It has taken me an absurdly long time to figure out who I’m voting for on Super-Duper Tuesday. But the primary is next week, so my time is up. I’m voting for Barack Obama, though I’m not all that excited about it. (And no, Ted Kennedy’s just-announced endorsement had nothing to do with it — I was already writing this post when I learned of Kennedy’s move.)
Why am I less than enthusiastic? Because I continue to harbor serious concerns about whether Obama can deliver on what he says he wants to do — to the point of wondering whether he even knows where to start. Because I think a fair amount of what Paul Krugman has been saying is accurate. Because I wish Obama had more courage (or less bias, or whatever is driving him) on full equality for gay people. Because the flashes of arrogance he has shown are both unpleasant (no, I do not want to “have a beer” with Obama) and reminiscent of our current president. Because we’re supposed to be electing a president, not a messiah, yet to listen to a lot of his supporters you could be forgiven for not being sure they know the difference, and cults make me very nervous. And because I do wonder whether he’s “ready” — taking on the presidency is not like becoming a Governor or a Senator, and there’s an awful lot riding on it.
On the other hand, Obama has run an excellent campaign (with the exception of getting lazy in New Hampshire, and I doubt they’ll make that mistake again). He has clearly energized a lot of voters, including new voters, and that’s a very good thing. As afertig has argued, and as other anecdotal reports reflect, he seems to be emphasizing the kind of ground-level organization that wins campaigns. His post-partisan vision has undeniable appeal. His Axelrodian rhetoric does as well — there’s a reason Deval Patrick won as easily as he did, plus, I don’t doubt that Obama believes what he’s saying. His policy proposals are basically sound (and basically indistinguishable from those of his competitors, with a few exceptions like the individual mandate question in health insurance). He’s a smart guy, and he will no doubt surround himself with smart advisors.
And if — if — a President Obama could inspire people to involve themselves in public life the way that (for example) Caroline Kennedy thinks he could, that would indeed make the country a better place. He won’t be able to do that unless he succeeds, and as I’ve said, I have my reservations. But it’s a possibility that can’t be ignored.
Now, what about the others? As I’ve said before, I like a lot of what John Edwards is talking about, and I do think his presence in the race has had a very positive impact on it — he has indeed set the agenda on certain issues. But I don’t see Edwards as being able to deliver. His needlessly confrontational, over-the-top, us-versus-them pitch is uninspiring, unattractive — has he won a primary yet? — and unrealistic. (I still don’t understand, for example, how he plans to pass and implement a health care system that continues to depend on health insurers without allowing those insurers a “seat at the table.” That’s not how the world works — that, in fact, is one of the lessons of HillaryCare 1.0.) He tried to modulate his message at the South Carolina debate, but it was too little too late. Too bad that guy didn’t show up earlier — it might have been a different race.
And as for Hillary Clinton, her slash-and-burn campaign over the last few weeks has pretty much disqualified her, IMHO. She either can’t, or has chosen not to, rein in her husband — either speaks poorly of her, since Bill was out of control in South Carolina. I think that Hillary could have overcome the naysayers who bemoan the “bad old days” of the Clinton era — if she had run a campaign that didn’t force people to remember what they didn’t like about those days. On this blog, I’ve repeatedly criticized those who argued that Hillary is “unelectable” because of the 1990s, and particularly those (including Obama, on some occasions) who have given credence to the irrational Clinton-haters by saying things like “well, I don’t agree with them, but still, they’re out there.” But in doing so, I assumed that Hillary would run a campaign that would reflect a departure from what, it must be conceded, a lot of people don’t like about the Clinton era, and about the Clintons. She has not done that. And that’s a damn shame.
So, go Obama, I guess. Woot.
yellow-dog says
In a year that offers, I think, two viable candidates in Obama and Clinton, and one candidate who has put some serious ideas on the table in Edwards, it seems like I should be having an easier time deciding on who I’m going to support. Instead the opposite is true.
<
p>As a contrarian, it makes me crazy to hear anti-Clintonian’s knee jerk reactions. Maureen Dowd said the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in a while: “The Clintons always drag people down into the mud. When Bill was impeached he even dragged the founding fathers into it, bringing up a torrid affair of Alexander Hamilton.” The Clintons play hardball. To be frank, I like that.
<
p>I also dislike the messiah aspect of Obama.
<
p>Anyway, good endorsement.
<
p>Mark
mcrd says
Just for the sake of arguement, just where should the Clinton’s draw the line? When Bill Clinton bombed the Sudanese as a smoke screen for hos perjury, I though t that was pretty remarkable. I guess admirers such as yourself would like to see him take wag the Dog a step further. Amazing how life imitates art!
bob-neer says
By trying to stand in the way of the War on Terror back when it actually could have saved 3,000 American lives.
<
p>In fact, when Clinton and the Democrats tried to take it direct to bin Laden in Afghanistan the Republicans undercut America again and started playing party politics instead of defending the country.
<
p>Then they fell asleep at the switch and left us wide open to attack on 9.11.
yellow-dog says
You already know the Clintons killed Vince Foster because he knew something about the DaVinci code, so there’s nothing I can really add to the conversation. And I’ve never really seen anything important you’ve added to a conversation. Quite honestly MCRD, it’s not worth arguing with you.
<
p>Mark
<
p>
sabutai says
…having to go to a second (or third) choice. Thanks Iowa and New Hampshire.
lolorb says
always vote Gravel or write in Al Gore. Just some thoughts. đŸ˜‰ It’s kinda nice sitting back and watching while everyone else goes into fever pitch. Don’t discount Hillary yet. Remember the Dean campaign and the Kerry win. It isn’t over yet.
sabutai says
Rather vote third choice than sixth choice. I’m not discounting Hillary yet…far from it. I’m an optimist at heart đŸ™‚
jkw says
Any candidate that doesn’t get at least 15% doesn’t affect the final delegate allocation. It may have some symbolic meaning, but there is no practical difference between not voting and voting for someone that ends up below 15%. Given that this is a primary, symbolic voting seems like even more of a waste than in a general election. The annoying thing is that Edwards is polling at about 15%, which means it is unclear whether a vote for Edwards will actually count for anything.
lolorb says
If everyone really voted for whom they wanted without listening to the MSM, we would all be in much better shape. Just because you mentioned him, maybe I’ll start stirring up some Edwards support just so that he makes that 15%. BTW – I now get the whole Nader thing. I don’t like Nader, having met him, but I completely undertand the vote. Or, I may just vote the way I want and say to heck with the mainstream MSM consensus — wouldn’t that be a novel idea?
smadin says
If he’s polling at about 15%, and it’s currently unclear whether he’ll reach the 15% cutoff in the actual vote a week from Tuesday, isn’t that a really good reason for supporters to vote for him, and try to get as many people as they can to do the same, to try to make sure he does pass that 15% threshold?
amberpaw says
As long as John Edwards doesn’t quit, neither will I.
<
p>Come on in. The water is cold but clean and clear.
lightiris says
<
p>These are my concerns exactly. Well said. But he’ll get my vote, too, although I’m not enthusiastic in the least and more than a little bit worried.
theopensociety says
lightiris says
Do you think David should vote for Hillary Clinton, as well? As I look at the comments now, you haven’t told him he should be voting for Hillary Clinton.
<
p>Hmmm.
<
p>Targeting me and not David suggests that you didn’t read very closely. Did you only read my pull-out quote and skip the rest of what I said? I said “Everything you write here is true.” That means that I agree with everything David, uh, wrote here. Go back and reread David’s post.
<
p>I eagerly await your written admonition to David that he, too, vote for Hillary.
theopensociety says
How could I not?
lightiris says
Candidly, I’m comfortable with either. If Obama goes bust on the primary trail and Hillary’s the nominee, that’s fine with me, too. I’m voting for the Democratic nominee. Period.
mcrd says
shiltone says
…as the guy who puts a candidate’s bumper sticker on his car and then cuts you off in traffic.
ryepower12 says
this pretty much sums up my feelings on Barack Obama’s candidacy, well, below the fold anyway.
<
p>Here’s just a brief blurb:
<
p>
afertig says
When has Obama ever said explicitly that the problem is a political system where Dems and liberals are “equally” to blame. I think he gives the lion share of blame to Republicans. The issue, Ryan, is that it doesn’t matter who started it, or who is worse. We’ve got to come to a point in our history where we can acknowledge the other side and not live in two different realities. That means Republicans have to start actually addressing the needs of the American people instead of stirring up fear and hate and division. But that also means that a Democratic candidate can acknowledge that to many people, Reagan represented optimism and entrepreneurship — even if Obama disagrees with pretty much Reagan stands for.
smadin says
Isn’t it essentially dishonest to do so without pointing out that that perception, widely held though it is, is completely inaccurate?
<
p>Now, I know that the realities of modern politics are such that if you stand up and say “Reagan was one of the worst presidents of the twentieth century,” even though you’d be right about that, you’re going to get stomped, because so many people seem to have so much invested in believing the myth that the Republicans have crafted around St. Ron. (cf. Peggy Noonan, who has taken to castigating Bush 43 for his disastrous effect on the Republican party, but who is unwilling or unable to recognize that Bush is the direct, natural result of Reagan.)
<
p>But it is possible to at least back off the lionization, and leave open some rhetorical space for honest criticism of Reagan.
<
p>As to your main point, Obama doesn’t ever have to say “equally,” because that work’s already been done for him by the “fair and balanced” coverage of our famously liberal mass media. Every time he says that “bitter partisanship” or “partisan bickering” or “beltway insiders” are the problem, that plays right into the already-established (but, of course, false) narrative that both sides are equally to blame, and that the fights are essentially trivial squabbles over minor details or organizational minutiae or who went to the prom with whom, while legislators merrily ignore their constituents’ interests. The fact is that not partisanship but Republicans are the problem (well, Republicans, and Democrats who are happy to give them whatever they want), and the fights that have been going on are not “bickering” or “squabbling” over minor things but serious struggles over major policy matters that affect most, if not all, Americans’ lives.
<
p>I see a lot of Obama supporters arguing that when Obama appeared to praise Reagan, what he really meant was…, and when Obama appeared to blame Democrats in equal measure with Republicans what he really meant was…, and when Obama adopted wrong-headed or at least equivocal positions on Republican hot-button issues like perpetuating the “Social Security crisis” narrative, what he really meant was…
<
p>I don’t know what he really meant, and I don’t think they do either, they just know what they want him to have meant. Until I can read his mind, I’m going to judge his candidacy by what he says, not what he might mean.
<
p>Don’t get me wrong. I think that Obama would be a good president, and it’s reasonably likely he’d be better than Clinton. I’ll happily contribute to and/or volunteer for, and very happily vote for, whoever the Democratic nominee ends up being. And it’s not like the other candidates haven’t said things on the campaign trail that I find troubling also. (And unless he drops out in the next week, which I doubt, I’m still voting for Edwards in the primary.)
<
p>But I’m not convinced of the merits of the “what he really meant was…” argument.
kosta says
<
p>Unfortunately, Ronald Reagan WAS a transformative political figure. He was an extraordinarily effective and destructive leader, and smarter than most of his critics have been willing to acknowledge. He promulgated destructive policies by cloaking them in the language of optimism and generosity, something that the public had been denied by the Democratic power structure of the time.
<
p>Obama simply seeks to reclaim the rhetorical tools that Reagan and his followers co-opted.
<
p>I am really fed up with people referring to Sen. Obama’s words as “mere” poetry or “mere” rhetoric. Rhetoric is important. Rhetoric conveys real ideas and compels people to act upon them. The best policy paper in the world is just more bird cage liner if it is not accompanied by the requisite words of persuasion.
<
p>Ultimately, this is why Hillary is the inferior candidate:
<
p> she is purposefully dull.
<
p>”It is difficult
to get the news from poems,
yet men die miserably every day
for lack
of what is found there. “
<
p>William Carlos Williams
smadin says
Because you’re still trying to tell me you can read Senator Obama’s mind:
And I also never said I don’t think rhetoric matters. It certainly does, and I appreciate a well-crafted speech as much as anyone. “Mere rhetoric” means rhetoric alone, without the action to back it up, and that’s what I’m concerned about.
kosta says
It is vexing when Obama supporters parse his pronouncements as if it were holy writ, trying to juice out something that will support their pet causes.
<
p>I just think that what he said in this instance was pretty clear and forthright.
mcrd says
Thing EMK and his nieces embrace of Obama had anything to do with the Clinton slash and burn campaign? Bill Clinton pitting minorities against the majority (so called) No doubt Ted and many liberals saw that and said to themselves, “so this guy wants to play the game this way huh?” It’s a pretty dark day. I’ve never seen anything like this in my lifetime.
theopensociety says
Bill Clinton did not stir up fear, hate, and division. But hey, I guess if you say it enough times, for some people it must be true. AFter all, it helped Obama win South Carolina. So what if it is not true. Are you sure you are not a Republican? And what does “pitting minorities against the majority” mean anyway? That just does not make any sense at all.
marc-davidson says
Clinton made in Kansas City on Saturday night were over the top. He dismissed the significance of SC by comparing Obama’s win to those of Jesse Jackson in the ’80s. An honest analysis would show that there was no comparison. The clear message of his comments was that African Americans will support one of their own. What if Obama had similarly said that in NH the reason he lost was that there were too many whites for him to win? Such a comment would have been met with derision.
