Obama's "New Kind of Politics"

Reading Populism2008's diary Obama's vision is not a consensus got me thinking again about articulating what Obama means by a new kind of politics.  Too much confusion has been caused by the labels of 'post-political' or 'post-partisan' that have been attached to Obama --- in some cases by well-meaning and otherwise insightful accounts such as in the New Yorker.  Obama would certainly reject these labels himself.

These misplaced 'post-partisan' labels create a number of worries among progressives: first, Obama would be too willing to compromise, because his vision is for an America in which everyone just gets along; second, Obama is naive in believing that our politics could ever be changed; third, like Bill Clinton's presidency, Obama's movement would be focused solely on his own personality and election.  

The argument in some cases seems to be that Obama is a centrist posing as a progressive posing as a centrist, a theory which is rendered implausible by the sheer number of contortions it would entail.

I want to dissect Obama's rhetoric about politics by using the example of one of his speeches, in this case his speech at the Take Back America Conference back in June.  I also want to make reference to his previous 2006 Take Back America speech to make the point that Obama's rhetoric has been consistent.

Let me start off with a quote:

We've all seen that politics in this town is no longer a mission - it's a business. Our politics has never been pure, but there's a sense that in the last several years, the race for money, and influence, and power has left the hopes and concerns of most Americans in the dust.

You're worried about how you'll pay for college, or health care, or save for retirement, but when you turn on the TV or open the newspaper, all you see from Washington is another scandal, or a petty argument, or the persistent stubbornness of a President who refuses to end this war in Iraq.


Obama is talking about returning a sense of idealism to politics, a sense of mission and purpose, but it is firmly based on a return to a progressive agenda.  The complaint is that government isn't addressing our needs anymore.

Populism2008 is exactly right.  This is a new politics newly re-centered around a progressive agenda. This is about restoring an activist role to government in public life, an argument he is making constantly throughout his speeches in an often subtle way.

Obama is not a Mark Penn DLCer trying to find the golden middle, he's a progressive Democrat trying to pull the middle over to where he is on issues like health care and poverty.  

Why has government failed in Washington?  Listen to Obama's answer:

The cynicism we feel about what politics can achieve today is no accident. It has to do with a failure of leadership. It has to do with the philosophy they've peddled in this town for the last six years - a philosophy of trickle-down and on-your-own that says government has no role in solving the challenges we face and so it shouldn't even try.

It's a theory that's easy to talk about when you're playing politics in Washington, but harder to defend when you actually see what it does to average Americans.

I met a family in Iowa City with a small business of fifteen years who is now facing bankruptcy because of their medical bills. Try telling them they're on their own.

I spoke with workers in Newton who were watching their Maytag plant close down and their shops get shipped overseas. Try telling them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

Try saying "tough luck" to the families who still don't have homes in New Orleans, or the 45 million Americans without health care, or the 15 million children born into poverty in the richest nation on Earth.

This is not who we are. This is not how America has persevered through war and depression, through struggles for civil rights and women's rights and worker's rights. We have come this far as a nation because we believe in a different kind of politics - because we believe in a different vision for America.


Obama couldn't possibly be more explicit here about what he means about a new kind of politics.  He goes further:
We believe that we rise or fall as one people. We believe that we each have a stake in one another - that I am my brother's keeper; that I am my sister's keeper. We believe that what happens to that family in Iowa, or to those Maytag workers - that matters to us, even if it's not our family, or our job.

Obama is laying out a series of progressive beliefs but in language that should appeal to all Americans.  These are not just progressive values, they are American values.  

From Obama's 2006 Take Back America speech:

You know, we all remember that George Bush said in 2000 campaign that he was against nation-building. We just didn't know he was talking about this one.

Now, let me say this - I don't think that George Bush is a bad man. I think he loves his country. I don't think this administration is full of stupid people [Laughter] - I think there are a lot of smart folks in there. The problem isn't that their philosophy isn't working the way it's supposed to - the problem is that it is working exactly the way it's supposed to.

The reason they don't believe government has a role in solving national problems is because they think government is the problem. That we're better off if we dismantle it - if we divvy it up into individual tax breaks, hand 'em out, and encourage everyone to go buy your own health care, your own retirement security, your own child care, their own schools, your own private security force, your own roads, their own levees... [Laughter]

It's called the Ownership Society in Washington. But in our past there has been another term for it - Social Darwinism - every man or women for him or herself.


I have already argued that Obama makes the most powerful argument for the activist role of government of any speaker now in the party and that this explains a lot of his support among Democrats tired of leaders unable to articulate our values.  But it is also crucial to understanding what he means by a new politics, a new area of government activism.  

And even more importantly, Obama is not describing a new politics devoid of political parties.  Far from it, here's Obama at Take Back America in 2006:

Yes, our greatness as a nation has depended on individual initiative, on a belief in the free market. But it has also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, of mutual responsibility. The idea that everybody has a stake in the country, that we're all in it together and everybody's got a shot at opportunity.

Americans know this. We know that government can't solve all our problems - and we don't want it to.

But we also know that there are some things we can't do on our own. We know that there are some things we do better together.

We know that we've been called in churches and mosques, synagogues and Sunday schools to love our neighbors as ourselves; to be our brother's keeper; to be our sister's keeper. That we have individual responsibility, but we also have collective responsibility to each other.

That's what America is.

And so I am eager to have this argument not just with the President, but the entire Republican Party over what this country is about.

Because I think that this is our moment to lead.

The time for our party's identity crisis is over. Don't let anyone tell you we don't know what we stand for and don't doubt it yourselves. We know who we are. And in the end, we know that it isn't enough to just say that you've had enough.

We know that we are the party of opportunity. That in a global economy that's more connected and more competitive - we're the party that will guarantee every American an affordable, world-class, top-notch, life-long education - from early childhood to high school, from college to on-the-job training.

We know that as progressives we believe in affordable, accessible health care for all Americans. The party that won't make Americans choose between a health care plan that bankrupts the government and one that bankrupts families. The party that won't just throw a few tax breaks at families who can't afford their insurance, but modernizes our health care system and gives every family a chance to buy insurance at a price they can afford.

Let it be said that we are the party of an energy independent America.  The party that's not bought and paid for by the oil companies. The party that will harness homegrown, alternative fuels and spur the production of fuel-efficient, hybrid cars to break our dependence on the world's most dangerous regimes.

Let it be said that we will conduct a smart foreign policy that battles the forces of terrorism and fundamentalism wherever they may exist by matching the might of our military with the power of our diplomacy and the strength of our alliances. And when we do go to war, let us always be honest with the American people about why we are there and how we will win.

And let it be said that we are the party of open, honest government that doesn't peddle the agenda of whichever lobbyist or special interest can write the biggest check. The party who believes that in this democracy, influence and access should begin and end with the power of the ballot.

If we do all this, if we can be trusted to lead, this will not be a Democratic Agenda, it will be an American agenda. Because in the end, we may be proud Democrats, but we are prouder Americans. We're tired of being divided, tired of running into ideological walls and partisan roadblocks, tired of appeals to our worst instincts and greatest fears.


Obama is talking about a new American agenda focused on progressive issues, a re-centered political debate, focused on a newly energized but responsible government.  If Democrats are going to be the future majority in this country, it has to be on the grounds of making an argument based on the values of all Americans.

Don't get me wrong.  There are serious hurdles in our politics.  But it is a cop-out to argue that American politics has always been this way, that the influence of special interests and lobbyists can never be curbed, that no amount of ethics legislation would really serve to change Washington.  

Obama proposed the most aggressive packet of ethics reforms, closing the revolving door by forbidding officials leaving the administration in order to take high-paying jobs lobbying it and preventing newly-hired officials to work on legislation dealing with previous employers for two years; restricting the no-bid contracts and the earmarks that have been the recipe for corruption; banning gifts to any executive branch employee, engaging the public through greater transparency by presenting legislation on the internet for three days before signing and creating new opportunities for public comment, ending the manipulation of the executive branch for political ends by requiring each and every employee sign a pledge that they were not hired solely for political reasons,  and signing an executive order requiring political appointees to have relevant professional experience.

Yes, Obama argues for greater civility in politics and for a crack-down on corruption and influencing-peddling, but most of all what he means by the term "new politics" is the return of some sense of perspective and mission: Our government should be re-focused on doing what it can to extend the benefits of health insurance, alleviate poverty, and work to improve the lives of everyday Americans.  A new politics --- appealing to American values and working for a progressive agenda.



Display:


Obama's "New Kind of Politics" (3.00 / 3)

This is my best shot at articulating Obama's vision for a better kind of politics.


One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 10:33:59 PM EST

Re: Obama's "New Kind of Politics" (none / 0)

You write:

Obama would certainly reject these labels himself.

So why doesn't he?

I have just as many quotes in y pieces at Talk Left where Obama says practically the opposite of what you cite.

He made a concerted and deliberate effort to portray himself as post-partisan. As an Other-Dem.

Yu have chosen to ignore that that has been his dominant political style and message for quite some time.

He needs to EXPRESSLY reject it now imo.


by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 10:36:16 PM EST

Re: Obama's "New Kind of Politics" (3.00 / 0)

It's not that he doesn't have this storyline of a new politics and restoring civility and getting away from 'slash-and-burn politics,' he absolutely does.  My diary is full of those kinds of references from Obama.  
I'm not ignoring his dominant political style, what I'm saying is that this new politics --- its whole basis --- is firmly grounded in progressive ideals.  He is arguing for a political return to progressive values, to working on progressive issues.
And he does respond explicitly to mis-characterizations that he only values consensus for its own sake.  Take the flattering New Yorker article.  Here's Obama paraphrased by a law professor at a NY fundraiser:

The article, which Obama himself acknowledged was quite insightful, suggests that he is by nature a conciliator because he values dialogue and compromise for their own sake. He took issue with this point.

To paraphrase loosely, Obama said something like: Sure I think it's better if people get along than if they don't, but the main reason I want to broaden my appeal is because a strategy of appealing to 50%+1 of the voters wins you an election, but it doesn't enable you to do anything once in office. To govern effectively you need more like 60%.



One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 10:54:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's "New Kind of Politics" (3.00 / 1)

No one, at least I don;t, question his heart, his progressive ideal or his abilities.

I question his political style because I believe it does not work. Certainly not for the Party as a whole.


by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:18:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's "New Kind of Politics" (3.00 / 1)

Hi BT,

I am honestly intrigued by your reservations.  Can you elaborate on "I question his political style because I believe it does not work. Certainly not for the Party as a whole."

Isn't there enough evidence that the style works for Obama?  From the New Yorker:

Obama's drive to compromise goes beyond the call of political expediency--it's instinctive, almost a tic. "Barack has an incredible ability to synthesize seemingly contradictory realities and make them coherent," Cassandra Butts says.

 In the state senate, this skill served him well--he was unusually dexterous with opponents, and passed bills that at first were judged too liberal to have a chance, such as one that mandated the videotaping of police interviews with suspects arrested for capital crimes.

It seems to me that his work in the IL senate and the US senate have shown ample success with passing progressive legislation.  And there is plenty of anecdotal "testimony" about him that this style is him.  He is being true to himself operating that way.


by Satya on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 03:31:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's "New Kind of Politics" (none / 0)

Actually they don;t show anything of the sort.

He has doen nothing of great consequence , mostly because Dems have not doen well enough in elections.

As a Senator, his style is not a problem.

As the leader of a political party, it would be a huge problem.


by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 08:52:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's "New Kind of Politics" (none / 0)

Well I'm still curious.  If you ever want to expand on your assertions with some examples of what you have in mind I would be listening.


by Satya on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 11:00:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's "New Kind of Politics" (none / 0)

I see you answer my question in part on a new diary of your own.  I'll follow the discussion there.


by Satya on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 11:04:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's "New Kind of Politics" (none / 0)

restoring civility and getting away from 'slash-and-burn politics

Bush-Cheney Lite

This isn't slash and burn? I wouldn't exactly say that it is a civil thing to call another Democrat.

Obama says all kinds of pretty things then goes out and attacks like a Neocon. He has NO credibility. The reason he has to raise so much cash is to pay so many people to come onto blogs and explain what he really meant. His campaign staff has a whole department of apologists, deniers and explainers.

Go Joe, I mean Barack!


by DoIT on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 10:32:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

this is kind of interesting... (none / 0)

partisan "theologians" have been discussing the need to rebuild the democratic coalition for years, to expand it beyond the old fdr coalition that has frayed.  the biggest problem with rebuilding the democratic coalition is that not everyone in it (and especially the stalwarts of the old coalition) want to do this.  they want to bring in new people under the old banner, thus preserving their power and place in the existing democratic structure.

can democrats win without the wind at our backs?  can we win in states like florida, the carolinas, texas, arizona, etc without special circumstances?  hell, can we win the white house without special circumstances (bill clinton never won 50% of the electorate and jimmy carter barely won in the midst of watergate).  i don't know if this consideration is post-partisan.  i personally think it's eminently practical, but there is a lot of support for the status quo here.  when you say other-dem i think more democrats (just not from the old fdr coalition).  if that threatens you and your interests' place in the democratic bandwagon, i'm sorry.  but i don't see what traditional democrats gain if they can only win occasionally and under special circumstances (like a strong third party presence on the ballot)...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 07:40:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is kind of interesting... (none / 0)

You completely misunderstand my comment.

I have written at length on the issue and really don;t want to go through it in detail here.

Read my post "What Obama Needs To Learn" and other at Talk Left.

You make assumptions about me that demonstrate to me you do not understand what I am talking about.


by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 08:54:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

that's fine, if you can't communicate it... (none / 0)

i don't really have time to go read other blogs.  obviously, i stand by my observation.  if i don't understand what you are saying, i don't think it detracts from the accuracy of my observation.  i can only add that you appear to be significantly underestimating obama...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 10:06:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's fine, if you can't communicate it... (none / 0)

so you are standing by observations that aren't really based on what BTD thinks? well, there you go- that says it all right.


by bruh21 on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 11:34:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

i have no idea... (none / 0)

i read what i read, but he says i didn't interpret it correctly.   he's not able to explain why...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 12:41:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i have no idea... (none / 0)

above you say you didn't read what additonal writings he wrote that would give you explaination


by bruh21 on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 12:52:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ya think??? (none / 0)

he doesn't have to explain himself if he doesn't want to.  it's unreasonable to expect me to sift through all the postings on openleft to understand an argument that he is supposedly making here, but doesn't have the time to make it.  i can only assume that if he's unwilling to explain himself, it's not that important to him -- so it's not that important to me...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 01:35:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ya think??? (none / 0)

he gave you a specific article to read. he didn't tell you to sift through anything. that was the shit you made up in response to his specific article. you are once more being one of those posters who mischaracterizes a point in order to justify your own boneheadness- frankly its getting old. the only one you ae fooling is yourself.


by bruh21 on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 01:44:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

if you want to call him a liar... (none / 0)

i won't stop you.  i took him at his word when he said "other."  you obviously think otherwise.

your problem is that you apparently think it matters what he thinks.  my comment stands, perhaps not as a response to his thinking, but to what i thought he was thinking.  it's not my concern that his "boneheadedness" prevents him from explaining.  I DON'T CARE.  i responded to what i responded to, not what he wants me to respond to.  if i really understood what he was saying, then perhaps i wouldn't have responded.  the fact is, my observations are appropriate, and it's not my job to insure that i understand him correctly.  if he wanted to have this discussion here -- instead of some other blog -- then we would.  my time is clearly more limited...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 03:22:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's "New Kind of Politics" (none / 0)

I have never seen so many supporters of a candidate have to go to such lengths to explain what it is their candidate stands for; or if what he claims he stands for is really what he means.

I am getting the impression that Obama himself doesn't know what he stands for, beyond what it is he has been saying all along he stands for until he realized it wasn't working.

Maybe he should wise up and start tearing his teeth into Bush and Cheney - which considering all that has come down over the past 7 years, would be highly appropriate and welcomed.

Be a Democrat.  That is an ideal place to start.


The Facts: Please Read
by Regan on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 10:54:23 PM EST

Re: Obama's "New Kind of Politics" (3.00 / 0)

Did you read this diary at all?


One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 10:55:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's "New Kind of Politics" (none / 0)

Yes, did you read it?  And many claim they do not know who Clinton really is?  Many feel that she will say anything to get the nomination.  I don't' know if that is true, but any clarification for ALL OF THEM, is helpful to many on the fence, not clear in the positions, or are not paying attention and NEED TO.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:24:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's "New Kind of Politics" (none / 0)

many claimed the world was flat , many claimed the red sox couldn't make a comeback.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:30:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

how did those claims poll? (none / 0)

the view that hillary is ambitious and will do or say anything to get elected is quite popular with the electorate...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 07:41:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's "New Kind of Politics" (3.00 / 3)

Huh, that speech sorta sounds like he's running for the Democratic nomination, too bad it was in 2006; maybe it's that Obama wasted about $700K for some lousy poll-tested messaging that's led him on a very muddled track for the past six months as one who's looking to win the Democratic nomination?  I've seen him speak three times in person, and watched a couple of his speeches, while he's been a candidate, and he's not said anything like that 2006 TBA speech, has he?  His 2007 DNC speech was just bizarre, and his 2007 TBA speech was not about "the party" at all.  He really should articulate why he's a Democrat, and why people should vote for him to win the Democratic nomination. Instead, his pollster and message guy have had him running on some sort of 'hope' 'movement' 'change' mambajamba that's pretending to transcend ideological and partisan differences.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 10:59:41 PM EST

Re: Obama's "New Kind of Politics" (none / 0)

Axelrod. Is he the problem?


by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:19:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's "New Kind of Politics" (none / 0)

I agree, somewhat with Big Tent Democrat.  I never really cared for Axelrod, and what is going on now with Obama, does not seem like his stamping on the mail.  Maybe someone else is moving this campaign differently.  We will see how this comes out by January.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:27:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't agree. (none / 0)

Obama started out his 2007 TBA speech saying "This looks like a progressive majority to me" and he ends the speech with the line "And let's turn the page by electing a progressive majority."
Lovingj's video mash-up includes a lot of references from this year (2007 TBA and the first debate) about a progressive majority and not compromising on our ideals as a party.
Obama's 2006 TBA speech actually basically has the same structure and makes almost the same argument as his 2007 TBA speech.  The speeches are actually almost identical: the same arc out of his biography into listing the failures of this administration and on to making the case for the active role of government.  
If anything, I think the 2007 TBA speech actually added more obvious applause lines and 'red meat' --- the reaction he was looking for from the crowd was completely different.  
Video here and here to explain what I mean.  
As far as Obama's rhetoric of hope and change, that is vintage Obama going right back to his 2004 convention speech:
In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope? John Kerry calls on us to hope. John Edwards calls on us to hope.

It might not appeal to you, but it certainly reaches disaffected moderates.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:33:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't agree. (3.00 / 0)

A quote from Obama's speech to AFSCME that if I remember right was the same day as his TBA '07 speech:
"We're going to have to win some independents," Obama said. "We've got some disaffected Republicans. George Bush has been a great advertisement for the Democratic Party... We have to reach out to some folks who may not seem like natural allies to us, but who are looking for something new... If we got 40, 45 miles per gallon, wouldn't need to import any oil from the Middle East, and that wouldn't just be good for our economy, it would be good for our security and good for the environment, and that's not a Republican or Democrat issue, that's an American issue... If people disagree, and we can't persuade `em, then we just have to beat `em, and that's what we're gonna do in this election."

One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:37:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's "New Kind of Politics" (none / 0)

I'm all for message testing... I think it is paying off with the Diplmoacy issue - and they did a great job of keeping the frame as new v. old last week - the testing helps them establish that. And, I don't think 700k was message testing - I thought that was all polling.
Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 07:35:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

all polling this early... (none / 0)

is benchmark, with message being the primary benefit from it...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 07:42:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's "New Kind of Politics" (none / 0)

This line of thinking rings pretty hollow after this week.  The apt criticism now, if anything, is the DPandrews take that Obama's only getting specific and pointed (though no less obviously Progressive) because his polling has flattened.  But these have always been his views and he hasn't been shy about writing entire books about them.  The election is still six months off.  Of course he's still promoting his own brand.  Why does this confuse you so much?

These are your options in criticizing Obama: 1) that he's a DINO/DLC sellout in the making, which is obviously inaccurate to anyone who's paying attention, with this week's diplomacy spat being a perfect illustration.  Actually, Edwards was the DLC DINO on that hugely important issue, as was Clinton, obviously, and given the previous go 'round on Iran, I'm getting more and more confortable with Obama as my Gore default, 2) that we are better off trying to be a 51% coalition governing far left and giving the bad guys a taste of their own Rovian medicine.  I admit that it would feel good on some level to watch them squirm if we could pull this off (a big if, considering the GOP has gotten a huge assist from the media that Dems would never get), but would it actually create the best chance to bring about the sweeping, fundamental change this country desperately needs?  If neither of these things are true, then why is it so bad to have broad appeal?  Isn't that the best way to bring about the change we want to see?

Please attempt to engage with this idea: Edwards, were he to win the nomination, would have a much harder time a) winning, having run far enough to the left to put independents back in play, and given how totally he reinforces all the right wing frams of Dems (flip-flopped on the war, liberal, scared to do the right thing when it counted, class war, etc.)  b) should he win, governing as a progressive, having run far enough to the left to put independents back in play, and given how he reinforces right-wing frames.  Is it your view that the progressive agenda should suffer so that candidates can pander to you more obviously?  If not, please provide answer that clarifies all of this.  Are all the indys just going to wake up one day and say "oh, yeah, I do trust the Democrats to not tax and spend, and bigger government will be fine."  I'm a midnight-blue Dem for life and I don't believe that; I know who Steny Hoyer is, and who writes checks to Chuck Schumer's DSCC.  

Honestly, given the number of times you gripe about his consultants and campaign strategy, my guess is there's at least an 80% chance you were up for a job with the campaign, and they turned you down, and now you're nursing a grudge.  Either that or you have some idea that they'll hire you if you can get the right bash line off and it makes the rounds in the blogs.


by msbatxnyc on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 11:07:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's "New Kind of Politics" (none / 0)

It can't be just cause they suck?


by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 12:15:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's "New Kind of Politics" (none / 0)

Well, suck relative to what?

Relative to Hillary's 1992-style campaign strategy, which Edwards cited approvingly last week, where right-wing = strong?  Relative to the Richardson plank of "Democrats raise your taxes"?

Why is Obama worth so much more of your time and effort and disgust than any of the rest of them?  You really think he's the one harming the Dem brand in this cycle?  I'd say he's the least offensive of the big 3, since Edwards has also staked his candidacy on "the senate Dems are too wussified to cut off the funding."


by msbatxnyc on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 01:52:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's "New Kind of Politics" (none / 0)

p.s. Also, please explain how a campaign staff sending out audio of a quote means that the candidate is backing off the quote.  

http://mydd.com/bb#5172


by msbatxnyc on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 03:10:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's "New Kind of Politics" (none / 0)

Are we on his 'Hope' train again? Time for some 'Change'?


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:08:02 PM EST

Re: Obama's "New Kind of Politics" (3.00 / 1)

Well, you better HOPE for a NEW KIND OF POLITICS, vs. what we have been subjected to for the past 7 years.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:25:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's "New Kind of Politics" (none / 0)

Argh....do you realize that most people who are for Obama or Hillary have no clue what's in store fo them? Not one, not even the ones who call your home, have any idea why you should support these two..

It's all about class warfare and pandering to racists.


by NH4RP on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:37:13 PM EST

Re: Obama's "New Kind of Politics" (none / 0)

???
care to back up your absurd hyperbole?
by alipi on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 10:30:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's "New Kind of Politics" (3.00 / 1)

Nice Diary.  It seams that Obama supporters have to constantly explain his position because too many non-supports continually misrepresent his position in an effort to mischaracterize him.

I enjoy the discussions that are based on understanding and rational.. and it's getting so petty around here lately.  Nice substantive diaries are intended to educate those who won't take the time to research search him and make an informed conclusion.  They would rather trash the guy to make whomever they are supporting look good.

Anyway, I do support Obama and it's nice to read about the reasons people support him.


by Jalenth on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 12:07:50 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.