Obama endorsements: Frank Luntz and a subtle one by Arianna Huffington

Barack Obama has really been racking up the endorsements since February 15th.  What is particularly impressive is the fact that he is racking up a great deal of endorsements from people with conservative opinions and leanings.  Most of these conservative leaning folks acknowledge that Obama's appeal with them is not necessarily his policies, which gives no hint of conservatism in it, but more with his ability to unify and provide a sense of optimism that the country has been sorely lacking for a long time.

Frank Luntz is a conservative leaning wordsmith.  He has done some convincing, if not damaging overall, work for the republicans in the way of the words they use to describe policies whose ultimate aim is to further a conservative agenda.  He is most known for redescribing global warming as climate change and arctic drilling as responsible energy extraction.  However, he recently went on Bill Maher and made a great case why the country and the world would greatly benefit from an Obama presidency.

Arianna Huffington also went on Bill Maher and confirmed a suspicion that most of us in the netroots already knew, she is for Obama.  She did, however, state that she does not endorse any candidate because her website discusses and promotes all of the candidates in the race.  With that said, no one can deny that there was still a subtle tinge to her comments that implied that she strongly supports an Obama presidency.

This is great news for supporters of Obama because it clearly shows that quite a few prominent folks can look past the MSM bullshit and the racial reservations that some voters have that bigots will all but destroy Obama's chances in the general election. They have shown publically the capacity, as I suspect most Americans can, to evaluate Obama inside their own box. As a result, they seem to have come to the same conclusions that I have drawn about him:  This guy is absolutely the most impressive presidential candidate to come along since RFK.

This is also on top of George Will, a very conservative leaning columnist who one of my fellow mydd peers recently diaried about, showered glowing praise of Obama's candidacy as well as his performance during his recent interview with George Stephanopolous.  The following videos illustrate the huge support Obama is building among the movers and shakers in politics.

Frank Luntz and Arianna Huffington speaks about Obama on Bill Maher

George Stephanopolous' This Week panel discusses Obama's candidacy

Celebrities who are strongly for an Obama presidency

Tags: Arianna Huffington, Barack Obama, Frank Luntz (all tags)



Re: One of your best Threads

I haven't checked all of your "facts" but this is a diary I've been waiting for from a true Obama supporter.  Positive, no hits on Edwards in particular (as you have done in the past perfect on EE and JRE both on DK), but also no hits on other candidates.  

by benny06 2007-05-18 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: One of your best Threads

Well I find that Mydd, excluding the current Matt Stoller climate article, is more receptive to differing view points and candidate support.  My frustration level has come down tremendously since working with some of the folks here.

Daily Kos is brutal to opposing candidate support.  I still like Daily Kos as a source of political information but I absolutely hate it for the blatant my way or the highway primary partisanship that the trusted users on that site try to make its membership conform to.

by lovingj 2007-05-18 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: One of your best Threads

Arianna and Luntz's "support" was shown on the INTERNET broadcast of Bill Maher's HBO show, it's a shame it wasnt shown on Maher's broadcast on HBO.

by vamonticello 2007-05-18 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: One of your best Threads

I notice that, what the fuck happen?  Did Bill personally make that decision to cut that out?

That's fucked up.

by lovingj 2007-05-18 05:11PM | 0 recs
Further proof

Obama reminds me of Lieberman.  Now he is taking republican endorsements like Lieberman.

by dpANDREWS 2007-05-19 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Further proof

Except for the fact that he opposed the war from the beginning;

except for the fact that he doesn't belong to the DLC;

except for the fact he has a 96% lifetime labor rating from the AFL-CIO;

except for the fact that he doesn't attack fellow Dems;

except for the fact that he isn't a sanctimonious jerk;

except for the fact that his ADA rating is one of the highest in the Senate.

dpAndrews, your style of argumentation is either offensive or ridiculous.  You specialize in unsupported assertions and inflamatory rhetoric.  You have utterly destroyed any credibility you may have once had.  

by upper left 2007-05-19 10:54AM | 0 recs
one quibble with your litany

Obama has an unfortunate tendency to make strawman arguements that paint progressive Democrats in a poor light. e.g., when he said "I'm not one of those people who thinks we went to war just for the oil." Yes, he didn't name those on the left as the ones who do believe this, but he sure as hell implied it. This is one reason he is liked by many conservatives -- because he is constantly rhetorically differentiating himself from the left wing of the Party. My concern is this will gradually become full blown triangulation a la Clinton precisely because it resonates with the mushy middle. The problem with this, of course is that it then makes accomplishing the progressive goals on which most of us agree impossible.

by Jim in Chicago 2007-05-19 02:29PM | 0 recs

Being "different" is just another way of saying he takes pot shots at other Democrats.

by dpANDREWS 2007-05-19 08:11PM | 0 recs

That is the most intellectually bereft post I've seen in a while.  Liebermaman is a hot button and a straw man.  The beauty of Obama is his ability to aspouse progressive positions in common sense terms.  Who knows, maybe a few neocons/theocons along the way recognize that we cannot continue to wage war against what is best for America.

by pamelabrown 2007-05-19 01:39PM | 0 recs
Open your eyes and your ears

Obama could be a DLC'er.  He gets his jollies knocking other Democrats and playing to Republicans.  His handlers would sell YOU out for 2 Republican votes.

by dpANDREWS 2007-05-21 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements: Frank Luntz and a subtle
I heard Luntz was gushing about Obama and he has definitely brought alot of people into the party.  There are chapters of repubs and indies for Obama and they are re registering as dems just to vote for him.
I knew Arianna was pro Obama and love her for it.
She finally came clean.
by vwcat 2007-05-18 04:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements: Frank Luntz and a subtle

I did too but remember she does not endorse him and I think it would be inappropriate for her to formally endorse do so.  With that said, there is no doubt that she has a strong pro Obama bias.

Obama '08

by lovingj 2007-05-18 05:05PM | 0 recs
Can you ever get "clean"?

After being married to a closeted gay Republican?  Is there enough soap and hot water?

by dpANDREWS 2007-05-19 08:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements: Frank Luntz and a subtle

Yes.  Everyone knows she leans towards Obama.  He is getting support from all areas.  

by vwcat 2007-05-18 05:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

Is getting endorsements from right-wingers really a good thing?  It may turn some progressives off, re-inforce the centrist theme.

by georgep 2007-05-18 06:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

Yes, heaven forbid a presidential candidate appeal to anyone outside of a party's base. Certain candidates have the ability to appeal to more than a slim plurality of voters.

By the way, haven't you ever wondered why Clinton's support in the blogosphere is so abysmal/non-existent?

by mihan 2007-05-18 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

George Will and Frank Luntz are awful people.

by jallen 2007-05-18 07:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

Guilty by endorsement. Got it.

by mihan 2007-05-18 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

No, as Reagan said, just because someone endorses him, doesn't mean he endorses them.  But it doesn't impress me that a neoliberal like Luntz and a conservative like Will support him.

by jallen 2007-05-18 07:39PM | 0 recs

In a New York Minute, Will and Luntz, don't endorse Obama.  They respect him because their roster of candidates is pathetic.  In the absence of a viable candidate, maybe they ponder-and maybe yearn-for a President of the United States. So do I.  Irrespective of our bush crime family horrors, SOMEHOW we need to solve some very complex problems.  Who better than the "Conciliator"?

by pamelabrown 2007-05-19 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: jallen

Uh, someone who will stand up for Democrats rather than criticize them for not being religious enough, and too partisan.  Someone who doesn't act like we can all just get along.

by jallen 2007-05-19 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

I don't like them either.  However, if they want to vote for a democrat, well that works for me.

by pamelabrown 2007-05-18 07:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

If we are ever going to once again have a large enough progressive majority to enact things like national health insurance and a carbon tax then we are going to need to convert some of the "awful people".

by Sam I Am 2007-05-19 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

Sure. But he's not going to convert people like Luntz and Will to a national health insurance plan, at least not one that progressives would like very much.

by clarkent 2007-05-19 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

They like the guy.  That counts for more than you're saying it's worth.  They're going to vote for him based on his character.  

How many Republicans can you say you like?  That's what is nice about this.  They are Republicans who say they like Obama.  That puts us a step ahead.  

The thing is, what Obama needs to do, is get elected, and reform health care.  Then what are they going to do?  Take back their vote?  I doubt they'd be terribly upset as long as it works anyways.  Why would Obama have to sell his health care plan after he's elected?  They obviously don't care much about his policies since they've endorsed him pre-most policies.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-05-19 09:09AM | 0 recs
Love your sig line clarkent

Paradoxically, Obama may appear to be a consensus searcher, but I say he's a molder...he's sooo subtle.

Agree that Luntz and Will would preferably slit their thoats than endorse UHC.  Maybe some rightwingers don't want to follow the theocons into Arramagedon(sp)?

by pamelabrown 2007-05-19 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

You don't get it.  Luntz is a joke.  Everytime I see the guy, I want to barf.   Now I see a diary in which Luntz' support is held up as some shining moment?   Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

Just don't whine incessantly about how Obama does not get enough of "the love" in this place.  You can't possibly appeal to right-wing conservatives and be a true progressive.  One precludes the other, unless the illogical claim is now made that someone like Luntz or Will have actually seen the light and moved into progressive territory.    They have not, it seems Obama has moved into the center, which makes him more appealing to Republicans.  Then we get bloggers take note, and Obama fans get all bent out of shape because left-wing progressive bloggers don't go along with Obama's moves.   You simply can't have it both ways.

by georgep 2007-05-18 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

There is a simple solution to your imaginary dilemma: Obama as a person is appealing to people of all stripes (except for hardcore wingers and Naderists), his policies are appealing to liberals and moderates. Conservatives like Luntz and Will like him for his personality, even though they often disagree with his progressive beliefs (which they explictly state, at least George Will did).

The problem with Hillary is that everyone except for low info Dems dislike her. The Democratic activists dislike her, moderates dislike her, independents dislike her, right wingers hate her. They mostly dislike her for her personality, though surely a lot of conservatives are impressed by her pro-corporate, hawkish agenda.

by Populism2008 2007-05-19 04:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

So, if everybody in the world but "low-info" Democrats dislike Clinton, why are you the least bit worried?  As the campaigns move forward those "low-info" Democrats will surely become "high-info," at which point her candidacy will sink into a bottomless pit.  

Your constant handwringing and multi-year campaign to "stop" Clinton belie your own words.  There is a lot more to her support than you acknowledge/realize, and either it is because you yourself lack proper information (and I am more than happy to provide it upon request :-)  ) or you are not being realistic/truthful here.  

And, on the flip coin, if what you say about Obama is true, we might as well declare the race over today.  If he is wildly popular with all stripes, there is no stopping the juggernaut.   It is over.  His is a campaign of destiny.  Let the coronation begin immediately, never mind Democratic due process and pesky little things like a primary or general election.    

by georgep 2007-05-19 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

48% of the voters in NH are indenpendents.

The NH primary will be an excellant test of Obama's purported appeal to centrist voters.

Let's see what happens.

by Sam I Am 2007-05-19 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has moved NOWHERE

and that's his beauty/strength,  HE is the only person, IMO, who is running a perfectly congruent campaign.  He soesn't have to move left, right or center.  Is there another candidate on either side that one has it this easy?  Obama's negatives are next to 0000000!!!

by pamelabrown 2007-05-19 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

Luntz seems like he's in politics for the money, not necessarily for principles. He seems to be praising Obama's ability to bring people together and reach out to independents and moderate Republicans. This 'endorsement' would carry more cache in a general for sure, but it seems to be more of a professional respect than a policy-based endorsement.

Arianna's tacit support is definitely more significant.

by eskimo 2007-05-18 07:03PM | 0 recs
For Luntz's politics is only a game

and he sees a big political talent in Barack Obama which impresses him. Luntz seems almost nonpolitical in his dedication to playing the game of politics. I don't think he care much about Obama's policies, but he recognizes a winner when he sees one.

by Populism2008 2007-05-19 04:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

Yes George.  A decently leftist guy, who gets appeal from the middle and the right, is worse than the centrist with little if any appeal from the middle and the right.  

I know it makes so much sense.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-05-18 07:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

You make no sense.  A "leftist" guy certainly can't get appeal from the "right."  It does not make any sense.  The policies are diametrically opposed.  Now, a centrist guy, that's an entirely different matter.  

by georgep 2007-05-18 08:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

55% of people tie themselves to a candidate rather than the 45% who tie themselves to issues.  

I heard somebody voted for Bush over Kerry because "Bush's daughters were hotter."  Not everyone votes straight on policy as you're putting it.  Character appeals too.  That's what a lot of this is about.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-05-18 08:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

That does not apply here.  Frank Luntz is very smart, very pragmatic, but VERY much ideologically a neoconservative.   This is not a "Bush's daughters are hotter than Kerry's" person.  

Obama is currently selling himself pretty much as a slightly left-of-center moderate.  Several Obama supporters have noted that as well on this very site.   That is why he attracts "Republicans for Obama" and Luntz' and Will's goodwill.  

by georgep 2007-05-18 10:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

There were a lot democrats who defected to Reagan because of his appeal and not his policies.

If you listen to Luntz or George Will's description, neither of them said dittily squat about Obama's policies because quite frankly they would not agree with them.  Have you heard any of these guys touting UHS or energy independence?  This is where Obama is our ultimate weapon.  He has the ability to sell progressive policies to conservative voters.

This is the same thing Reagan did to democratic voters.

by lovingj 2007-05-18 10:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

Those were centrist, moderate Democrats or Democratic leaning Independents.  A progressive or liberal Democrat would not have been caught dead supporting Reagan.  In fact, they saw right through his shtick.  

That is an important distinction, since this is a progressive site.  

by georgep 2007-05-19 05:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

Appealling to those moderate Republicans and Conservative leaning independants are how what we need to ensure a win.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-05-19 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

The country has lurched to the left.  In issue after issue we are now closer to the mainstream.  Pandering to the right-wing or right-leaning Independents is not necessary anymore to win elections moving forward.

by georgep 2007-05-19 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

40% of Americans are Democrats.  Roughly.  We can't win without reaching out.  

Actually, if we don't expand the base, little things like the economy could go bad, next thing we know Americans are voting out Democrats.  2006 was an upset America over Iraq, not a major ideological shift.  This isn't anything permanent.  2008 will be good but Iraq will still be important.  2010 will probably be okay.  2012?  I don't know.  I hope it will be good but who can really say?

The only thing that could fit under a permanent ideological shift in America is either the slow death of old people and the birth of young people coming of voting age, (which helps but works very very slow) or a redefinition of the issues, values and the main political parties.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-05-19 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

That's not true.  There has been a shift.  Polls show that Maericans are much more supportive of a more active government that does more to support social services than they were in the 80s and 90s, for example, and Americans are much less supportive of free trade.  There has definitely been a shift.

by jallen 2007-05-19 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

'90's and '80's have nothing to do 2006 though.  That ideological shift also doesn't give us a flat out majority.  We can still lose elections (2000, 2002, 2004).  

I said 2006 was not a major ideological shift, which doesn't contradict what you just said, so I don't know why you are saying, "That's not true."  It also doesn't contradict what I said when I mentioned we don't have a flat out majority, meaning we have to reach out.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-05-19 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

You look at the issues important to Americans, and on the top 12 important issues to Americans OUR Democratic position (yes, even progressive positions) are popular, some wildly so, while the opposing Republican or right-wing position is in the minority, most by a strong margin.   THAT is the shift, not in party affiliation per se.  

Name the issue, and the GOP is in trouble in almost every instance:  Be it immigration, abortion, stem cell research, the war, taxes, education, environment, global warming, foreign policy, the budget, on and on and on.  We see that the DEMOCRATIC position and in many instances even the PROGRESSIVE position is embraced by a strong majority of Americans.    That translates into electoral victories.  

Now, mind you, we have ALWAYS had an advantage over Republicans when it came to a majority of the issues, yet, they would win elections.  What changed?  Two things:  The war changed everything.   The GOP is no longer seen as the better "foreign affairs" and "war" party, far from it.   After the Iraq issue that advantage is irrevocably lost (well, for at least a decade or so.)   The GOP is no longer able to scare people into voting for them on the basis of fear and the image that they are "tougher" on those who would want to harm us (as happened in 2000, 2002 and 2004.)   Plus, the GOP was seen as "better for the budget," conservative used to be synonymous with being "good" with the people's tax Dollars.   No more.  That advantage is also down the window, courtesy of the free-spending 109th Congress and the Bush administration.     The shift is real, the issues are squarely on our side.   Basically ALL of them (name an issue where the GOP still has strength today, if you disagree.)

We have a historic opportunity to deal Republicans a major blow they will have trouble recovering from for a long time, relegate them to 40% status.  But not if we make concilliatory speeches, claim that others in the Democratic party are wrong for making the GOP their enemy, etc.   This is actually the time to declare the GOP a failed, old-and-tired party and take over for real.    

by georgep 2007-05-19 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

Actually, I don't see us on the "winning" side of abortion, taxes, and immigration.  Depends on what race and who is against who.  If the issue isn't properly framed, those are easy to lose for Democrats.  

There's been a lack of ideas in the Republican party.  They are down but not out.  You want to light a spark and get conservatives out to vote, have your declaration of victory, that'd only piss a lot of people off.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-05-19 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

I was speaking in general terms on these issues, as they appeal to the general public at large.  Of course, there are geographical differences and in some pockets a majority of voters won't agree with a single thing Democrats have to say.  

I guess you are missing the point of my post, as I was not getting into a micro discussion about certain places and appeal of issues.   Overall, in a meta sense, we are winning on these issues (yes, even abortion, taxes and Immigration.)  For example, ask yourself if overall on the issue of Immigration the Democratic position (offer amnesty to the 12 Mill. illegal immigrants, provide path to citizenship) is more popular than the Republican position (which actually helped seal their gigantic losses in 2006.)  Don't get sidetracked how it would play in conservative pockets in rural Alabama, just the overall picture.   On taxes, the current burning issue is about what to do with the temporary tax cuts Bush instituted.   The GOP argues that rescinding them would be a tax increase.   Still, a strong majority WANTS these tax cuts rescinded, does not buy into the GOP rhetoric of "tax increases."  

Things have definitely shifted.  

by georgep 2007-05-19 03:17PM | 0 recs
Obama is only conciliatory

in his willingess to listen to others.  That is why he is da bomb:  nothing in his histor ybelies a sellout to centrist or republican positions.

by pamelabrown 2007-05-19 03:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is only conciliatory

Some disagree with you (and some of those are prominent bloggers who have no motive other than advancing progressive causes.)    

by georgep 2007-05-19 03:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is only conciliatory

The only things I recall from progressives disagreeing on Obama are 1. "His bill to raise the mpg requirements to cut emissions aren't high enough."  Republicans would stop that bill, like always.  At least this bill can get the ball rolling.  

2. The other thing is he sponsered an energy bill with a Republican that put funding into researching different fuels including coal.  However, at the first debate Edwards had coal in his list of alternative fuels to research.  

What else is there?  I've probably just missed any other examples if there are.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-05-19 09:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is only conciliatory

There's a difference between Clean Coal, which Edwards supports, and converting Coal to be used as a fuel for vehicles, which Obama supports, and which is what many of us are against.

by jallen 2007-05-19 09:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is only conciliatory

From what I've seen, Obama passed a bill that supported clean coal.  There was criticism on that too, someone was saying you can't burn clean coal and have it release less harmful gases, etc. etc.  

The energy bill Obama passed....
"The Energy bill will do the following:
- Provide a $1.8 billion tax credit for investments in clean-coal facilities."

http://obama.senate.gov/press/050729-_ob ama_says_energy_bill_helps_illinois_by_d oubling_ethanol_use_investing_in_clean_c oal/index.html


by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-05-20 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is only conciliatory

So we've explained this like a dozen times over the last week, but Edwards only supports Clean Coal, Obama supports Clean Coal and turning it into fuel for vehicles, which, right now, pollutes more than regular gas.  That's what people are concerned about.

by jallen 2007-05-20 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is only conciliatory

100 years ago we couldn't land on the moon.  
100 years ago we didn't have cars.  

Obviously research, which Obama supports, changes the equation of situations.  

You can't contend Obama wants to turn coal into a fuel while it is extremely damaging to the environment.  If you can, please do.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-05-20 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is only conciliatory

I'm not, but that's what people are concerned about.

by jallen 2007-05-20 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

Polls are showing that people are more and more describing them selves as independents. The pollsters are showing an increase in the proportion of their sample being independents than any other group.

by BDM 2007-05-19 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

A lot of that is that the generation that is around 18-25 right now is the largest since the baby boom, and a huge number of them are independents.  However, young voters voted for Democrats 58-40% last November.

by jallen 2007-05-19 12:16PM | 0 recs
You're missing the frigging point

Many in the republican party seem adrift-who represents them?  Answer:  no one.  Perhaps Obama will listen to them....and he will,  If one of them has a semblence of a workable idea, he'll listen.  He won't cave but at least they will feel heard.  It's called healing; we are all  Americans first.

by pamelabrown 2007-05-19 03:11PM | 0 recs
As I said, Luntz is nonideological

in a lot of ways. He even wanted to help Democrats craft their message in 2006, just to prove he can win in the game of politics whether he is on the left or on the right.

Luntz is a swine, since he is selling himself to the highest bidder. Or rather - he will help whoever he believes can win. For him politics is a game, and he is the world champion. In Obama he sees a huge political talent, obviously.

by Populism2008 2007-05-19 04:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

What utter nonsense!

Kerry's daughters are much hotter thatn the Bush twins.

by Sam I Am 2007-05-19 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:


by lovingj 2007-05-19 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

One of Kerry's daughters is.  But Barabra Bush (Dubya's daughter, not his mother) is kind of nice looking.  Jenna's gross, though.  Looks too much like her father (though she reminds me more of Jeb).

by jallen 2007-05-19 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

I haven't looked into the issue until now, but now that I have, I'd have to agree with you ;-)

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-05-19 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

Please tell me what theme gets re-inforced when pornstar Jenna Jameson throws a couple lines down saying a Democratic president would be nice, then throwing in a special bit for Hillary.

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-05-18 07:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:


It is called expanding the base, which is a good thing.  

What matters isn't Will and Luntz personally; what matters is that Will and Luntz's willingness to acknowledge Obama's message, will make others who are not self identified liberals listen to Obama.  They may start out as indies and Rs for Obama, but over time they may become Democrats and even progressives.  

Obama is changing the debate in this country. He is trying to redefine what it means to be liberal and moderate and conservative.  That has the potential to be far more transformative than trying to ram progressive policies down the throat of a country that is not predisposed to accept them, and it is far more likely to be successful.

by upper left 2007-05-19 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

That is your interpretation.  I have a different one.  I believe he decided not to duplicate what he thinks is the mistake some candidates commit by "running too far left," thereby making it harder after the primaries to move back to the middle.  It is a calculated risk, and it could reap benefits in the general election.  Of course, it could also backfire, as your base may  start to lose interest, believes they are dealing with "just another centrist" (like Matt Stoller has claimed.)

It is an interesting gambit that bears watching.

by georgep 2007-05-19 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

I'm confused as to what makes Obama a centrist... Republicans are endorsing him... It's obviously a matter of character and not policies or views because his views are fairly liberal and his policies are few and far from done.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-05-19 12:07PM | 0 recs
Well, if Matt Stoller

is your pundit in charge we can just create a parallel universe to the MSM.  I happen to believe Obama goes about his merry way-beholden to no one.  What in his record is anti-progressive?  Obama is the opitome of cogruence:  where hasn't he walked the walk?

by pamelabrown 2007-05-19 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements:

I certainly agree that there is an element of calculation in Obama's unity message.  It is common wisdom that the voters tend to react against the percieved shortcomings of the current President.  Bush has been hyperpartisan and played to his own base relentlessly, so I think Obama has the right message at the right time.

OTOH, I think Obama is largely sincere, his unity message is consistent with his biography.  I believe it is this congruence that is Obama's greatest strength.  Neither HRC or Edwards have been nearly as consistent.  Shifting positions are the easiest targets for Repub smears.  Both Edwards and HRC have multiple vulnerabilities.

by upper left 2007-05-19 07:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements: Frank Luntz and a subtle

I hate Frank Luntz.

by aiko 2007-05-18 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements: Frank Luntz and a subtle

Luntz is not great for us but, it shows the ability of Obama to attract people of all walks of life.  and that means he is far more electable than Hillary and more appealing to those voters who can get us a win.  to only get just dems to vote for you does not win you the white house.

by vwcat 2007-05-18 07:18PM | 0 recs
Luntz likes Obama because Obama is a winner

much like Reagan. To Luntz winning is everything, ideology is less important. As was evident when he reached out to Democrats in 2006 and offered to help craft the Democratic message.

It's all a game to him. Which of course makes him immoral and dangerous. Nevertheless, I think he is right about Obama's appeal.

by Populism2008 2007-05-19 04:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Luntz likes Obama because Obama is a winner

No, Luntz is a neoliberal, who was disgusted by the conservatism of the Bush Republicans.  He hasn't explained it so bluntly, but when one sees what policies he supports, and he explains what it was that he doesn't like about the Republicans today, it's clear.

by jallen 2007-05-19 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama endorsements: Frank Luntz and a subtle

I don't have the link, but Arianna supports Gore.

by NYPopulist 2007-05-19 07:55AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads