Obama's message: We're all in this together

dengre's outstanding diary I choose change and I choose Obama! inspired some thoughts and observations about Obama, which I wanted to share with you.

Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth has a lesson to teach us.

In that movie, Gore made a trans-partisan appeal to people, asking all of us to rise above the usual bickering and the mundane in order to recognize the grave threat that the living beings of the planet are faced with.

That by itself didn't stop the denialists from their campaign to derail the message. They even ramped up their efforts to a new fever pitch and hence they needed to be, and to some degree still need to be, fought off.

However, in the process, the denialists became the fringe, as a sea shift took place across the board in terms of acknowledging the problem at hand. By the nature of his appeal, Gore transcended over the denialism on acknowledging and acting to reverse rapid climate change.

That's the nature of the message Obama is bringing to the table. Unless we persuade those that disagree with us into opening their ears, we can't get them to hear the message of change. Can we? If they don't even hear the message, why would they support that message?

Obama isn't saying let's sit down and cut deals with the exceedingly selfish interests, which is what the Obama bashers would have us believe.

Instead, Obama's making an appeal to the population at large that we're all in this together. While we all have self-interests, we also share collective interests, overlapping paths and a certain common destiny.

In other words, Obama's message is not that we should live and die by compromise, but instead to work to build and reach a consensus towards commond good and common purpose and implement the same to forge change.

Tags: 2008 elections, Barack Obama, Presidential Race (all tags)

Comments

63 Comments

Tip Jar.

Crossposted from my DK Diary. Thanks for reading!

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-12-28 06:19AM | 0 recs
Obama's message: give into the Republicans

Obama is naive and showing weakness.  The Republicans will rip off his limbs (politically speaking) and beat him over the head with them.

Listen to what Barry is saying.

If the Republicans won't compromise - and they won't - how do you get to bipartisanship?  Easy you give in.

Why give in?  Thats my question.  Why follow Barry Obama down a path of surrender to John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and Grover Norquist?  Why not finish the fight.  We are friggin' winning for a change.  We've knock the Republicans down and I advocate finishing them off, destroying the conservative coalition and moving on to a progressive majority from there.

If we let the Republicans up they regroup and you may not see a progressive majority in your lifetime.

by dpANDREWS 2007-12-28 06:24AM | 0 recs
Obama got things done

eg, on ethics reform and death penalty reform.

He has one meaningful passed into law in 3 years in the US senate.

Edwards has 0 zero bills with his name passed into law in 6 years.

HRC has only two ceremonial bills passed into law in 7 years. Then she has her failed healthcare project.

Both of these, of course, joined Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, McCain and Lieberman and got us the darned war. They simply should NOT be trusted. Period.

Here is a compilation of Obama's progressive and strong record.

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

2. ADA Ratings for Obama: 2005 (100%), 2006 (95%); Avg: 92.5%. Edwards lifetime ADA rating is 81% (and a poor 70% in 2002). link. Red state excuse doesn't easily fly because, eg, despite NC's union tradition which made even Jesse Helms vote against China MFN, Edwards voted for it.

3. Interest group ratings for Obama: vote smart

4. Issues 2000 on Obama

5. IL death penalty reform: CNN, Adam B's diary

6. Obama has 1 bill with his name that was passed into law. It's a Congo relief bill. Edwards has zero bills passed into law. See here for links.

7. Obama's work on ethics reform: barath's diary. DL's diary

8. Obama has excellent environmental record. He has 100% and 95% LCV ratings, had a strong record on it in the IL senate (despite IL being a heavily industrial state). Responded to environmentalists' concerns and opposed Bunning's bad CTL bill and stated a 20% CO2 reduction target for him to support it. See my compilation of links here. By contrast, Edwards had a weak environmental record: a poor overall LCV rating (59%) as well as poor ratings in 1999 (78%, weak compared to other Democrats) and 2002 (59%, poor) when he had no excuse of running for President.

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-12-28 06:29AM | 0 recs
Slanted, meaningless

You brush Edwards and Clinton's records aside, but that doesn't matter.

What you don't address in your post is why Obama wants to surrender to the Republicans.  You don't address Obama's weakness, the fact that he is soft, or his naive view of the world.

by dpANDREWS 2007-12-28 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Slanted, meaningless

"What you don't address in your post is why Obama wants to surrender to the Republicans."

Because that's a bullshit claim to begin with.

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-12-28 06:34AM | 0 recs
That's hogwash.

Obama only talked about 527s.

"Obama thinks unions are special interests."

That's a lie for you to say.

Obama has a strong pro-labor record and worked all his like to make things better for working class Illinoisans and Americans. link

"He objects to EMILY's list."

Yet another lie.

"His first major foreign policy address, which was the most hawkish I've heard from a Dem candidate in many elections, caused riots in Pakistan."

Benazir Bhutto herself rebutted the bullshit of what Obama said back then:


QUESTIONER:
We had quite an interesting, and indeed still are, mini-debate here politically between two -- initially two of the Democratic aspirants for presidents, and it spread now across party lines. And Barack Obama kicked it off by saying, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." That's a direct quote from a recent speech of his. What is your reaction to that?

BHUTTO: Well, I wouldn't like the United States to violate Pakistan's sovereignty with unauthorized military operations. But the issue that I would like to stress is that Barack Obama also said, if Pakistan won't act. And that's the critical issue, that the government has to act. And the government has to act to protect Pakistan's own serenity and integrity, its own respect, and to understand that if it creates a vacuum, then others aren't going to just twiddle their thumbs while militants freely move across the border.

"He's gotten into a battle with the most publicly accessible progressive voice of our time."

Because he was shilling repeatedly against Obama, using his own theories about mandates etc, in a very skewed way to suppress support for Obama and apparently to aid Edwards.

"Obama is telling you he isn't going to be a loyal Democrat. He's willing to slam Democratic institutions and voices."

Nonsense. Obama was one of the key reasons we won the 2006 midterms. He was the most sought after speakers on the stump by Democrats running for office then, and he donated tons of money and time to help the Democrats win. His 2004 DNC speech probably helped Kerry as well with independents etc.

See, it's the type of BS narratives that are being spun against Obama which DO NOT stand the test of evidence that demonstrate that politics are screwed up and operate on stupid and false spin cycles. It's precisely this kind of dishonest spins, which are the root cause of what ail our system, that breed the cynicism and apathy towards politics.

If you're misinformed, you need to do better research and better inform yourself. If you're not misinformed, then your comment is disinformation.

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-12-28 08:10AM | 0 recs
correction:

"Benazir Bhutto herself rebutted the BS misinterpretations and spinning of what Obama said:"

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-12-28 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Slanted, meaningless

Calm down. Good lord. Email this post to yourself so you can read it in a month. You wont' even recognize yourself. You're taking every small thing Obama has done and exaggerating it, distorting it, and then spinning it some more.

The bottom line for me is this: Obama can make mistakes, he can occasionally slip away from the progressive line (because he's a pretty firmly committed progressive), and at the end of the day, he's still not the one who authorized the biggest mistake in a generation.

by mcdave 2007-12-28 03:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's message: give into the Republicans

I don't think you know Barack Obama well enough to call him Barry, do you?  Pretty trollish.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2007-12-28 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's message: We're all in this together

It's interesting that you mention Al Gore's movie, while not acknowledging Obama's commitment to the coal industry and to building new nuclear reactors.

by Vox Populi 2007-12-28 06:28AM | 0 recs
Obama voted against Bunning's CTL bill

That's something the spinners don't want to remember, apaprently.

He made a course correction probably heeding AL Gore's advice.

He has a strong environmental record. Edwards has a weak record on the environment. Sure, LCV praised Edwards his plan, but they praised Obama's as well, and Obama has a good env. record to go with his lauded energy plan..

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-12-28 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama voted against Bunning's CTL bill

Whatever you say, boss.

by Vox Populi 2007-12-28 06:35AM | 0 recs
by NeuvoLiberal 2007-12-28 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: It's the facts, dude.

Two-year score. Rich. That chart alone is explanation enough on why Obama is so inexperienced.

by RJEvans 2007-12-28 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: It's the facts, dude.

And you're expecting what, 59% for 2007?

by ReillyDiefenbach 2007-12-28 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: It's the facts, dude.

Hey, you never know. Edwards went from 100 in 2000 to 17 in 2004.

by RJEvans 2007-12-28 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: It's the facts, dude.

I'm not really interested in rebutting this sort of thing, but it seems much more likely that Edwards was being downgraded for missing a lot of votes in 2004 when he was running for higher office, and not that he suddenly turned into a total wingnut on environmental issues.

by Steve M 2007-12-28 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: It's the facts, dude.

I realized that, but then that also puts this comparison into question.

by RJEvans 2007-12-28 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: It's the facts, dude.

"I realized that, but then that also puts this comparison into question."

It doesn't. These are ratings by the league of conservation voters which engages renowned environmentalists to pick important environmental votes and then grades members of congress based on how they voted on them.

Absences are bad on environmental votes in general (because the damage may irrecoverable, and also because Republicans, with one or two exceptions, have been traditionally united when it comes to making the wrong choices on the environment i.e. every Dem vote is generally needed on these votes), and hence should be factored as negatives.

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-12-28 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: It's the facts, dude.

I really don't care. I never cared for ratings. They mean nothing to me. So preach them all you want.

by RJEvans 2007-12-28 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: It's the facts, dude.

You apparently don't care for facts either, I guess.

by dmc2 2007-12-28 12:33PM | 0 recs
Re: It's the facts, dude.

So you would look at ratings and say candidate "A" is more qualified to be President? Are you kidding me?

by RJEvans 2007-12-28 01:16PM | 0 recs
Edwards had bad ratings in 1999 and 2002,

two years in which he had no excuse of campaigning for some office. He does have the excuse, albeit a poor one for environmental votes, of campaigning for president in 2003 and 2004.

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-12-28 11:18AM | 0 recs
Explain why HRC's score was only 71% in 2006,

compared to Obama's 95%?

"Two-year score."

Illinois senate doesn't exist in your world?

"Rich. That chart alone is explanation enough on why Obama is so inexperienced."

As I said, with all her "experience", Hillary Clinton (you seem to be supporting her) has only two bills carrying her name passed into law in 7 years in the senate, and they were both ceremonial. Then she has her votes for the the Iraq war, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment and the failed healthcare project, three major negatives.

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-12-28 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Explain why HRC's score was only 71% in 2006,

Jesus Christ, what's your point? Obama is genuinely inexperienced in ALL matters. How is this hard to understand? Experience does mean how many bills you passed or what score you get in a ratings system. I would think people would understand this.

by RJEvans 2007-12-28 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Explain why HRC's score was only 71% in 2006,

"Experience does mean how many bills you passed or what score you get in a ratings system."

What exactly is this elusive "experience"?

The most glaring "experience" I see on Hillary Clinton's resume are:

  1. the failed healthcare project and
  2. a vote to authorize a war (when no imminent thread existed) that cost over a trillion and caused over a million deaths.

Why exactly do we want that kind of experience? Especially to represent the Democratic party given (2)?

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-12-28 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Explain why HRC's score was only 71% in 2006,

If you don't understand what the word "experience" means, then you should not be preaching on this site.

Hillary Clinton's experience has been detailed in several diaries over the last few months. Read them and enjoy.

Hillary Clinton has already admitted defeat in Healthcare and has learned from her experience.

I don't see how the Iraq "vote" is negative experience. You could say it was bad judgment. But if the war went right, Obama would be wrong now wouldn't he. The problem with Obama is his record on Iraq. He voiced his opposition of the war, but when he got in the Senate, he had the same position as Clinton and even said his position on the Iraq war in no different than Bush.

As for the Iranian Resolution: a non-binding resolution saying Iran's Revolutionary Guard has helped terrorist and supports terrorism. Seems like the right vote to me.

by RJEvans 2007-12-28 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Explain why HRC's score was only 71% in 2006,

If you don't understand what the word "experience" means, then you should not be preaching on this site. Hillary Clinton's experience has been detailed in several diaries over the last few months. Read them and enjoy. Hillary Clinton has already admitted defeat in Healthcare and has learned from her experience.

As a US senator, we have metrics out there. She doesn't excel in them in any significant way. She does have fairly progressive record IF you take out her war votes, but in terms of bill passed, I was actuall surprised to see how poorls she's done in 7 years.

As a first lady her main project was the healthcare effort. On other things, unless the archival records are released, how can anyone tell what the quality or quantity of her claimed "experience" on that is? Even so, how does that count for more than that of any other presidential adviser?

I don't see how the Iraq "vote" is negative experience. You could say it was bad judgment. But if the war went right, Obama would be wrong now wouldn't he.

No. Saddam was not an imminent or present threat to the US even if he had WMD because he neither had the demonstrated motive nor the means to deliver them.

If the war magically wen "right", then politically those that supported it would have probably benefitted from it, but the decision itself would have still been a bad one.

"The problem with Obama is his record on Iraq. He voiced his opposition of the war, but when he got in the Senate, he had the same position as Clinton and even said his position on the Iraq war in no different than Bush."

Obama's justification is that once we invaded, the situation became more complex (because the future of Iraq needs to be factored in).

"As for the Iranian Resolution: a non-binding resolution saying Iran's Revolutionary Guard has helped terrorist and supports terrorism."

Kyl-Lieberman did that, claimed that Iran was aiding insurgency in Iraq, and did not explicitly state that it wasn't a war authorization. A dangerous combination given Bush/Cheney's behavior on Iraq.

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-12-28 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain why HRC's score was only 71% in 2006,

"But if the war went right, Obama would be wrong now wouldn't he."

That assumes that it was somehow not predictable that the war would not go right. It wasn't just a lucky guess. Obama had the judgment and prescience to see that this would be a huge error.

by dmc2 2007-12-28 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain why HRC's score was only 71% in 2006,

Bush had the lack of experience to make the right judgments once we were on the ground. Too many mistakes were made early in the war that should not have happened and that is the reason we are stuck there. 300,000 U.S. troops should of invaded Iraq, not 150,000. The Iraqi military should not have been disbanded. There are many others. Obama saw a fight, said Saddam should not be in power, but we should not do anything.

by RJEvans 2007-12-28 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain why HRC's score was only 71% in 2006,

Yes, there were a lot "mistakes" but they all derive from the original mistake, i.e. that "regime" change is the correct response to a non-imminent and unproven threat. We could've had 300,000 troops if we'd had true international consensus and we had to disband the Iraqi Army given the "regime" change goa.

by dmc2 2007-12-28 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain why HRC's score was only 71% in 2006,

Oops. Meant, "does NOT mean..."

by RJEvans 2007-12-28 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama voted against Bunning's CTL bill

Is there any white that Obama detractors will not attempt to turn black?  Where is the fairness and the respect due to one of the best candidates the Dems have ever run?

by ReillyDiefenbach 2007-12-28 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's message: We're all in this together

You have to consider the reasons why Al Gore didn't end up running for President.  No one disputes that he'd have far more power to do something about climate change if he were President.  Likewise, no one disputes that Wesley Clark would have far more power to prevent war with Iran if he were President.  Yet both of them declined to run for much the same reason.

The reality is that when you have a cause that requires a trans-partisan appeal, you simply can't advance it within the context of our bitterly partisan system.  Even if you're right about everything, once you're a Democratic candidate you're going to have the entire Republican infrastructure arrayed against you because they simply can't afford, for institutional reasons, to let you win.

In addition, Obama doesn't really have a cause other than ending partisanship itself.  Gore says we need to put aside partisanship to save the planet.  Clark says we need to put aside partisanship to avoid World War III.  Obama says we need to put aside partisanship, but to what end?  To accomplish a bunch of progressive policy goals, I guess, but a consensus isn't just going to magically emerge around those goals.  The reason we have partisanship in the first place is that people quite simply disagree about a lot of things.

by Steve M 2007-12-28 06:49AM | 0 recs
it's the difference b/w

global warming skepticism and denialism. The genuine and honest skeptics, those I want to talk to and persuade with facts. On the other hand I want to defeat denialism (which is by definition dishonest rejection of evidence) using facts again.

Fight off the dishonesty, but apply persuasion to the public at large. That's the distinction one needs to make, I think.

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-12-28 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: it's the difference b/w

I don't see partisanship and persuasion as opposing concepts.  My point is, in politics you not only have to persuade the voters that your policies are the right ones, but you also have to show them who is supporting those policies and who is blocking them.

We have all sorts of progressive ideas that already poll very well but don't get enacted into law because of Republican obstructionism.  We don't need to engage in more persuasion regarding those ideas.  We need to educate people that the Republicans are the ones getting in the way of those ideas - something you should not take for granted that the public understands.  When we obscure that message with calls for bipartisanship, distracting from the essential point that our ideas are correct and popular while the other side's ideas are incorrect and unpopular, we're not doing ourselves any favors.

by Steve M 2007-12-28 09:12AM | 0 recs
Democracy is really a debate.

"We have all sorts of progressive ideas that already poll very well but don't get enacted into law because of Republican obstructionism."

Let me give you another example. In 1998, there was apparently only one senator who was going to support proper ratification of the Kyoto treaty. That means that, even the the Democratic senators (almost all of them) were not going to support it. Should Democrats have run against their own obstruction on global warming?

The facts and science weren't as complete then as today, but most people around the world (except the US and a few other countries) recognized the problem. Yet, there was practically no support for it in the US senate.

The reason? There wasn't the "political will" as Gore said. The public was fed the propaganda of those that didn't want action to be taken, and hence there wasn't enough support in each senator's constituency to overcome the force of that disinformation campaign. You need about 60% of the population to support something to get over the hump. In order to get there, you need to open the ears of an even larger proportion of people to try and drive home the message.

"We have all sorts of progressive ideas that already poll very well but don't get enacted into law because of Republican obstructionism."

We need to make the case as well as point out the obstructionism. As such, the latter falls in the accountability category.

"When we obscure that message with calls for bipartisanship, distracting from the essential point that our ideas are correct and popular while the other side's ideas are incorrect and unpopular, we're not doing ourselves any favors."

We need to summon people to rise above partisanship in order to hear our case. Otherwise, it'll be a 50-50 perpetual tug of war, where the nasty methods used by the GOP (RWNM, some help from the MSM) ensure that we keep losing. We need to fight off the nasty stuff, get 80% to hear our message, and if then we succeed in getting 60+% to see it as being sensible, then and then only will the political will sufficient to get those ideas passed and implemented gels. (See, politics is all math :) Or so it seems. However, I've come to realize that emotions play a major role in it as well.)

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-12-28 09:55AM | 0 recs
Once such political will is at hand,

(or generated alond the way), we need sensible and trustworthy leaders with proven judgement and good vision to chart and implement a path towards progress.

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-12-28 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's message: We're all in this together

You're failing to see perhaps the most important element of Obama's approach.  What Obama constantly articulates, which truly sets him apart, is the interconnectivity of issues.  Saving the Planet and avoiding World War III are truly connected.  The environment also affects our security.  If you actually listen to him and read him, he always connects the environment, health care, and security issues.  No one, and especially not Obama, says that consensus magically appears nor that post-partisanship means no disagreement.  But we all need to begin to realize that extreme partisanship only creates gridlock, and thinking of issues as individual items without looking at the whole is what put us in this mess to begin with.  To look at Iraq without looking at the region, how it will affect Pakistan, how that will nuclear proliferation, and oil prices, and our economy...has been our political failure, especially of Democrats.  I am not so naive to believe Cheney didn't know damn well the march to Iraq was a march to chaos which would profit those who have profited by it.  

by Piuma 2007-12-28 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's message: We're all in this together

You guys have done an excellent job of articulating this theory, I just don't happen to buy into it.  In some ways it all sounds very New Agey.  I'm certainly glad Democrats are going to get to have a referendum of sorts on which course we want to take.

by Steve M 2007-12-28 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's message: We're all in this together

New Agey?  New Agey?  Exactly what do you think they call Gore? The trouble is we have had the shit kicked out of us so long we are cynical about the chance of actually being inspired once again.  But I think what sets us apart at our core from the Republicans is our Idealism, not our cynicism.  That's what being a Democrat should mean.  Please look at his closing argument:

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/ob amas_closing_argument_stand_with_me_and_ we_will_change_course_of_history.php

by Piuma 2007-12-28 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's message: We're all in this together

I don't think that's a fair description.  Obviously there are connections between seemingly distinct policy decisions.  I think the environment vs. terrorism connection is a bit overstated, but the general point remains.  You only have so many resources (money, political capital, favors to call in) so when you put all of your effort into a particular cause, the other ones necessarily suffer.

The current political climate favors a certain set of stalemates of which many of us have grown tired.  Changing politics doesn't mean doing away with all of the trite issues.  But it could, and probably does, mean trading stalemates on some issues for progress in others.

I'm ready for a change.

by the mollusk 2007-12-28 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's message: We're all in this together

I love this Neuvo. It's great to see more positive pro-candidate diaries on Mydd. It's way  better than the I hate (fill in the blank)diaries we have seen lately. Here is a warning. Expect backlash from the I hate Obama Club.

by TennesseeGurl 2007-12-28 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's message: We're all in this together

Amen. For now on, I'm recommending any positive diaries - even if they're about Hillary.

by mcdave 2007-12-28 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's message: We're all in this together

And this also includes Antoin Rezko, an indicted Illinois lobbyist with whom Obama purchased property in Kenwood.  Rezko also owned and operated slums wherein tenets froze during cold Chicago winters.  Although many of the tenements were located in Obama's Illinois Senate district, Obama said nothing, but he did accept donations from his close friend Rezko.

We are all in this together.  And this includes Rezko.

by truthteller2007 2007-12-28 10:43AM | 0 recs
Hillary accepted over $1 mn raised by Peter Paul,

a convicted felon. Video.

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-12-28 11:09AM | 0 recs
Nice defense of Obama.

Pathetic.

by MeanBoneII 2007-12-28 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Nice defense of Obama.

No wrongdoing on the part of Obama was shown. That's common sense (otherwise he wouldn't be a candidate for President or even a senator).

The smear attacks using Rezko are purile nonsense, because all of them (including Edwards) have some association or the other with shady people.

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-12-28 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's message: We're all in this together

we're all in this together,

unless you are a union.

by sepulvedaj3 2007-12-28 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's message: We're all in this together

or gay (McClurkin).

by domma 2007-12-28 11:32AM | 0 recs
Obama has a pro-labor and pro-LGBT record.

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-12-28 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's message: We're all in this together

Stop it Truth. The same if not worse can be said for your candidate of choice.

by TennesseeGurl 2007-12-28 11:17AM | 0 recs
Naive, assuming Obama even believes it.

We've seen the Republicans' idea of consensus and common ground. If you actually believe that Obama thinks he can, by some power of his personality, overcome their to-the-death partisanship, I think you're fooling yourself. Obama is running to the middle because he thinks it's his only chance of squeaking out a general election victory -- and he probably can't, anyway.

We need a FIGHTER, and Obama has demonstrated that he clearly isn't ready or willing to fight for us.

by MeanBoneII 2007-12-28 11:24AM | 0 recs
asdf

"We've seen the Republicans' idea of consensus and common ground."

Yes, but the guilty parties that caved in on major ticket items such as the war are Obama's opponents in this race.

Obama is not a Republican. He will try to build consensus around progressive causes and goals. It isn't his job alone either; we all have to help get there by engaging in a debate with the other side as to why progressive ideas make better sense.

"If you actually believe that Obama thinks he can, by some power of his personality, overcome their to-the-death partisanship"

By the power of argument, reasoning and persuasion on the part of all of us.

I have some experience (and partial success) in making the arguments on global warming to skeptics and Republicans (regular people). If we approach properly, they do want to listen to what we have to say.

"he thinks it's his only chance of squeaking out a general election victory"

Wrong. His career (and even record) shows that he always worked to build a consensus towards progressive goals. His 2004 DNC speech echoed the sentiment of bringing everyone together.

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-12-28 11:34AM | 0 recs
Plenty of 'guilt' to go around

Those "guilty parties" you refer to would have to include Obama, as he voted over and over to fund the war. This was after Edwards had voted against funding it when it was clear that Bush would not let inspectors finish their work and build a real coalition. Obama was voting to give Bush blank checks when it was clear that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were in an utter disaster.

Obama can try to "build a consensus" all he wants, but the American people have seen how that worked out in reality this year. To bring voters back again next November, we need a presidential nominee who people believe will actually stand up and FIGHT for what they want. Obama's talk about "consensus" and "common ground" isn't going to light that fire. People have seen that movie before, and they know how it ends.

by MeanBoneII 2007-12-29 12:36AM | 0 recs
on the general election

a couple of points:

Traditionally, candidates have been playing the "left in the primaries" and tacking/shifting to the "right in the general" game (Hillary tried to pull that one even this year seemingly when she voted for Kyl-Lieberman when the primary polls looked very strong, approaching the 50% mark. Edwards advised Kerry to hawkishly triangulate on the war in the general. etc.). I think that's inherently dishonest and contradictory. Obama will probably stand on the same consisten footing all the way through.

Second, it was very easy for Obama to have played a pander. His record actually supports its (for the most part) instead of contradicting it. He shouldn't tell us what we want to hear; he should tell us what he genuinely wants to do and thinks can be accomplished.

Third, keeping the general in mind is generally a responsible thing to do instead of selfishly saying whatever helps you win the primary w/o regard to how that may hurt in the general because if the latter does happen, it's the Democratic party that pays the price.

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-12-28 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: on the general election

By "His record actually supports it", I meant that his record is progressive for the most part.

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-12-28 11:50AM | 0 recs
Unless you're a union worker n/t

by okamichan13 2007-12-28 11:43AM | 0 recs
That's miserably false spin. Obama

has a pro-labor record.

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-12-28 12:07PM | 0 recs
And very anti-labor rhetoric lately

and if his record was so impressive you would think he would have received at least one national endorsement?

looks like their hesitation was well-founded.

by okamichan13 2007-12-29 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Unless you're a union worker n/t

The Union money wraps neatly around a half a million from Bunny Melon.  When is Edwards going to come out and address the issue of receiving about $750,000 from the Mellon's funneled to PACs.  This was an issue at the start of the race and now here it is once again.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail /2007/12/28/527_group_supportive_of_edwa rd_1.html

by Piuma 2007-12-28 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's message: We're all in this together

Excellent diary. Great job also responding to the lies and misrepresentation that seem to be thrown around here willy-nilly. If enough Democrats cannot see the potential of Barack Obama to carry out a Reagan-like transformation of the political landscape in a progressive direction to give him the nomination, it's just kinda sad to me.

by dmc2 2007-12-28 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's message: We're all in this together

Nuevo, you've done yeoman service with this diary and the ensuing comments.  You are a fine advocate for our preferred candidate.  I wish I had your patience...

by ReillyDiefenbach 2007-12-28 02:23PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads