home

Obama: Of Parties, Branding and Rock Stars

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 10:40:21 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Ezra Klein gets at one of the main problems of Obamarama:

There's a real danger here for the left who, so long out of power, are ready to jump on whichever train looks likeliest to pull into the White House on time. That may (or may not) be a good strategy for returning to power. But throwing your lot in with the smoothest talker and hoping for the best once he achieves power is a terrible method for building a movement, or popularizing ideas. The left needs to set up incentives so presidential contenders to pledge fealty to their priorities -- their support should be contingent on ideological agreement, and should never precede it. As other have remarked, when David Brooks and Joe Klein both throw their weight behind a putatively "liberal' cause or candidate, smart leftists will look for the catch.

Obama is not building a new Democratic identity. Indeed, he seems to be selling himself as an other-Dem, not like the rest of them. This disdain for party politics and Democratic Party branding is the essence of my complaint regarding Obama.

I do disagree with one aspect of Ezra's point - that agreeement or fealty is a prerequisite. I am happy to have candidates who disagree with the prevailing wisdom. But these candidates need to lead and persuade. They need to convince that their way is the right way. Obama does not persuade on the few things he has taken stands on. For example, when talking about religion and the Democratic Party, not only did Obama place Democrats in a false light, calling them, in essence anti-religion, he merely lectured Dems, and did nothing to persuade that he had the right approach.

The other bit of grandstanding, or naivete, that Obama has exhibited is his disdain for party politics. Obama's search for common ground and for civility is a wonderful idea. The Republicans won't play along. They never have. They never will. Ezra says:

I'm profoundly skeptical that the current, constant hagiographies of the senator will last long into a presidential campaign, and there's no history to suggest whether Obama can withstand and respond to the negative barrages the Republican smear machine is capable of unleashing.

What Obama would need to rely on is the very thing he is eschewing, the Democratic Party playing partisan politics. so this aspect of Obama is very troubling to me, either he is naive or more likely, disingenuous, playing a role for his personal benefit and to the detriment of the Democratic Party. That bothers me a great deal.

Part of the nonsense we read now is exemplified in this comment on the upcoming elections:

As a former Gore adviser put it: "Any success we have in 2006 is largely going to result from the failure of the Republicans in Washington and the success of individual candidates who identify themselves despite the disadvantages of running under the Democratic label."

Yet another Dem operative who completely lacks understanding of the power of negative branding and contrast. Politics is a negative exercise. Most politicians win by labelling themselves as "not THAT." To misunderstand the incredible opportunity that Dems have to place a permanent negative brand on the Republican Party and label themselves as "Not THAT." Sure, you will be placing some positive connotation on your own brand but the essence of the positve brand will be NOT being what the other guy is.

Common Good is a positive slogan that contrasts to Republican coddling of special interest and the wealthy. It translates into the minimum wage and concern for working families.

Stem cell research is an issue that thrives on negative branding of Republicans as anti-science and the Party of Dobson.

And so on. That Dem operatives still do not understand this is the biggest threat to Democratic Party ascendance in the near future.

< The GOP Agenda: Privatizing Social Security, Part 2 | NYTimes Discovers the Lieberman Principle >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama: Of Parties, Branding and Rock Stars | 16 comments (16 topical)
    On the cover of Time for goodness' sake! (none / 0) (#1)
    by baked potato on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 01:24:50 PM EST
    Is Obama angling to be Hillary's running mate on the crackpot-centrist, Demo-in-name-only ticket?

    The Two Million dollar Man (none / 0) (#2)
    by JHFarr on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 04:06:03 PM EST
    That's the advance (!!!) he got for his book. All I've seen him do so far is beat a raving lunatic for his senate seat and take absolutely no positions on anything ever since. Bah.

    As I commented elsewhere today, if the Democrats nominate more triangulating fools for president, I'm just shutting off my computer. No need to read the blogs, obviously, or the news, such as it is... time to concentrate on food, water, and shelter. You think you have that knocked? Oh??

    Strange times ahead, count on it.

    obama (none / 0) (#3)
    by diogenes on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 06:40:24 PM EST
    People seem sure that Obama is a centrist triangulator, so it sure sounds like he's formulated a clear position.  The problem is that some of the bloggers here don't like it.

    People vote for the person they like.  They like McCain, conservative or not.  They really don't personally like Hillary or Kerry.  Are you gonna pick Feingold, and does he really have a chance against McCain?

    Not me (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 06:44:49 PM EST
    First I am a Centrist.

    Second, I do not doubt for a minute Obama is progressive.

    Please read my post again because you have not absorbed my point.

    Parent

    When the stars fell on Obama (none / 0) (#5)
    by jp on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 08:04:08 PM EST
    If the Repugnants were really the svengalis of strategy they pose as, they would nominate Obama to the Supreme Court -- where he would be consigned to a lifetime of minority opinions, safely surrounded by the Evil Dead.
    If he doesn't run in '08, the Dumms ought to do the same thing, using him as root stock to grow a new Court.
    At this point a guy who splits the difference just makes kindling.

    And so those 8 years in the IL Senate (none / 0) (#6)
    by archpundit on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 02:27:02 AM EST
    Are irrelevant?

    Seriously, what other Dem Presidential candidate has been so strong on death penalty reform and juvenile justice?

    I'd be happy if you criticized him for backing the death penalty at all, but he has been a key reformer on death penalty eligibility in Illinois before it became a big deal---and he reserves it for murder cases that are extreme.

    Not as good as I'd like, but a lot better than most Democratic candidates.  Certainly Vilsack is better on this particular issue, but not many other Dem potential nominees have done much besides Vilsack and Obama.  

    Nonsequitor (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 09:43:59 AM EST
    When did I discuss experience?

    Parent
    Fighting for criminal justice reform (none / 0) (#10)
    by archpundit on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 01:08:41 PM EST
    isn't being a fighting dem?

    The alternative is that rhetoric is all that matters.

    I personally would prefer someone who doesn't just fight, but actually accomplishes something while fighting.  He spent six years in the Democratic minority in the Illinois Senate and was very vocal about Illinois Republicans such as Pate Philip and Peter Fitzgerald.  

    He mocks the President on a regular basis.  

    You do realize Obama also backed Gianoulis in the Illinois Treasurer's race largely because Alexi was more combative than the guy the machine backed?  Meaning--he wanted the guy who was going to fight with Republicans, not the guy who was Liebermanesqe.

    Parent

    Funny (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 02:05:00 PM EST
    You seem to be the only person, admirers and detractors alike, who think of Obama as a fighter.

    You really have no jufgment on this it seems to me.

    My presecription of what to do may be wrong, but it is clear that Obama is NOT doing it.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#12)
    by archpundit on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 02:31:22 PM EST
    I know of many people in Illinois who would think of him this way.

    Declaring yourself to be arbiter of what others think isn't very useful, nor is your tendency to insult instead of engage.  

    It's hard to figure whether people don't read what he actually says or whether they don't care. What's most ironic is that some in the blogosphere take press accounts at face value instead of seeing what Obama actually says. He consistently calls this administration one of social darwinism.  Or if  you actually read his speech at the Call for Renewal, you might notice he's calling out Democrats for not being aggressive and letting Republicans define the issues to religious voters.  

    His arguments on the war are some of the most caustic for a Senator in relation to the administration calling them simple minded.  

    So instead of reading what the press says Obama says, it might help to read what Obama says.  

    Parent

    Declaring myself? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 05:04:09 PM EST
    The whole Obama thing is how much he unities people, LEft and Right. /how he is icivil and reaches out.

    Puhleeaze. HE us NOT a fighter. Even if you think so. And you must know that everyone else in the country does not think he is a fighter. That's his big attraction. Sheesh.

    Parent

    The difference is (none / 0) (#16)
    by archpundit on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 05:21:49 PM EST
    I'm actually pointing out examples of his behavior and you are insisting you are correct because "everyone knows"

    You've made these sweeping generalizations about the guy without actually dealing with what he does or says instead talking about the presentation of him by others.  

    And again, the irony is that bloggers complain about how the press distorts someone, yet instead of dealing with what he says and does, you are only judging him on how the press treats what he says.  

    The Call to Renewal Speech is especially relevant because it lays out a specific way to fight conservative claims on God and instead of trying to duck the debate, reframe it to one that puts religious values on the Democratic side. Look specifically at his reference to the Estate tax and you see what you would call branding and certainly not some sort of centrist triangulation, but a reframing of the issue on terms that benefit Democrats.  

    So I'm a bit baffled about how the press treatment of Obama defines Obama when much of the point of blogs is to check the press on their tendencies to make up storylines.  

    Parent

    Who then? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 07:47:57 AM EST
    Why the big stiffie for Obama? I have noticed on every post you have had regarding Obama, you have not once provided an alternative.  Perhaps because you don't want any of the same mud thrown at your hopeful.

    Run Obama.  Hillary voted for the elimination of habeas corpus, Gore had his chance and blew it, Kerry is a blowhard, Wesley Clark is not articulate enough, John Edwards lacks substance.  

    Please Mr. Obama, for what is left of this party, please run.

    An alternative? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 09:37:20 AM EST
    Then you have not been reading the posts. My aiternative is a Fighting Dem Party that is not afriad to negatively brand the GOP by using a politics of Contrast.

    This has been my mantra since my first post. Have you read my posts?

    Oh, I see. You view politics as merely an issue of who you supporty for PResident? My posts have nothing to do with 2008.

    Parent

    An alternative (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 04:47:30 PM EST
    BTD - I have been reading the posts and what seems clear to me is that you are not a fan of Obama, yet provide no alternative.  Perhaps it is because the alternatives are so unelectable and so center right?

    I am left of center and am finding it hard to like any of these: Hillary, Kerry, Vilsack, Edwards, Lieberman or Gore (although i do dig al these days) for president.

    Guess i missed the post where you took any of those to task.  Is there one or two here that i missed or are they on your site?

    Not about 2008 (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 05:05:03 PM EST
    It is aout political tactics, style and reality.

    I just posted on three ads run by the GOP.

    That is who Obama needs to wake up about.

    Parent

    Obama: Of Parties, Branding and Rock Stars | 16 comments (16 topical)