalty to it. No, I seek to comandeer the party, mold the party into something more closer to where I'm at. Just because the Democratic Party is ideal for you as currently situated, it doesn't mean that it's that way for the rest of us.

by bode78 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:37:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (3.00 / 4)

This comment makes no sense.

Obama is not critiquing the Party from the Left but from the Right.

Unless your idea is to mold the Party to the Center Right your simply are not making sense.

Consider the arguments being forwarded here, Obama appeals to Independents and Republicans, he is not doing that be arguing for a more progressive party but for a less progressive party.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:07:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (1.00 / 1)

Rename yourself "Small Tent"

by bode78 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:40:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (3.00 / 3)

Is this the adults in action?

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:08:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (3.00 / 1)

Ah, the adults have arrived.

Sheesh.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:10:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (none / 0)

tHIS IS JUST PLAIN NITPICKING. wHY DON'T YOU TALK ABOUT SUBSTANCE.
1 iraq
2 healthcare
3 energy

Then you can criticize his plans and show his short comings. Why not look at Clinton's also. She has no plan on Healthcare.

by BDM on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:07:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Running against... (none / 0)

... the Democratic Party like Howard Dean did, you mean?

What's the Point?

by Vermonter on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:09:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Historical Revisionsim Much? (none / 0)

Yeah, when Dean was saying he "represents the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" what he really meant was that we need to get beyond the whole Democratic Party thing.

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics

by Alex Urevick on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 09:35:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hmmm (none / 0)

this must be the royal "we"?

a lot of people taking the poll seem to completely agree with what Obama is saying.

by okamichan13 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:55:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (none / 0)

You are full of it Todd. Please give us a break sir.

by lonnette33 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:16:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (3.00 / 1)

I am not stall shocked because downplaying of partsian rhetoric is simply Obama being Obama.

Remeber the line fom the '04 convention speech: "There are no Red States, theer are no Blue State, there is only the United States of America".

Before that he was known as a liberal who worked conspicuously well the GOPers in the IL Senate; one of them recently did a commercial for Obama that was shown in Iowa.

Obama overall strategy seems to be to downplay party identification in the hope of making it easier to pull indenpendents and disaffected Republicans over to the Progressive side.

Time will tell if that is an effective strategy for either getting elected and getting progressive poliices enacted.

In the meeantime, if you prefer partisian red meat over Obama's grilled salmon, there is always Edwards and Kucinich.

by Sam I Am on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:33:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (none / 0)

No, I was not shocked. I expect this sort of stuff from Obama. For the life of me, I do not understand what he stands for. The "can we all just get along" bullshit has got to go.

by lonnette33 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:29:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Keep hating (1.00 / 1)

I smile at you like a mcdonal meal.

by JaeHood on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:12:54 AM EST

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:14:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

what?

What a buzarre comment.

BTW, do you agree with the comments I cite?

A simple question.

by BDM on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:09:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I just saw Zogby's poll on Congress 14% APPROVAL
Bush WAS AT 34%

bIG TENT i DON'T THINK YOUR METHOD is a winner.

Re: Keep hating (3.00 / 2)

you think the present congress is partisan? what's behind the polling numbers? you really don't get it do you. it's precisely all this stuff yo uare arguing that's behind it. rather than fighting harder the congress gave up on many things earlier in the year. the public responded to that. and you are now using their lack of courage as a sign that the public is tired of partisanship. you confuse their being tired with nothing getting done in washington for their goals with wanting to be nonpartisan. those aren't the same things. things can get done, and are more likely to get done in an environment in which you aren't layering it with feel goodism than it will in one in which you are.

by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:53:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by lonnette33 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:18:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well said bruh21.

"We live entangled in webs of endless deceit, often self-deceit, but with a little honest effort, it is possible to extricate ourselves from them". -- NC

But what is the cause of the slide?

I think the cause is related to two things, neither of which is that people dislike partisanship by Democrats.

The first is that some people (us lefties I presume) are unhappy that Congress is not going harder at GOPers, not that our leaders in Congress are too partisan.

The second is we are not succeeding in attacking the GOPers when we try due to structural factors, a right-leaning/establishmentarian media, poor strategy, etc.

Neither supports your implication, in my opinion.

by Trond Jacobsen on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:53:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (3.00 / 1)

Sure I think Democrats are better than Republicans, but that's not saying very much.

Obama is more interested in being a good progressive than sounding like one.

"Fatal flaw"? As if there's a fatal flaw to any of these campaigns. Shoddy analysis.

by bode78 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:22:06 AM EST

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (3.00 / 3)

Shoddy analysis indeed.

Click the link and perhaps you will have at least read the analysis.

You agree then that a Democratic presidential candidate should run against the Democratic Party?

BTW, the fatal flaw is not to Obama's chance, but to a progressive agenda which MUST necessarily be promoted by a strong Democratic Party.

You seem to believer Republicans will be a partner with Obama in enacting a progressive agenda. Now THAT is shoddy analysis.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:27:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (none / 0)

"You agree then that a Democratic presidential candidate should run against the Democratic Party?"

What evidence is there that Obama is running against the Democratic Party?

A "progressive agenda which MUST necessarily be promoted by a strong Democratic Party."

How Obama really weakening the Democratic Party?

You're making a lot of logical leaps here. But I understand. Some of us here are just different breeds. No point in trying to come together around this.

by bode78 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:32:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A Different Breed? (3.00 / 3)

What does that mean?

Let me simplify this. do you agree with this statement:

Obama gets it (3.00 / 4)

In the future, more and more people are poised to get sick of the terms Republican and Democrat, as they quickly becoming synonomous with bickering and corruption. It seems the good Senator sees this coming. And he is right, by the way.

And if so, what does Obama get? That people are poised to get sick of the terms Republicans and Democrats?

And what is Obama's answer? In other words, by getting it, what is his political response?

To me the logical inference is that he will attack Republicans AND Democrats. And indeed, thsat is exactly what he has done.

He has presented himself as the Other-Dem, not one of those nasty partisan Dems like, well all the rest of them.

Do you agree with my assessment and if so, how do you see that helping the Democratic Party? Or do you instead believe that the Democratic PArty is irrelevant to "progressivism" now?

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:38:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Todd Bennett on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:41:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, now that you mention it, maybe the herd does need to be thinned a bit. You know, there are Democrats that need to be put in their place too. At least on the war issue. Pryor and Nelson (NE) come to mind.

Re: A Different Breed? (3.00 / 0)

"Or do you instead believe that the Democratic PArty is irrelevant to "progressivism" now?"

No. I don't think that the party is irrelevant in this regard. But neither do I conflate the Democratic party with progressive values.

Obama will attack whoever needs to be attacked and he'll work with whomever can be used towards acheiving progressive outcomes.

If you're not a result-orientated operator that you are of no use.

by bode78 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:47:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:21:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is jabberwocky.

It has no relation to what Obama has done or is doing.

Why? (3.00 / 0)

I think that it perfectly describes what Obama is doing. He is attacking corruption, poverty, environmental degradation, a failing health care system, the war and so on.

He is the perfect spokesman for progressive values.

The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.

by Populism2008 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 05:31:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why? (3.00 / 2)

Then you have not seen him attack "the LEft?"

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:16:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by lonnette33 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:24:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are living in a dream world. Obama will not attack Republicans, only other Democrats- especially Hillary. Hillary's the frontrunner. I would love to see Obama and Hillary debate each other one on one. He would lose big time. He's a wimp; plain and simple.

He will turn America into a country (3.00 / 0)

of progressive people, especially coming generations. Whether they call themselves Democrats or not is beside the point.

I am a die hard partisan Democrat and hate purists and Naderites. But I don't really see what you see here. Obama is a mapchanger and will help the Democratic Party immensily.

The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.

by Populism2008 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 05:30:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He will turn America into a country (none / 0)

There are two ways to change the map, though.

One is to bring them over here where we are. Define and advance the image of the Democratic Party as progressive and working hard to help you, your family, and your future in the only way possible: Implementing progressive legislation.

The other is to walk over there while slamming the folks that 'brung ya'.

In the abstract I suppose I could support either approach if one or the other best achieved progressive change. The problem is that I do not see progressive legislation at the end of the second path.

None of this is to deny that Obama is a progressive in terms of his core values. I do not challenge is bona fides in this regard. I challenge his tactics.

I think the country is ripe for a multi-generational turn to the left. To get there we need the assistance of leaders who appreciate the moment and choose to help lead us there.

"We live entangled in webs of endless deceit, often self-deceit, but with a little honest effort, it is possible to extricate ourselves from them". -- NC

by Trond Jacobsen on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:03:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by BDM on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:11:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Look at the congressional polling. The democrats are not exactly over whelming the public on their accomplishments

Re: A Different Breed? (3.00 / 2)

Look inside the numbers.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:17:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Different Breed? (3.00 / 1)

exactly. it's like they are taking everything that points to their being a greater need- whether historical analysis like FDR - to Congressional ratings for the Congress failing to enact partisan bills such as getting out of Iraq as a sign of the public not wanting us to be partisan. They are getting the absolutely wrong message from it. The public wants effective, which has nothing to do with whether one is partisan or not, but they have turned it into a proxy for parsian versus non partisan. It's truly a bizzare second hand approach that seems to reflect more of an emotional desire than actual history or present factual circumstance.

by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:56:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by BDM on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:16:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The public wille the democrats if nothing is accomplished, because they perception is that they are in charge.

People donot look inside the numbers. They look at the headlines. The American people are saying a pox ON BOTH OF YOUR HOUSES.

by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:36:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

he means look behind why the public says what it ssays, and from what they say- they disagee with you. but then i am beginning to realize eiether some of you are great spinmeisters or naive in teh extreme.

Re: A Different Breed? (3.00 / 1)

The public is upset that the Democrats cannot (or will not) do anything about Bush. The solution isn't then to be a weaker Democrat, and it certainly isn't to run as a "centrist" by stepping on the heads of people who are supposed to be allies.

by RickD on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:45:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (3.00 / 0)

Would a President Obama be President of just the 52-56 percent of the country that votes for him? No, he would b President of everyone and it is morally imperative that we have a President who, for the first time in years, understands this.

by Todd Bennett on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:36:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (3.00 / 0)

Well Todd, it looks like you're more interested in acheiving progresive outcomes that settling scores with the Repubs. What the hell is wrong with you. You're not being a good Democrat.

by bode78 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:39:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is truly a different breed (3.00 / 1)

Enacting a progressive agenda requires "settling scores" with Republicans by DEFEATING THEM in elections.

There is an old saying you may want to consider, "you can't take the politics out of the politics."

Ed Kilgore shared that with me.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:45:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is truly a different breed (none / 0)

You are right. Politics ain't beanbag. We must remember however t difference between hammering a candidate and hamering a candidate's supporters.

by Todd Bennett on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:48:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is truly a different breed (3.00 / 1)

You have to do both. The individual candidates on the Republican side are not terribly important - there is no Reagan over there these days to worry about. The enemy is the vast network of drones that support the President. Yes, by all means we need to take on the 30-35% directly. Isolate them politically by showing how toxic their brand of politics is.

Also, this is a winning strategy. It requires keeping an eye on the enemy.

by RickD on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:47:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is truly a different breed (3.00 / 0)

Defeat the ones you can. That goes without saying But how about the ones that will remain? That can't be the entirety of our approach.

by bode78 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:52:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is truly a different breed (3.00 / 3)

They will not support your agenda.

Or are the adults expecting today's Republican Party to help enact a progressive agenda?

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:12:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is truly a different breed (none / 0)

Well our democratic candidates better distinguish themselves from Iraq BETTER ON THE WAR OR THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE WILL MORPH THEIR POSITIONS WITH THE DEMOCRATS(I.E RESIDUAL FORCE LEVELS)

by BDM on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:13:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (3.00 / 3)

Was FDR not President of the whole country?

Was he not partisian?

How about Ronald Reagan?

But frankly, you have changed the terms. You espoused a view that Obama would be a sort of "post-partisan" Presidential candidate and President.

To wit, you believe Obama will do what no other PResidential canidate or PResident has ever done and be able to govern in some sort of non-partisan style.

This is, to me, a very unlikely occurrence.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:40:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (2.00 / 1)

We hope for the unlikely. It is that rare moment of unlikely that makes the work worth it. We need someone to herd the cattle, not scar them with a branding iron.

by Todd Bennett on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:44:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (none / 0)

this sounds like new age bullshit. hope for a progressive agenda, hope for a better country,b ut don't hope for delusional beliefs that has nothing to do with politics.

by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:24:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (none / 0)

Unlikely is an unknown Arkansas Governor toppling a once popular President. Unlikely is a former Navy man in Virginia defeating a once thought Presidential candidate incumbent Senator. Unlikely happens. The hope for unlikely keeps us getting out of bed each morning.

by Todd Bennett on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:30:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (3.00 / 1)

what happened after he got into Office?

One word on Webb- I am from that state- Macaca.

So you just continue to spin the facts as mucha s you want. It will still be spin.

by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:57:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (none / 0)

You are caught up to much in the past Clinton-Bush presidencies.

by BDM on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:14:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (none / 0)

Um, Clinton had approval rating in the high 60's. He had a 73% approval rating when he was impeached. He understood perfectly well that he had to govern the whole country, so I assume you are just referring to Bush here, right?

by bookgrl on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:50:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (none / 0)

Absolutely. And Clinton is criticized often for being too bi-partisan, and he was a fairly popular President. It seems the middle does have a say in this.

by Todd Bennett on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:53:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (none / 0)

Clinton's approval rating actually went up due to republican overreach.

by bode78 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:59:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (none / 0)

For all but his first year he had approval rating in the mid to high sixties. It wasn't just Republican overreach.

by bookgrl on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:06:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (none / 0)

More importantly, we need a president for the 90% of the people who don't need politics to work for them to get by - and that includes a lot of people who don't vote. A president should at his or her core be the president for the people who are NOT engaged in the democratic process and civil society.

At least a Democratic president should be.

Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up

by Peter from WI on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:19:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OK, Obama has and does vote progressive (3.00 / 2)

but works to reach out to a broader electorate keeping the general election in mind. How can that be a bad thing?

Would you rather that he narrowly focus on carving out Democratic support for the sake of the primary, while losing track of and not solidify his GE prospects?

Some people don't seem to realize that to most people, Obama is a still a very fresh face (sure most know who he is, but do they know what kind of a guy he is). Obama is introducing himself to the broader American public while at the same time asking them to support him for President. He is doing that while espousing and selling progressive ideals.

I am glad that he is approaching it the way he is. I don't want to see him pile up huge unfavorables (which could result from too partisan a rhetoric), win the nomination, but jeopardize the general election due to high unfavorables.

Edwards is still polling in single digits in some polls (and a measly 13-14% in without Gore polls as well), and so for him turning his rhetoric more partisan amounts to a hail Mary pass (his sharply repositioned and self-contradicting posturing on the war was an early hail mary. It's surprising to see HRC follow JRE's approach on the war more recently. Maybe the numbers are still showing softness, and sensitivity to the war issue. Or maybe she wants to put the primary away).

The commenters used loose language that IS derisive of the Democratic party, but one should not attribute that in any way to Obama himself.

by NuevoLiberal on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:38:26 AM EST

Obama's strong progressive record (3.00 / 1)

for readers to explore:

1. Obama has a 92.8% progressive punch score.

2. votesmart.org

3. issues2000.org: Obama on the issues

4. Barack Obama's IL Senate record, by ChiGirl88, Sun May 06, 2007 at 03:04:59 AM PDT

5. ADA Ratings for Obama: 2005 (100%), 2006 (95%)

6. Obama's anti Iraq war speech, October 2002.

by NuevoLiberal on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:40:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strong progressive record (3.00 / 4)

This is NOT the issue.

Of course Obama is a progressive.

The question is political style.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:42:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strong progressive record (3.00 / 1)

So you don't like Obama's "style" ?

But he's substantively OK, yet you still complain?

Nevermind then, we have much better things to worry about.

Be thankful that you have the luxury to get hung up on such pettiness.

by bode78 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:50:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strong progressive record (3.00 / 3)

Style is incredibly important to political success and to the selling of the agenda you wish to enact.

IS this another instance of you being an adult?

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:09:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strong progressive record (3.00 / 0)

Ah ha. The agenda Barack wishes to enact is ours, not his. And "ours" applies to more than just Democrats.

by Todd Bennett on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:13:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strong progressive record (3.00 / 1)

Irrelevant comment frankly.

It has nothing to do with gaining the ability to enact that agenda.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:22:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strong progressive record (none / 0)

It is our agenda. We would give him license to enact it.

by Todd Bennett on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:20:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strong progressive record (3.00 / 2)

do you have any clue how politics works? how old are you? i keep asking this question because some of you see like new age flower children rather than people versed in how mandates work, political coalitions work or building political outcomes work.

by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:26:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strong progressive record (none / 0)

I have worked on the last four Presidential campaigns. Ultimately mandates come from people and they are not always just Democrats.

by Todd Bennett on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:48:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strong progressive record (3.00 / 1)

Apparently you learned nothing from being on campaigns

by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 03:04:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strong progressive record (3.00 / 1)

shrum worked on some too

by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 03:04:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strong progressive record (none / 0)

If you think his style is a losing style and he is not your candidate, then why are you complaining.

by BDM on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:16:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How ridiculous (none / 0)

Of course style is important. Kerry is a good progressive, why aren't you clamoring for him to run again? Hillary's voting record is very good, what makes Obama so much better?

Obama has a compelling personality, but his unwillingness to fight for the Democratic brand is a terrible flaw. He is no better than the other frontrunners substantively. His campaign is all about his style and it is perfectly legitimate to criticize him on stylistic grounds.

Check out McCain.

by you like it on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:36:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

As long as he is fighting (3.00 / 0)

for progressive values day in and day out I am satisfied.

The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.

by Populism2008 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 05:33:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As long as he is fighting (3.00 / 1)

that statement is practically meaningless. they all fight for progressive values, the question is whether its effective.

by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:59:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As long as he is fighting (none / 0)

Exactly, I think that Obama will be effective precisely because of his style. You don't. We're never going to agree on this. So why bother?

by bode78 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:07:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As long as he is fighting (3.00 / 1)

because you have to prove and i have to prove my position. saying its true is bullshit. you are essentially coping out because you know, and i know you are just factualy wrong. but because he makes you feel good, you rely on the very emotionally lazy approach of saying what he says- why can't we all accept disagreement. because the country matters to me. what happens to it matters. if it doesn't to you-t hen i guess trying to figure these things out by talking about them are like a difference between like red and blue versus understanding historical, political and other variables. i can prove that obama's style doesn't work. can you prove that it does without revising history and contorting it as many of you did above?

by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:30:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As long as he is fighting (none / 0)

The only "proof" of the effectivness (or not) of Obama's style will come in 2008.

If you believe that Obama's style is ineffective then you should be grateful instead of complaining since you obviusly support another candiate.

by Sam I Am on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 09:24:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

BTD, do you prefer Edwards' opportunistic (1.00 / 1)

reframing of his "political style" every few years, just because this time he is posturing to gain the support of the netroots? Edwards hawked the war relentlessly, and ran as a hawk in 2004.

If he runs again in 2012 or 2016, and for some reason the public happens to be in pro-war mood (heaven forbid), he is sure to run as a pro-war guy.

That's the style you prefer?

by NuevoLiberal on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 04:12:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strong progressive record (none / 0)

This is legislative voting records.

What matters more for a president is how they lead, on what issues, and what is their vision.

Legislative > Executive does not transfer.

Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up

by Peter from WI on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:21:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wrong. (none / 0)

If you voted unprogressively as a legistlator, you won't magically become progressive as President.

eg, Edwards did by hawking the war, there is no good reason to think they won't be hawks in office.

Edwards is selling his new skin because he wants to ride the Dean-inspired netroots to the nomination.

by NuevoLiberal on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 03:28:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK, Obama has and does vote progressive (3.00 / 2)

So you want him to run not as a partisan of the Democratic Party? I am perplexed in that I thought you wanted Gore in the race.

It seems to me your views are not reconcilable.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:41:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

this is my general thinking: (none / 0)

1. we should sell the "progressive message" first and foremost, to everyone

2. sell the Democratic big tent (no pun originally intended :)) to unaffiliated voters

3. try to persuade principled Republicans that the current Republican elected coterie has long since left rational, logical and responsible ways of governance (forget about their reeking politics,) and soften them up towards voting for sellable Democrats.

I generally try these methods on non-Dems, and often meet with decent response.

At a more theoretical level, I like to pitch the notion that we should center a political realignment strategy around reason to assemble a broad 60%+ coalition made up of Dems, liberals, progressives, moderates and reasonable Republicans. The Reason Coalition, if you will. Clearly, such a coalition would require a degree of compromise on the part of the component groups because not everyone can agree on everything all the time.

Those are my views. I tend to find Gore's and Obama's political philosophies to be along these lines. Which naturally leads me to think that Gore/Obama would be a great ticket if we can somehow get Gore to run.

by NuevoLiberal on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:59:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is my general thinking: (3.00 / 3)

You cannot do all that simultaneously.

This is a recipe for a triangulating mess that is ineffective politically.

Indeed, it is this very strategy that damaged the Democrats in the past decade.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:22:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

My 3 step method is very much (none / 0)

implementable.

Remeber that the message we sell is progressive. What it means is that you need to build the compelling and well-argued case as to why your set of progressive policies make sense and are implementable.

it is this very strategy that damaged the Democrats in the past decade.

Don't fully agreee, Clinton was a bit to ready to compromise IMO, but probably the main reason the Democratic party suffered was because the RWNM peaked during that period. Only now has it begun to be offset because of the netroots. Wonder what would have happened had Dean run for president in 2004. Maybe worth a fiction diary, if you're up to it. Another factor was the continuation of the weakening of the base and the party infrastructure at local levels; again Dean went to work on that.

Coming to think of it, when history books are written in the future on how the US survived (hope it will; 2008 is the big test) the oncoming Rove/RWNM spearheaded Republican permanent majority, Howard Dean would have to be given the top honors.

by NuevoLiberal on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:42:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is my general thinking: (none / 0)

I like to pitch the notion that we should center a political realignment strategy around reason to assemble a broad 60%+ coalition made up of Dems, liberals, progressives, moderates and reasonable Republicans.

I find it interesting that you separate Democrats out from liberals, progressives and moderates. It doesn't sound to me as if you are a Democrat.

If you want to start a new party that's fine with me. If Obama wants to be the leader of your new party that's fine with me too. But he ain't going to ride on the back of the Democratic party to get there.

You know, I like Al Gore a lot. But this man of vision also brought us Joe Lieberman. Not exactly someone I would call progressive.

by DoIT on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:43:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is my general thinking: (none / 0)

I find it interesting that you separate Democrats out from liberals, progressives and moderates.

See, not all liberals are Democrats. Certainly not all progressives are Democrats. I consider people like Christie Todd Whitman to be moderates. She's a Republican.

Can we potentially argue to all of them that the war was a bad idea before it began? I think so. They should have read Gore's speech.

It doesn't sound to me as if you are a Democrat.

I am. Political philosophy wise, I am a free thinking idealist with a dose of pragmatism in the area of politics and governance.

It's your logic that's mistaken.

The idea is to expand the Democratic party and it's coalition to achieve 60% permanent majority.

Lieberman was a moderate in 2000.

by NuevoLiberal on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 03:25:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (none / 0)

If running against the democratic party means running against those dems who:

voted for the war like Hillary, Edwards and Kerry;

who are elected for life, talk a good game, but do very little like Kennedy, Dodd, Biden, Mikulski;

who are machine dems and control more than their fair share like Hoyer;

who are against a 50 state strategy;

who have tried to bury Dean at the DNC like Carville and Harold Ford;

who represent the status quo and are afraid of change and never ever take a risk.

Then yes I support Obama, who from time to time is running against the dems. And for damn good reasons. Those dems let us down.

by aiko on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:41:38 AM EST

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (3.00 / 2)

Well, that is NOT the camapign Obama will run.

It is ironic that you cite Howard "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" Dean as some type of support for this type of campaign.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:43:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (none / 0)

Dean is a partisan, no doubt. But there is a difference between espousing our values with a willingness to blend in other ideas and stubbornly refusing to budge on an issue.

by Todd Bennett on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:46:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (none / 0)

actually i think that i cited the anti-Dean dems..

by aiko on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:47:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (3.00 / 3)

No, you cited them as people to run against and THAT is not what Obama is doing.

Dean is precisely the type of Democrat Obama is decrying, the "too partisan" kind.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:09:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (3.00 / 2)

who are elected for life, talk a good game, but do very little like Kennedy, Dodd, Biden, Mikulski;

When you make such an ignorant statement about Teddy Kennedy you demonstrate your absolute foolishness.

by DoIT on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:47:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (none / 0)

i am sick and tired of all the old geezers running the democratic party.

They failed to prevent impeachment, Bush election, Iraq war, Alito.

What good have they done in the past 10 years?

by aiko on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:40:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (3.00 / 2)

but you aren't saying anything new. that's the point. if you are tired of the old- at least bring something to the mix that will actually get shit done.

by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:00:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (none / 0)

Some young blood would be great.

But kicking out Kennedy, Dodd, or Mikulski will not advance progressive values in the Senate. Those are three of your most reliable progressive Democrats in the US Senate right there. Not every issue, of course, but on most issues.

Let's start with Lieberman, then go to Nelson, Pryor, Landrieu (in an order consistent with re-election cycle) if you feel compelled to go after sitting Democrats.

Or better yet, let's go after the vulnerable GOPers and bring in new blood that way.

Tester, Brown, Webb. That's some quality new blood.

"We live entangled in webs of endless deceit, often self-deceit, but with a little honest effort, it is possible to extricate ourselves from them". -- NC

by Trond Jacobsen on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:15:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (none / 0)

Or better yet, let's go after the vulnerable GOPers and bring in new blood that way.

Remember who the real opposition is.

Hallelujah and Amen! And a few Hare Krishnas for good measure.

by DoIT on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:46:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (none / 0)

just because they are liberal/progressive doesn't make them good. my state of Maryland is guaranteed to provide another liberal/progressive. these are senators in very safe seats that don't take nearly as many risks as they should.

by aiko on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 05:45:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (none / 0)

That is a fair point. It is possible someone more progressive could replace Kennedy, Mikulski, and Dodd from their respective states.

But there are very real resource constraints. Running against Senator Kennedy in a primary just means he can dump less money and less staff into other races elsewhere. Same goes for a challenger against Mikulski in your state.

Imagine a scale where "optimal progressive" = 100. Imagine that on that scale, Senator Mikulski is a 92 or an 85 or whatever. Then you decide to run and you come in at a cool 98.

Is that difference worth damaging our chances to turn Senator Smith (OR), who clocks in at 34, into a 82 or 87 or whatever, from Merkley or Novick?

I do not think so.

"We live entangled in webs of endless deceit, often self-deceit, but with a little honest effort, it is possible to extricate ourselves from them". -- NC

by Trond Jacobsen on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 06:52:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think Obama is making a mistake on two levels (3.00 / 4)

I have little to add to Big Tent Democrat's critique, which deals with one of my major misgivings about Obama. Even if Obama were to win the presidency using such a strategy, he would do so by running down the Democratic brand.

Furthermore, I think Obama is miscalculating if he thinks this kind of rhetoric clears a path to the nomination.

I attended a house party for Obama several weeks ago. Talking with some of the Obama supporters and leaners there, it was clear to me that they were drawn to this post-partisan rhetoric. One woman specifically praised Obama for not sounding angry, adding that Gore just sounds "stupid" when he gives an angry speech. (Swallow right-wing frames much?, I thought, but I kept my mouth shut).

One of the Obama field organizers even said to the group that we tried it Dean's way, sounding angry, and that doesn't work and isn't appealing to people. We need to set a different tone to bring people together.

As the party was winding down, I did approach that woman and called her on promoting MSM crap about Dean being too "angry."

Anyway, there clearly is a group of voters out there who think politics are too nasty and partisan, and we need someone to bring people together. I don't know how many people there are like that, but I sure don't think it's a plurality within the universe of Democratic primary voters. Obama picked up a lot of support in Iowa earlier this year, but in the polling I've seen, he's been stuck around 20 percent, plus or minus a few points.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that 20 percent of Democrats like the post-partisan Obama rhetoric, but if he doesn't start sounding like more of a proud Democrat willing to take the fight to the Republicans, I don't think he is going to win Iowa. I don't care how many field offices he has here.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:46:50 AM EST

Re: I think Obama is making a mistake on two level (none / 0)

I agree with your post in a general respect.

Some points I would add:

1) Obama doesn't "run down" the democratic brand. He's not a New Democrat by any stretch of the imagination. However, it's true he doesn't actively promote the brand, either. I don't view this as something particularly relevant. If Obama is a successful, progressive president, then that does more to strengthen the Democratic party than if he gave a thousand "fighting" speeches. Actions and results speak much louder than words.

2) If I was advising Obama, I would certainly tell him that he needs to be more partisan if he wants to win the Democratic nomination (i.e. the Hillary model). However, it's not clear to me that Barack Obama wants to be another Hillary. Obama is a smart man; I doubt he has miscalculated his strategy. Rather, he sincerely believes in his message, and so is running by being true to himself, rather than pandering in order to win an election. This is apparent if you read some of the stuff he's said and written from 1995 onwards.

3) There's definitely a divide between the "partisans" and the "post-partisans," within the Democratic party and within the general electorate. Contrary to BTD, this is not shocking in any sense. It's always been very obvious that a significant chunk of Clinton's support comes from centrist democratic partisans; that a significant chunk of Edward's support comes from progressive democratic partisans; and that a significant chunk of Obama's support comes from post-partisans of all ideologies. They're each resonant messages in their own way--and also contradictory ones. It's a difference of philosophical first principles.

Personally, I think Obama would be a stronger general election candidate than Hillary because of his "a new kind of politics" sort of campaign. In the primary, though, I definitely agree that a message like that has limited growth potential (i.e. 20% in Iowa). If Obama wants to win, he's going to need to take his campaign to the next level.

by Korha on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 06:10:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is what a partisan Democrat (3.00 / 4)

sounds like when he is proud of the Democratic party.

Edwards on Electibility and the Democratic Party

I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives

by pioneer111 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:10:13 AM EST

Obama as a Democrat (3.00 / 2)

Obama will fight for his Democratic label, but don't be surprised if voters don't describe the Democratic party a little differently. We have lost control of our message over the past couple years. Obama has the ability to frame Democratic and progressive values in a new way.

Most Democrats talk about an issue and people think about it and say ok that makes sense. Unfortunately, the Republican then talks about the issue and the people feel that this is correct. There has been a lot of research done which suggests that it is much more effective to reach for a voter's heart rather than head.

How does this translate to a governing style? First, it means that he will be able to get the people behind him on a progressive agenda. No, his bills will not all be bi-partisan, but when he has the opportunity to have a bi-partisan bill without much cost he will take the political victory.

by Obama08 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:29:22 AM EST

Re: Obama as a Democrat (none / 0)

Maybe Big tent Democrat is worried after seeing the Rasmussen poll today;

Clinton 35
Obama 28

by BDM on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:30:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Typical attack by an Obama supporter. (3.00 / 1)

Don't argue issues, attack motives or the person with a critique.

by littafi on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:22:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (3.00 / 0)

Personally, I'm undecided on whether Obama's "post-partisan" strategy is the best suited for helping him win the primary. I think it's a big gamble.

But putting that aside for a moment... were he to actually win the nomination and the presidency, it's pretty clear to me that Obama would be in the best position out of any of the candidates to actually pass an enact an agenda with a senate that consists of < 60 Democrats.

Still, you can't deny that the Obama campaign doesn't feel much like a primary.

by gabr1el on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:37:39 AM EST

MYDD has finally arrived (none / 0)

when Armando has a rec'd diary. What's next? Joining Jerome on the front page? Yikes.

by aiko on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:54:01 AM EST

I think Big Tent Democrat (3.00 / 3)

would be a great Front Pager on MyDD.

by littafi on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:55:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think Big Tent Democrat (none / 0)

I bet you do.

by aiko on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:05:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think Big Tent Democrat (3.00 / 3)

If nominated, I will not run.

If elected, I will not serve.

I am a FPer at TalkLeft.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:14:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Gore fans intepret that as "Yes"! (3.00 / 1)

Thanks for posting here. I'll try to get by Open Left more often.

by littafi on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:19:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Open Left (3.00 / 2)

Talk Left.

by clarkent on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:26:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Whoops. Too many Lefts. (3.00 / 1)

by littafi on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:50:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think Big Tent Democrat (3.00 / 2)

I mean Talk Left. I'll get your name right.

by littafi on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:50:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ezra Klein's early critique still stands (3.00 / 7)

Commenting on Obama's announcement speech, Ezra Klein points out first that the lack of progress has little to do with consensus:

The country's disagreements, it should be said, are not fake. High-quality, cost-contained, universal health care has not been repeatedly foiled because Americans agreed but forgot. Large insurers, and powerful pharmaceutical companies, and Republican Congresses, and a Who's Who of other malign forces have successfully battled its passage because they deeply oppose it. Serious action on global warming is stymied because the auto industry opposes heightened Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, voters are not impressed with gas taxes, and oil companies have opinions of their own.

And goes on to point out why Obama's consensus driven community organizer is wrong for the approach:

Which is why I fear that a former community organizer's appetite for consensus leads him to underestimate the depth of opposition, and could possibly lead him to abandon progressive policies in office. At the DNC winter meeting, Obama said that "in this primary, everybody's going to have good ideas about how to achieve energy independence. Some of us are going to talk about raising CAFE standards, others about biodiesel and ethanol, energy efficiency. We can have a vigorous, robust, honest debate. But let's agree that our dependence is a threat not only to our economy, not only to our national security, but also the welfare of this planet."

Okay, but if you've already got a field arguing over biofuels and CAFE increases, then you've already got agreement that fossil fuel dependence must be ended. Obama's insistence on consensus seems a way to keep the conversation on safe, friendly, ground. That's not how you move it forward, though, and it's certainly not how you deal with a threat as grave as global warming. The measure of a president is whether he can lead the national conversation, not huddle in its center.

by clarkent on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:55:26 AM EST

Re: Ezra Klein's early critique still stands (3.00 / 1)

exactly

by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:01:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ezra Klein's early critique still stands (3.00 / 2)

actually obama is a close number 2 for me, but edwards is first because i dont believe obama gets the times. if this were 1992 and we were coming off reagan it would make more sense. but now its just hopelessly anacrhonistic, and so are his supporters. its like they went into a time machine and want to just hide their heads int eh sands because it makes them feel good. thats great, but dont get in politics if you just want to feel good.

by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:28:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ezra Klein's early critique still stands (none / 0)

If his approach is wrong then you have nothing to worry about his canidacy. He will tank and your candidate will win. So what is the beef?

by BDM on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:40:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ezra Klein's early critique still stands (3.00 / 1)

I don't agree with that, and I wrote this in Ezra's comments at the time.

Obama always frames progressive ideas in terms of common sense. He takes what are on the face highly left-wing policies (universal health care, energy independence, foreign aid, etc.) and casts them as centrist, eminently reasonable solutions to pressing problems. This is an absolutely superior frame in national discourse. A consistent majority of the public agrees with democratic ideas in theory, and yet it is the republicans who have managed to hold the high ground. Part of the reason is because the other side has managed to couch their unpopular ideas in popular rhetoric--to frame them in common sense and in shared values. Barack Obama understands this, both instictively and intellectually.

When you want to sell universal health care to the public, you don't sell it by talking about entrenched special interests and evil lobbyists. That's something you do to close the deal, but those attacks aren't actually going to build positive support for a specific universal health care policy. Rather, you want to talk about how universal health care is so sensible and necessary and important. You want to talk about how America has solved so many enormous challenges before, that we have a responsibility to carry the torch, that passing universal health care is the literal representation of what is best about America, etc. etc.

That's the frame. And Obama frames things in precisely this way.

Obviously, passing universal health care DOES mean taking on all sorts of entrenched interests, and it DOES mean fighting. However, talking about how important it is to pass universal health care, and also framing that talk in a superior way, are clearly not contradictory things.

by Korha on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 06:32:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ezra Klein's early critique still stands (none / 0)

A consistent majority of the public agrees with democratic ideas in theory, and yet it is the republicans who have managed to hold the high ground. Part of the reason is because the other side has managed to couch their unpopular ideas in popular rhetoric--to frame them in common sense and in shared values. Barack Obama understands this, both instictively and intellectually.

A couple of things here. Obama is utterly unremarkable in that he couches his ideas in common sense and shared values. Who doesn't do that? He's more gifted than most in his ability to deliver a speech, but that's about it. And if Democrats have the more popular ideas, why can't they just stand up for them?

You're missing the other half, which is that Republicans have attacked Democrats, their associated interest groups, and liberals in general relentlessly over the last several decades, and Democrats have done a poor job in fighting back. Most Democratic nominees since Reagan won have actually run away from their liberal records.

by clarkent on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 06:49:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ezra Klein's early critique still stands (none / 0)

But how do you support Energy Independence when you vote for the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill of 05? I guess Illinois Coal Companies are more important than Energy Independence. I don't trust Obama on doing the right thing on Energy. He has a track record.

by RDemocrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:58:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ezra Klein's early critique still stands (none / 0)

A Presidnet Obama would not necessarily have the same energy policies as Senator Obama from coal rich IL.

by Sam I Am on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 09:33:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ezra Klein's early critique still stands (none / 0)

The US as a whole has plenty of coal. The coal industry is rich and well-connected. Ezra's point stands.