This was a clear attempt by the Clintons to marginalize a significant part of the Democratic constituency for short-term political gain and should be repudiated by us all.
johnk says
Obama surrogates did nothing racial, cough, Bradley effect, cough, at all after NH.
marc-davidson says
Where was the attempt to dismiss the preference of a plurality of New Hampshire voters for Hillary Clinton?
Let’s put this in perspective. It’s one thing to spin the results in your favor. Winners and losers do this. It’s quite another for the de-facto leader of the Democratic Party to dismiss the participation of an historically underrepresented constituency, whose cause has been central to the party’s agenda over the last 40 years.
johnk says
because they do want to appear as racists is okay with you? Listen, I’m not going to defend Bill Clinton’s comments, it was idiotic. But please, please, don’t push this load of BS of the Obama campaign not race baiting. It’s ugly, and it’s useless, but what I want to point out here is that it’s going around with all candidates. The reason there are comments and not a post (for me) is that it’s useless to post these things, but it’s here to reference that this Hillary bashing is a load of crap. I sick of this Hillary bashing.
ryepower12 says
The point is still there. The problem is partisanship, according to him, when in reality the problem is two fold: Republicans who don’t give a crap about the country and watered-down pansy democrats who don’t understand what it means to stand up for Americans. It’s not one of partisanship and pretending like we can someone unite the country is not only blind, but counterproductive. The Republicans will have a field day with that, obstructing everything we do for another 4 more years (after which, we’ll probably lose our majority by then).
<
p>
<
p>I wish they could; I really do. However, authoritarian minds don’t work like that. The only choice we, as a movement, have is to beat them. Thoroughly. Then rub it in and make them know there’s a new sheriff in town. Then – and only then – would it be possible to create a new political structure in this country were bipartisanship is a possibility.
marc-davidson says
But that’s a long time, and some of us believe that there is always a chance for redemption. Look at your own life. Have you never made a significant change in position? Good leadership can be effective in changing the hearts and minds of most if not the most recalcitrant and won’t take 100 years.
ryepower12 says
<
p>That’s precisely why we, as a Democratic Party, are where we are today: because we keep thinking we can go to the bargaining table with Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, etc. We didn’t know about things like authoritarian minds, so we assumed that current Republican leaders could be bargained with. They can’t. Trying to go to the table and reach a compromise is almost always going to be viewed as a weakness to them – they’re not only irresponsible when it comes to governing, but their brains just don’t work the same as ours.
<
p>Furthermore, whether you like it or not, the Republican leadership already views this as a 100 year war. They’ve unleashed this war upon us and too many people don’t know it’s even going on. War is their culture and Capitol Hill is just another battlefield. That’s why they’re able to hold their party line and block reform – especially when we try to give them the proverbial olive branch and reach bipartisan solutions. When democrats have decided to fight and stick together – knowing there was a war on – we’ve won… but the problem is they don’t realize the Republican movement is a war, just some of the issues they’ve engaged on (see Social Security).
<
p>All that said, it won’t take 100 years – or 20 – to defeat the authoritarian conservatives if we do things the right way. Why? Once they’re beaten, their followers won’t look to their leaders in the same light – precisely because they’ll be viewed as beaten, weak and not worthy of votes. That’s how an authoritarian mind works, if they’re not in charge, they’ll look to those who are – even if they aren’t thrilled with them.
<
p>That becomes especially true if we’re bold and get a lot of things done during a large Democratic Majority, which we could potentially reach in ’08 if, and only if, the DINOs in our party stop acting like a bunch of dunderheads and actually stand up to Bush. Then, and only then, will the “war” be over, will the current Republican majority be finished and will we actually be able to work with Republicans to create bipartisan solutions: but they have to be beaten severely and embarrassed first.
lanugo says
Obama is not saying we should compromise or adopt Republican ideas. He is in fact criticising the GOP and Bush/Rove divisiveness, saying that our country should repudiate that type of politics. The thing is, if you want him to just go out and bash the Republicans for the problems how do you expect him to win in November?
<
p>An election can’t be just about proving who is right. You have to win people over and while I completely agree that the GOP is largely at blame for the problems we face today, wholeheatedly, I don’t think we will win in November by just telling people the GOP sucks. Obama offers something to look forward to and not just a critique of the opposition. We want people voting for us and not just against the other guys – that is the only way to get a mandate for a progressive agenda.
ryepower12 says
Let’s pretend I’m completely missing the point and that everything you just wrote is 100% true. In praising Ronald Reagan and in telling audiences how awful partisan party politics has been for our party – and by using Republican Talking points like pushing social security reform as necessary… he’s actually somehow repudiating the Republican Party. I’ll hypothetically buy in, to make a point.
<
p>If I’m missing that point, as well as millions of other Americans, doesn’t that mean the point is flawed? Republicans would love nothing else but to play Obama’s rhetoric over and over again suggesting Democrats are a part of the problem… it’ll buy them cover in the days to come, creating their own reality and helping Americans forget the fact that Republicans have nearly ruined this country for the past 8 years. The Republican Spin Machine is powerful and Obama’s rhetoric will feed right into it.
<
p>
<
p>By illuminating America to all the wrongs the Republicans have done, while exposing how on each and every point of Republican hackery, we have much better ideas to solve the problems. In other words, you answered your own question.
<
p>
<
p>I agree. You don’t win an election by telling people the other party sucks. You win it by showing them how it sucks and how you’ll do things much better. That’s the kind of message that can help win an election.
<
p>
<
p>And as I’ve said a number of times on this site, Obama’s rhetoric could certainly be a boon to his presidential campaign. However, I’m speaking to something far more important than a presidential party: I’m talking about the future of the progressive movement. A Democratic President in office spewing forth the problems and solutions he is as a candidate is not going to help our movement in the long run. It’ll help Candidate Obama, but it won’t help progressives and liberals create a new majority that will last for a decade or longer… and have the guts and wisdom to foster bold, innovative and important, New-Deal-esque change.
lanugo says
Your making way too much of a few things:
<
p>1) His praise for Reagan was not off base – we can admit when the other side did “transform” the country even if for the worse
2)Saying Social Security needs a fix is not a “Republican” talking point – in fact he then went and proposed a tax hike on the wealthiest 3% to fix it for the long-term. Progressives think ahead and don’t just wait until beaten into submission to respond to an issue. Our problem is we have for too long been on the defensive on social insurance – just rebutting GOP ideas without offering our own. It may work for now but not forever. I say fix the roof when the sun is shining.
<
p>But I do agree we have to show the public how wrong the GOP has been from Iraq to the economy – I think Obama is as critical as anyone about Bush and his policies. And believe me the GOP will hammer his liberal positions more than the few times he has mentioned their names in positive ways.
ryepower12 says
SS, as currently constituted, would be in tact for at least the next 40 years. While that doesn’t mean we should rest on our laurels, it does mean that it shouldn’t be a serious talking point in running for President: there are plenty of other, more important issues out there that speaks to the core of the Democratic Party. By doing propping up this Republican issue, it’s placing doubt in some people’s minds as to SS’s solvency – which is the very definition of a Republican Talking Point, whether Obama realizes it or not. The same can be said of liquid coal and other of Obama’s past policies. We just don’t need to go there to win elections – it’s off message and, in the long run, could hurt us.
<
p>Finally, there was some praise to his Reagan comment, whether you’re willing to see it or not. We don’t need to recognize Reagan’s transformative ability in politics; it just isn’t relevant. It only allows conservatives to continue to prop Reagan up – saying, “see, look what their own guy thinks of him!” We just don’t need to go there, that’s my point. By going there, some people who we need to win elections will think Reagan actually had good ideas – when his ideas have sucked the wind out of this country. As the saying goes, “if you’re not on message, you’re off it.”
<
p>And if someone absolutely, positively has to talk about Reagan, it should be from the viewpoint that Reagan initiated many of the political philosophies that have been ruining this country today… and we’re going to bring the kind of “transformative” politics that will fix it. Unfortunately, that’s not a message Obama has been talking about this election – if he were, believe me, I’d be helping out with his campaign.
<
p>I can’t stress how imperative it is for Democrats and progressives to never give anything but feint praise toward Republicans, otherwise we’re just feeding into them. Better yet, don’t even bring old Republicans that have little bearing on today up – and only bring up today’s Republicans when we’re talking about how much they’ve screwed up the world and how, in each of those ways, we have plans to fix it.
lanugo says
and that will end well in advance of 40 years. Once it does the fiscal hens come home to roost and we will need a response. I’d rather raise some taxes on the rich and make the system stable than wait for some Republican to drive the programme into a ditch, spend the surpluses on tax cuts for the rich and then force privatisation.
<
p>And Obama has not made this a big part of his agenda. He never mentions this in a speech, etc… If Krugman hadn’t made such a big deal about it and Clinton hadn’t been sending mailers to everyone saying Obama would raise taxes by a trillion on the middle class (talk about using Republican talking points – c’mon) then no one here would have noticed a few comments he made. Obama’s solution is progressive and it is about time someone had the balls to mention such ideas.
<
p>And as far as demonising Republicans – I like doing it as much as the next person, but at some point it just poisons the well of government and any progressive movement relies on an active government to achieve its ends. Ultimately, go too far and it becomes counterproductive. The GOP has let itself become an amalgam of religious loons, anti-tax/govt fanatics and bomb everyone security hawks. They deserve to wallow in it but many folks who see themselves as Republican could be open to Democrats more now than ever in recent years and thus we should bash the ideas but not the party. Obama is the only person in the race talking about a new majority and save McCain the only person likely to have a chance at delivering one.
ncelik says
Is this more a vote for Obama or against Clinton?
david says
lanugo says
Obama supporter.
<
p>I actually liked Hillary as a leader in her own right for many years. I’ve seen her speak in person a number of times in Boston and DC and was always impressed. But, her record of calculation, her inability to get beyond a good set of bullet points to express a vision of where our country should head and ultimately her diviseness were put offs. I respect her still (despite the nasty things I have said on this website – and may say again), but honestly the fact that she would be bringing Bill back into the White House I found unsettling, for many of the reasons that we have all cited of late about his antics in SC.
<
p>As for Obama – I always loved his words and message. It felt good to hear someone try to lift us up instead of tear folks down. But yet it took me awhile to come around for the long haul because I didn’t want a new bandwagon to hop on, one I was unsure had what it took to drive the distance. I dabbled with Edwards for a bit, but just didn’t find his angry populism authentic or realistic. I liked Richardson for his resume and background, more experience than Hillary by far, runs a key state in the battleground southwest, but he was not a great campaigner and his position on Iraq – immediate pullout was just pandering and dumb.
<
p>SO I waited and watched and as Hillary rose in the polls throughout the summer and I started to wonder about what another Clinton presidency would be like – and how I didn’t want it again and how Obama was a once-in-a-lifetime politician, someone we could proud to make our nominee. I know he is not a messiah or without downsides, but we should not get too nitpicky about them. He makes politics somewhat better and has the potential for greatness. I’d like to see a great president in my lifetime and I don’t think anyone else has that potential. Roll the Dice!
john-from-lowell says
IconoCLASH – Blue Rovians
<
p>
<
p>Like Bono said “Am I buggin’ ya? I’m meaning to bug ya!”
david says
will says
I sense a record-setting run at the charts coming on.
john-from-lowell says
<
p>I am new to BMG. I sometimes forget this forum isn’t on track with my mad minute memes.
jonnybbad says
<
p>It starts with Blue Meanies…All Together Now ?
cardboard-box says
I voted (absentee) for Obama because I feel roughly the same way as you about all three of our candidates. Thank you for expressing my ambivalence better than I can.
bfk says
<
p>Kind of reminds me of the last gubernatorial race.
joeltpatterson says
I don’t know if he would have been able to twist enough arms to get the Civil Rights Act passed. MLK obviously had a genius level talent for motivating and leading a movement, but to get new legislation under our Constitution, a President needs a majority in the House, and 60 votes in the Senate–and most of those Senators think they should be President, unaware of how non-Presidential they are (I’m looking at you, Joe Lieberman!). They aren’t interested in following a charismatic leader, nor in “doing the right thing.” There’s definitely a different skill set to getting Senators to agree with you than getting a majority of voters to agree with you.
<
p>I’m worried they’ll obstruct a new President Obama just as easily as they obstructed a new President Clinton in 1992.
mcrd says
heartlanddem says
hlpeary says
look for GOP to put a woman on the ticket as VP (and it won’t be Condolleeza Rice)…a white woman.
jonnybbad says
lightiris says
Nothing like a little Joementum. Heh.
yellow-dog says
at Talk Left, has the same reservations about Obama as many do(such as David), but has decided to support Obama because he thinks he’ll be less apt to be obstructed.
<
p>I have my doubts. The GOP would drive over its collective grandmother to get a foot closer to power.
<
p>Mark
frankskeffington says
…had anything to with Deval’s luke-warm year as gov?
<
p>And for the record, I made up my mind to support Obama om the fall of 2006 when he made his first trip to NH as a non-candidate.
david says
rick-holmes says
Of course the Republicans will try to obstruct President Obama, and Deval’s inability to finesse Sal DiMasi’s obstructionism is a cautionary tale. But I find Obama’s idea – put out a big net for ideas and allies and pursue fundamental changes in direction – in many ways preferable to Clinton’s neo-Rovian strategy of alienating 49 percent of Americans and pushing through an incrementalist agenda with 51 percent support (or a Morris triangulation strategy of governing with even less than 50 percent).
<
p>Can Obama govern? We’re getting a little ahead of ourselves, I’ll grant. But the dysfunction on Capital Hill is different from the dysfunction on Beacon Hill. Give Barack 60 Democratic senators and he’s got a good shot.
sabutai says
A newly democratized people were preparing for an election, and there was a sense from large swaths of the electorate that it would be “getting head of oneself” to worry if a candidate would be able to govern, so why not “roll the dice”? Imagine the distress if a heavily indebted small country were planning its future around hope.
<
p>People would cluck their tongues and shake their heads at the naivete of such inexperienced voters being given a tool they were just learning how to use. Well-meaning foreigners would talk about the need for time for “democracy to take root” and “become part of the culture”. Organizations would worry about how rough ahead are the times for that country.
<
p>But since this talk is backed up by American budgets and using poll-tested images and language, it’s become a badge of honor. When you think you’ve seen it all….
will says
Indeed. Go, Hillary.
rick-holmes says
… and she wouldn’t know what to do with them. I started out respecting Hillary and still think she’ll make a good senator (except for voting wrong on the most important Senate vote in a generation, all because she wanted to make herself look tough in ’08). As a presidential candidate, though, she has shown us policies, not vision.
<
p>Here’s a question I’ve been asking people for months and maybe some “go Hillary” types here might have an answer. Can you name a single thing Hillary has done in the last 10 years that involves political risk? Yeah, yeah, she’s for health care, benefits for the National Guard and anything for children, but when has she taken a stand for something she believes in that could actually cost her votes?
will says
How many historic glass ceilings have you broken today, Rick Holmes?
<
p>—
<
p>Seriously, this “risk” thing with Hillary is a canard.
<
p>How many risks had George W. taken before he was elected?
<
p>How many risks had Bill Clinton taken before he was elected?
<
p>Same question for Bush Sr…for Reagan…Carter…and so on.
<
p>And as for the current crop of candidates, I don’t consider Obama a gigantic risk taker for speaking out against Iraq as a local Illinois official, although it does speak well of his wisdom. Wisdom and risk-taking are not the same thing (by a long shot).
<
p>However, Obama is a regular stunt devil compared to Edwards, who is managing to take starkly courageous positions now that he has no elected responsibility.
rick-holmes says
Running for president is a goal, an ambition, and good for her. I’m looking for a risk she’s taken that might keep her from reaching that goal.
<
p>And you’re right, it’s hard to find politicians who risk anything. But there are a few, some of them pretty small:
<
p>Bill Clinton: Sister Souljah (a calculated risk, taking a shot at an important constituency, that paid off, but a risk nonetheless). After he got elected, he pushed tax increases, backed gun control, etc.
<
p>Deval Patrick: Bucked potential backers by supporting Cape Wind and gay marriage.
<
p>John McCain: Campaign finance reform, torture and immigration all made his pursuit of the GOP nomination much harder.
<
p>Obama? Not much, though he did push tougher ethics rules on his fellow senators soon after taking office.
will says
Cape Wind, Sister Souljah…you are pretty far into the weeds on this one, my friend.
<
p>I did also want to comment on this:
<
p>
<
p>I suspect you spoke in haste on that. I don’t think a lot of people are concerned over whether a President Hillary Clinton will be able to move legislation.
rick-holmes says
That Hillary has the political courage or the vision I’d like to see in the next president. I’ll stipulate she knows policy, and maybe legislation, but is it asking too much to want more than a policy wonk-in-chief?
<
p>Here’s another question that has been bothering me. We’ve had a failed policy in Cuba for 47 years and counting, and Hill and Bill are smart enough to know it’s a failure. Did they do anything in 8 years to change it? No. Why? Because it’s all about the next election – and about not alienating a powerful sliver of voters in a battleground state.
<
p>That’s what a lack of political courage and vision gets you.
will says
Cuba…ok. Not much of a talking point to me. I want my President to pick his (or her) five biggest problems, and if they solve three and don’t screw anything up, helluva job. There will always be more problems waiting for the next administration.
<
p>I was a big fan of the balanced budget. A really big fan.
<
p>But if you want to vote for want big, loud, rock star political courage, I’m not going to try and argue with you. That’s your choice.
<
p>I want someone who gets stuff done, and picks the right stuff TO get done. Period.
am says
I’m new to this site, and am somewhat surprised by how many comments I see about wariness re: Obama supporters. Could someone elaborate on this for me? In my experience this past year, some of the more informed and deliberate citizens/Democrats I know are those most supportive of Obama. But reading this site, I am sensing a stereotype that his supporters are like a bunch of tweens at a pop show. I’ll wait to hear what you all say about this (if I have in fact correctly characterized any positions here), but I worry that there may be a certain condescention towards young (energized) people who are newer to political discourse, who may in fact be (and in my experience: are) as informed or more informed as their Democratic/Independent counterparts.
<
p>I’m open and curious to hear thoughts…
laurel says
just read through the comments in obama-related posts from the past few weeks. then you can see for yourself how various obama enthusiasts comport themselves. don’t you want to judge for yourself? have at it, and welcome!
bob-neer says
Especially if you’re new.
<
p>Anyway, the Obama supporters here are quite capable of taking care of themselves. đŸ™‚
am says
I wasn’t stereotyping – I was responding and inquiring about what appeared to be a stereotype and was trying to dig deeper.
<
p>And yes, I agree Obama supporters (I am one) are fully capable of holding their own and then some… đŸ™‚
ryepower12 says
I don’t think Obama supporters are stupid. I disagree with the candidate Obama, largely based on what he views as the problems with politics today – and I think some of his supporters are too quick to ignore concerns being raised about Obama (or are perhaps somewhat naive about the way politics works – though that’s by no means a sign of stupidity or even ignorance), but being quick to defend or ignore is going to happen with pretty much anyone who’s already solidly in a political camp…
johnk says
Barack as a lot of pluses.
<
p>I’m going with Hillary and BTW the race issue was started by Barack’s team after New Hampshire. I think we all understand that the Bill Clinton “fairy tail” speech was about Iraq and mostly right. Then it was Barack’s wife who started with the racial stuff from that speech. I believe it showed a short term plan no not good overall. It did hurt Hillary initially so they went back after him.
<
p>Can’t say that I blame her. For all those who say that it was too much, wait for the general. It wasn’t too much, it was something that Barack started and from what I can see so far, it’s something that Hillary will finish.
am says
What are you referring to when you say the Obama camp started with the racial stuff in/after NH? (The only thing I know of was Michelle saying blacks voting HRC were “asleep”)
johnk says
Michelle Obama via the Globe.
<
p>
<
p>This while knowing Bill Clinton was specifically discussing Barack’s fluxuating Iraq positions.
am says
I agree that the Clinton quote was re: Obama’s anti war position, but I’m not sure I see the Michelle quote as a racialization of the race, as it seems she was responding to general criticism of Obama’s readiness/qualifications that intensified after Iowa. But granted, I wouldn’t have encouraged her to tangle the two.
<
p>But IMO, no comparison between something like that and “Well, Jesse Jackson won SC, too…”
johnk says
I just wanted to highlight when the “race” issue started to get it’s push, it was from the Obama campaign. Doesn’t mean that Bill Clinton’s comments were right, just referencing the origins.
am says
I hear ya. You’re correct.
lanugo says
clearly lay the blame of playing the race card on the Clintons. Are they stupid or naive as some have implied about all Obama supporters?
<
p>Some people confuse enthusiasm for naivete – as if we all have to be half-hearted in our support to be respected in our views. I think Obama is the best thing to happen to American politics in a long time and I am surprised at the cynicism on this site about his campaign. He ain’t perfect but we should be proud our party has attracted his singular talent. If we can’t get enthusiastic we ain’t gonna win in November and Obama brings enthusiasm.
<
p>
johnk says
Just another note here, I have a few in this post, as it seems that no one want to discuss this issue factually. I’m not here to argue about Bill Clinton, but to even suggest that race is all a Clinton effort is just not right. I would like anyone to compare Jesse Jackson Jr.’s comment to anything the Bill has said and tell me which one you find most offensive.
<
p>
hrs-kevin says
johnk says
hrs-kevin says
smadin says
The more important issue is, does Jesse Jackson Jr. have the scope of attention and influence that Bill Clinton can command?
johnk says
Barack Obama’s campaign national co-chair is not significant because a marriage is not involved?
hrs-kevin says
and it was you that decided to bring this point up.
<
p>Here is one thing to think about: Does anyone doubt that Bill Clinton would have a major role in a Hillary Clinton presidency? On the other hand, what role do you think Jesse Jackson Jr. is going to have in a Obama administration?
<
p>I also could go dredge up stupid things that Clinton co-chairs have said, but I don’t think there is much point in dredging up more mud. I am disappointed whenever I hear this kind of crap from any of the campaigns, but I am especially disappointed when I hear it from Bill Clinton, who was someone I once greatly admired.
anthony says
…ridiculous argument again. So what, he used to be president. He’ll have the same impact on Mrs. Clinton’s presidency that any advisor might have. Do you think that Jackson Jr. may have a position in Obama’s white house? Just as significant a possibility.
<
p>Once could easily say that assuming Bill will be a co-president is the same as saying a wife can’t do it without her husband but a husband can since no one seems to think Michele Obama or Elizabeth Edwards is going to be a co-president.
<
p>My gosh, are you gender baiting? Quick alert the media, gender baiting, gender baiting!!!
<
p>See how easy it is. This whole race baiting issue has been drummed up by the media and happily exploited by the Obama campaign from the moment the “controversy” started.
hrs-kevin says
I never said that Bill would act in any way as a co-president, but I do believe that he will have a very significant role as an advisor and possibly even as a cabinet member (yes, it would be politically risky but if JFK could make his brother Attorney General then I think that Hillary could do something similar). I don’t think there is anything remotely sexist about this. It is not because Bill is a man, but because he has already been president for two terms. I would be totally shocked if he did not have a very significant role.
<
p>Jesse Jackson Jr, on the other hand is a lightweight who has already seriously embarrassed the Obama campaign. I am sure that he will stay on in some sort of fund raising/cheerleading role, but I would be very surprised indeed if he were to get a significant leadership role.
anthony says
…very easily be interpreted as sexist, regardless of your intent, which is my point.
<
p>I would be shocked if Bill had any kind of official role in Hillary’s White House. I think you are making a huge assumption based on nothing. All spouses have huge roles in campaigns and very limited roles in a presidency. Why do you think that Hillary would do anything different? What do you base that assumption on? Has he been a significant force in her tenure as Senator? Has she indicated that she would seek to put him in an official role? Has he indicated that he would take the role if it was offered? In all the interviews I’ve seen Bill indicates that he would expect to serve only in an unofficial capacity.
<
p>Sorry, but your assumption is pretty empty and baseless.
hrs-kevin says
Yes, I suppose an unreasonable person with a chip on his/her shoulder might interpret that as sexist, but I am not very concerned with that.
<
p>It is true that Bill has not appeared to have much of a role in Hillary’s Senatorial career, although I am not sure what the options would be there, or even the usefulness of his advice given his lack of legislative experience. Apart from helping her campaign, which he did, or acting as her chief of staff, which I don’t think he was interested in, there is not much for him to do there. The presidency is an entirely different matter. He has as much experience as anyone about what it takes to be president. No other spouse has that experience, and I would be very surprised if she did not take full advantage of it.
<
p>It is true, that we cannot know what Hillary intends to do, but if she is elected, I sure hope that she gives Bill a prominent role, much as he gave her one when he first entered office. It would be a shame to let that experience go to waste. Are you somehow uncomfortable with him having an official role?
<
p>
anthony says
….we have Bill in a prominent role like that of Hillary as first lady. That is far from significant in the way you described before.
<
p>Hillary cannot put him in any role that is part of the presidential succession chain because he has already served two terms so he won’t be a secretary or the attorney general (hasn’t he been disbarred anyway? – at least for a certain period of time). That leaves other advisory roles but little room for an official appointment that Bill would likely want or that would give him her ear any more than he already has it. The discussion of his taking an official role is fairly moot in the first place.
<
p>I could care less if he took a job in the administration, I just doubt she wants to give him one and doubt equally that he wants to take one. He has worked very hard on his foundation and I don’t see him walking away from that for four or eight years.
<
p>I am making no assumptions about your motivation but I have to disagree with your thoughts on the potential for sexism. I think that it plays a large role is the notion that Bill must be a substantial part of Hillary’s administration.
hrs-kevin says
I would really like to see him in a cabinet position such as Secretary of State.
<
p>The 22nd amendment simply prevents Bill from being elected president again; it does not prevent him from being in the line of succession. Does anyone think that Bill is ineligible to ever be Speaker of the House because he was elected president twice?
<
p>
anthony says
…but I believe you could be incorrect about that. Mrs. Clinton, when she first announced her candidacy, made it clear that she and her campaing had sought legal advice to determine whether Mr. Clinton could hold a cabinet position, probably because they knew the “what role will your husband play questions” would come up. She reported, and at the time there was chatter in the online legal community that was in agreement, that it would be constitutionally improper for a former two term president to be appointed to a position that puts him in the succession chain. She has said that she agreed with the determination that it was not proper. There were those that disagreed with that assessment as well, but his confirmation hearing would be a zoo beyond all reckoning and there would surely be a suit and I don’t think she’d be willing to put that on the line.
<
p>Don’t hold your breath for seeing Bill Clinton become Secretary of anything.
<
p>
hrs-kevin says
I don’t remember hearing anything about that.
<
p>I think the constitution is quite clear, and there should be no constitutional barrier to Bill Clinton holding an office in the line of presidential succession. I could see someone making the case that he cannot run for VP, since the primary purpose that role is to be able to step in as president if the need arises. I don’t see any problem with other roles.
<
p>Political fallout is another matter entirely, of course, and you may be right that Hillary won’t want to make an issue of this, but she is going to need to figure out something to do with him.
anthony says
…a link to any of the stuff I looked at months ago. I recall the MSM picking up on this a little but that was mostly limited to VP discussions. I think it even came up when Hillary was interviewed on Ellen or some other talk show. I remember seeing something.
<
p> Some legal scholars said no way to VP and some said maybe. Most everyone agreed that the answer would be determined by the SCOTUS and that the exact meaning of the 22nd amendment is not entirely clear.
<
p> Discussions I read about cabinet positions were all over the map because of course you can be a cabinet member in line (e.g. Kissinger) even if you are otherwise precluded from the presidency, and those people cannot serve as interim presidents as a function of the succession law. There were those of the opinion that a former 2 term president should be ineligible to serve as interim president via a cabinet position for the same reasons that they feel a former 2 term president could not be VP. Problem is of course that no one knows for sure if that is the right answer because it is untested and the Court does not limit itself to plain readings when interpreting the Constitution. It could go either way. No one will want to deal with this issue at the moment if and when a former 2 term president finds himself on deck to serve as an interim president. That would be a bit of a constitutional crisis.
<
p> So trying to nominate such a person to a succession position would cause challenges and most certainly a law suit and given the particular set of difficulty that the Clinton factor would cause I can’t see the wisdom in Hillary trying to appoint him. I would be shocked and amazed if Hillary took the risk in appointing Bill.
hrs-kevin says
but I don’t have to trust your memory either. I think the text of the 22nd amendment is pretty clear, so if you want to counter that, it would be nice to hear some quotes from distinguished constitutional scholars, not what you think you saw on the Ellen show months ago.
<
p>In any case, what do you think Bill’s role will be if Hillary wins? Do you think she will give him some sort of official position, or let him head a commission to address some issue (probably not health care, given what happened last time), or try to get him to serve in a traditional first lady role? I would imagine that whatever it is, she is going to want to make it clear that she is the president and not him.
<
p>
anthony says
…if you know anything about constitutional jurisprudence you know better than than hang your hat on what you think the plain reading is. What does the 2nd amendment’s plain reading suggest? How about the right to privacy, that is clear from the plain reading, isn’t it? I think you know it is not that simple.
<
p>Here is an article that discusses split opinion on his viability as VP.
<
p>I imagine his role as a presidential spouse will be similar to hers. Minimal actual responsibility and status as a trusted advisor and confidant.
hrs-kevin says
I think that amendment is far from clear. The 22nd amendment is much more precise.
<
p>You have not refuted my point, but thanks for the link. As I have already said, I can see the argument against allowing Bill to run as VP, but I don’t see how that argument extends to appointed cabinet positions or congressional leadership positions, all of which are subject to congressional approval. If the Senate wants to deny Bill Clinton confirmation for a cabinet position they can do so.
<
p>I also think that making him VP would be a totally ridiculous thing to do, regardless of whether it would be allowed. It would make a mockery of her presidency and immediately call her power into question.
<
p>I would love to see him in a more official role, just as I would have liked to have seen Hillary in a more official role when Bill was president. If he is not in some role that visibly takes up a lot of his time, my fear would be that political enemies would always be trying to suggest that Bill was spending all his time whispering in Hillary’s ear and acting as a “shadow president”.
anthony says
…amendment is pretty precise but it was 1967 before everyone in the US accused of a crime had a right to an appointed attorney if they could not afford one. Plain meaning is irrelevant. What the SCOTUS says is what matters.
<
p>If there is an issue as to a former 2 term president being a VP then there is an issue with the Chain of succession. Such lack of clarity cannot be left to be decided until a time of crisis. It would be ripe and relevant the moment a nomination for appointment was made.
<
p>I hope he finds something to do if and when Hillary is president, but I think an official role would be a mistake, both for Hillary’s leadership profile and for the cohesion of her administration.
anthony says
…Bill Clinton is of the opinion that he can’t be VP.
dcsohl says
Ayup.
<
p>”No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
tom-m says
Bill Clinton’s speech, immediately following the SC primary:
<
p>
anthony says
….both Elizabeth Edwards and Micelle Obama say “we” on the campaign trail in relation to their spouse’s candidacy? Are they going to be co-presidents. This is typical campaign parlance. Your point is silly.
anthony says
…the punctuation from the first two sentences should be reversed.
hrs-kevin says
Ever hear people around Boston saying that? Yes, people who feel themselves associated with a team often use the word “we”. So what?
anthony says
…Obama is married to him and she got the ball rolling with her “Ain’t no black folks in Iowa” comment.
hrs-kevin says
I don’t think I saw that one. Could you provide a link?
anthony says
…here is a link. Mrs. Obama in response to Bill Clinton’s criticism of Mr. Obama’s interpretation of his own stance on the war had a lot to say about race. She injected it into the discussion.
marc-davidson says
In fact her comments were a celebration of the breaking of the historic racial lines that have divided America. I see such comments as well as Clinton’s own celebratory statements about the advances that women have made to be positive ones.
hrs-kevin says
I think she was just pointing out that the win in Iowa proved that Obama was capable of attracting white voters. This was in direct response to numerous comments published in the preceding weeks from various parties expressing doubt as to whether white voters would be willing to pull the lever for him. I read several interviews with black voters who were concerned that he might not be electable because of lingering racism.
<
p>I don’t think it is even remotely true that these comments were “injecting” race into the discussion. Race had already been part of the discussion for months.
anthony says
….so pointing out that you can attract white voters and not just black voters is okay, even though intrinsic in the statement is an acknowledgment of the fact that getting the black vote would not have been as difficult.
<
p>And it in injecting race into the discussion when Clinton specifically answers questions that had to do with race but when Michele Obama addresses a statement that had nothing to do with race by using race it is not injecting race?
<
p>Clinton’s are guilty of injecting race into the campaign for the last two weeks but race has always been an issue?
<
p>Is this campaign season or olympic gymnastics season, cause there is a lot of bending over backwards to make the same thing sound different for both candidates?
hrs-kevin says
It seems to me that you are the one engaged in “gymnastics” by trying to equate two very different types of statements.
<
p>Pointing out that you can attract white voters is perfectly ok when you have been criticized by pundits and voters for not being able to do so, especially when many of those voters are black. In other words, Obama’s ability to attract the black vote hinged on his being able to prove to those voters that he was also viable among white voters. What is wrong with saying so?
<
p>I just don’t understand your strange premise that there is anything wrong with talking about race in this campaign. I think there is a huge difference between someone intimating that they can be elected despite their race, and someone intimating that someone else cannot be elected because of their race.
<
p>It seems to me that Obama has been doing the former, and the Clinton campaign has been doing the latter, at least to some degree. I really admired Bill Clinton as president (apart from the Monica thing), and am therefore greatly disappointed in the things he has said about Obama in recent weeks. I never had that kind of respect for Jesse Jackson Jr., so his inappropriate, bone-headed comments don’t affect me in anything like the same way.
eury13 says
they don’t live in Massachusetts. Candidate/Co-Chair is the closest legally allowed relationship they can have. đŸ™‚
anthony says
…..to the discussion.
<
p>If someone isn’t a spouse but associated to a campaign they can say whatever they like?
<
p>Jackson Jr. is associated with the Obama campaing, appeared in radio spots for Obama by request and has been actively campaiging for Obama in coordination with Obama campaign central. What he says can be fairly imputed to Obama’s campaign in the same manner that any other campaign associate’s comments can.
charley-on-the-mta says
Seriously, that’s the second totally unhelpful, destructive thing he’s said about Hillary. The first was something like “there were no tears after Katrina” or some such dog-whistle BS.
david says
Having said in my post that Obama has run an excellent campaign, it has certainly not been without screw-ups (coughMcClurkincough). Jesse Jr. is responsible for more than one of them. He’s a big liability, and he should shut his mouth before he does something that really harms Obama’s chances. To win, Obama cannot afford any major gaffes — he has very little margin for error.
hlpeary says
Michelle Obama video on YouTube (which was also posted here at BMG) showed her speaking to a group explaining to them that this election is about families and “if someone can’t run their own family, how will they run the White House?”…Nasty piece of footage.
<
p>As I listened to the Kennedy Clan lining up to endorse, I was thinking, Michelle had better be careful…there are a long line of “I married a Kennedy” women (who have quite a lot in common with Hillary) who might take umbrage at her holier-than-thou-not so nice remarks.
<
p>The Robert Kennedy branch of the tree is standing with Hillary with good reasons I’m sure.
bottomfish says
I’ve read through this entire thread and found practically nothing on what Obama would do on any issue.
hrs-kevin says
I find the Democratic candidates close enough to each other on most issues to find the distinction uninteresting. I am personally more interested in figuring out their leadership ability, their ability to energize voters, and their personal judgement.
<
p>If you are just interested in issue papers, you probably should just go to each candidates web site.
johnk says
but all I can tell you is that each candidate is not that far apart from each other. Some lean more left than others on different issues, but for the most part they are fairly similar. It could be why many posters don’t do much in the way of a policy debate. We might be better off is we do debate here on issues. Each candidate does have a very good “issue” tab on their web site, but your point is well taken.
chriso says
It drives me crazy that the “Bill injected race into the campaign” meme has gotten such a foothold, with even some Hillary supporters conceding that he was wrong. How is it possible that anyone needs to “inject” race into the campaign, when the first viable black candidate is running? This notion that we have to pussyfoot around a black candidate is destructive to the party. Obama won with 80 percent of the black vote and only 25 percent of the white vote. But by all means, let’s not acknowledge that the race of the candidate or racial makeup of the electorate has anything to do with it. If all three candidates had been white, can anyone say with a straight face that one of them would have captured 80 percent of the black vote? And pointing to Obama ‘s third place finish among white voters as somehow meaning he has transcended race is just silly. 75 percent of white voters went for someone else. Now, does this mean that Obama is going to start winning primaries by 25-30 points? No. But gee, what could ever point to South Carolina being such an anomaly? I mean, has a black candidate ever won there before? Can’t say, because that’s a topic that has been declared off limits by Obama supporters.
<
p>Last year, Obama said the black vote would increase by 30 percent if he is the nominee. Why do you suppose he said that? Is it because so many blacks just happen to respond to his healthcare proposal? Black voters are one of his natural constituencies. But he doesn’t want to be portrayed as the “black candidate,” so he downplays his race until he needs it, like in South Carolina. I get the feeling Obama’s notion of how the race conversation should go is that he can claim the black vote when it helps him, but if you point out that the black vote created a skewed result that probably won’t be duplicated in many states, you’re “marginalizing” or “dismissing” black voters. Do you suppose if Hillary had won 80 percent of the black vote, it would have raised any eyebrows? And could that be because everyone expected the vast majority of black voters to go with Obama? But if his supporters have their way, we won’t even be able to discuss this publicly.
<
p>I’m sure Obama has to wrestle every day with the subject of race, the ways in which it helps him and hurts him and how he should campaign most effectively on that basis. That’s fine, but please don’t tell me that conversation is off limits for me.
<
p>As an addendum, I read a quote recently, I wish I could remember where, of a journalist asking Obama to name the 10 Republicans who will support his spirt of bipartisanship and work with him to promote a progressive agenda. The point being, all of this talk about Obama as a “uniter” is just naive hooey. If he is indeed the shining light who will lead us into a new progressive age, where does bipartisanship fit in? Don’t his supporters realize that bipartisanship means the other side gets to win sometimes? What have the Republicans done to deserve that accomodation? And which principles are we going to throw overboard in the spirt of “unity?” I hate the intense divide in Washington as well, but logic tells us that bipartisanship is the path to a middle of the road agenda, not a transformative progressive agenda. Take you pick, but don’t pretend we can have both.
<
p>It may not seem like it from this rant, but I admire a lot about Obama. I support Hillary, but will enthusiastically support Obama if he gets the nomination. I just worry that using the race card to shout down the opposition may work in the Democratic primaries, particularly since the press is so obviously swooning over Obama. I mean, how can Chris Matthews still have a job as a commentator when he says “If you don’t cry during one of Obama’s speeches, you’re not an American”? But let’s remember, when we get to the general, the press has been loving McCain a lot longer than Obama, and they won’t respond like lapdogs the way they are with all of the anti-Clinton rhetoric.
john-from-lowell says
Coburn and Obama Announce Launch of Website to Track Federal Spending
<
p>Obama, Collins Bill Creates Financial Aid and Scholarship Database
<
p>Obama, Hagel, Cantwell Introduce Bill to Fight Global Poverty
<
p>Obama, Bipartisan Senators Introduce Bill to Increase Emergency LIHEAP Funding
December 4, 2007
<
p>