Obama on MTP: The Third Rail

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 09:58:14 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

My impression of Senator Barack Obama's appearance on Meet the Press (the transcript link will be added when available) was that it was adequate. It was a typical Russert gotcha fest that Obama took in stride and handled with aplomb. Except for one issue. Social Security.

The exchange with Russert on Social Security was particularly damaging because Obama has made a point of calling out Senator Clinton for not speaking forthrightly on the so-called Social Security "crisis." But Russert pulled out quotes from Obama where he said "all options would be on the table," compared it to Obama's most recent rhetoric that appeared to rule out certain options. Obama went back and forth on what was "on the table" and what was not on the table, and how he would deal with Social Security. Ironically, Obama seemed to endorse some type of consensus approach remarkably similar to what Senator Clinton has described.

In the end, Russert asked Obama 'so, all options are on the table?' Obama did not say no. In that exchange, Obama proved why Senator Clinton has taken the right POLITICAL approach on Social Security - a serious approach gets you nowhere in today's political climate with a Media that perpetrates the myth that Social Security is in crisis and a Republican Party that will pounce with mendacity and distortions. Obama gave answers today that CAN be used against him, both by Republicans and his Democratic primary opponents. And discussion of the issue itself has been forwarded not at all. Yet again, Obama should learn the lesson that he does not have the power to change politics. He is just a politican. An extremely talented one to be sure, but still just a politician.

< Iowa's Jefferson Jackson-Day Dinner | Calif. Vet Needs Help Avoiding Mandatory Minimum >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama on MTP: The Third Rail | 36 comments (36 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

You think he's a talented politician? (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:02:36 AM EST

I think he's a terrible politician, frankly.

Extremely talented (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:13:42 AM EST

Totally disagree with you there.


I have not been impressed (none / 0) (#3)
by andgarden on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:21:05 AM EST

with his debate performance or the way he's handled his campaign. That's really all I have to go on, because he has almost no history.


He is bad in debates (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:24:48 AM EST

But he has undeniable charisma.

Maybe it is just me, but I WANT to be for him. I think he has a good heart.

I just think he is living in a dream world on how politics works.

Take for example, this social securiy business. Even though his approach is wrong politically, he still could have played it better.

He could have focused on saying what he will rule out, PARTICULARLY privatization. Her could have criticized Bush's efforts. He could have gone partisan and still been "specific."

He just does not know how to fight.


uh (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Maryb2004 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:33:34 AM EST

I don't disagree but doesn't that negate the idea of him being a talented politician?

Maybe you mean something OTHER than a politician?

Communicator?


See my response to andgarden (none / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:34:53 AM EST

Po-tential, unrealized.

He cOULD do it and he is choosing not to.

That is bad decisions, not lack of talent.


A good politician (none / 0) (#11)
by Warren Terrer on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:44:03 AM EST

but a bad leader?


No a TALENTED politician (none / 0) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:03:40 AM EST

who is not properly using his talent.

I don't know, maybe it is becuase I am a sports nut, but I find most of you not at all understanding my point.


Fire (none / 0) (#19)
by Warren Terrer on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:04:51 AM EST

the manager. I can agree with that.


: Thing is (none / 0) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:06:08 AM EST

if Edwards is going to do the nasty work for Obama on Clinton, Obama could win.

Oh come on (none / 0) (#12)
by Maryb2004 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:54:49 AM EST

He COULD do it but he's choosing not to? Do what? Get the nomination?

That's like saying that an actor COULD land the role he's auditioning for but is choosing not to. That's delusional.

Do what exactly?


Huh? (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:02:42 AM EST

Landing the role is not determinative of whether an actor can perform a role.

I do not understand your comment.


It's the (none / 0) (#20)
by Maryb2004 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:05:52 AM EST

"choosing" part of your comment that I find unbelievable.


so you say he does not have the talent (none / 0) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:07:09 AM EST

to do it.

That may be true.

But decisions on how to ruin a campaign are not indicative of the potential.


: Maybe he doesn't have the talent (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Maryb2004 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:15:42 AM EST

But what you said was that he had the talent and he wasn't choosing to use it.
Either you are wrong and he doesn't have the talent (because why on earth would someone with talent choose NOT to use it in the big game)?
Or you are right and he has the talent and is choosing not to use it? In case WHY should I choose him for my team?
Even if I force him to switch managers and hire you? Why would I choose someone with that attitude for my team when the big game is coming up? Might make sense in a re-building year but this year? Why?
(And, you know, that's really what my question about why I should choose Obama comes down to.)

It's like when sports (none / 0) (#17)
by Warren Terrer on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:03:53 AM EST

writers say someone is a talented athlete but he just can't score any runs.

He may have oodles of talent and we can argue all day about just how much talent said athlete has. But if he's on my team I want to see some runs.


Exactly (none / 0) (#22)
by Maryb2004 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:06:41 AM EST

But maybe he's just choosing not to score those runs. If only he had a different manager who would convince him to make different choices...


Precisely (none / 0) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:08:00 AM EST

Fire Axelrod, hire me.

We'll see you in the WH in January 2009.


: heh (none / 0) (#30)
by andgarden on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:26:06 AM EST

He might need (none / 0) (#31)
by Warren Terrer on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:32:25 AM EST

a 'sports psychologist' to help get him out of his batting slump.


I agree with pretty much all of that (none / 0) (#5)
by andgarden on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:29:02 AM EST

but it builds a case for him being a bad politician, not a good one.


Here is why I disagree (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:34:00 AM EST

He COULD do what I say, but he is making bad choices.

Talent means being able to, not that he does.

Unfulfilled talent.

Potential.


Seems to me (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by andgarden on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:36:29 AM EST

that talent requires performance. How do I know that he's talented if he never comes through?

He has an IL primary win and that one speech from 2004. Everything else has been a disaster. I mean, is anyone going to argue that beating Alan Keyes was much of an accomplishment?


Talent is required to perform (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:41:57 AM EST

It does not guarantee it.

Look, it seems silly to me to agrue that Obama has no talent. A freshman Senator making a serious run for the Presidency? Puhleeaze. OF course he is extremely talented.

He needs a little of the vinegar his supporters display.


Look (none / 0) (#14)
by Maryb2004 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:00:15 AM EST

It seems silly to me to argue that Fred Thompson has no talent. An man who plays a politician on TV making a serious run for the Presidency? Puhleeaze. Of course he is extremely talented.

Listen to yourself.


Listen to yourself (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:04:43 AM EST

Are you seriously equating the Thompson campaign to the Obama campaign?

I think you make my point well thanks very much.


Using your logic (none / 0) (#25)
by Maryb2004 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:10:41 AM EST

I could equate anybody who runs for president who gets a few good poll numbers to Obama. Even an entirely ludicrous example such as Thompson.


It's a matter of degree (none / 0) (#27)
by Warren Terrer on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:16:55 AM EST

Fred may have some talent, but how much? Very little that I can see.

For all of Obama's flaws I think he has more talent in his little finger than Fred has in his entire body.


Oh I agree (none / 0) (#28)
by Maryb2004 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:19:03 AM EST

But you don't prove that by merely stating that Obama is running a serious bid for the presidency. THAT proves nothing against anyone else who is running a serious bid for the presidency.


: I'm not convinced (none / 0) (#29)
by Warren Terrer on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:22:25 AM EST

that Fred is running a serious bid for the presidency.

Solve SS and the immigration "crises" (none / 0) (#13)
by 1980Ford on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:56:45 AM EST

Pass a law that immigrants must pay double or triple the SS for citizenship.

Obama is not built for US politics (none / 0) (#32)
by Natal on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 12:09:07 PM EST

Obama might be too sensitive and gentle for the dirty politics required in this country. He doesn't have the killer instinct and won't kick an opponent when he/she is down. Perhaps when this country's brutal collective consciousness softens someone like him could be elected leader.

Obama may be a too much of a purist and (none / 0) (#33)
by oculus on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 12:58:38 PM EST

academic to be a good politician. He is still looking at everything from all the angles.

experience (none / 0) (#34)
by diogenes on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 01:32:34 PM EST

Speaking of inexperience, Hillary's consists only of riding her husband's coattails in 1992, and picking New York as a carpetbagger state since it has a giant democratic majority.
You don't have to be a great politician to get elected in 2008 if you get the Democratic nomination if you don't have high negatives. Who's going to run as a republican? And are they going to complain because Obama is worried about Social Security?

OMG HE SAID CRISIS (none / 0) (#35)
by Jgarza on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 03:04:27 AM EST

Obama proved why Senator Clinton has taken the right POLITICAL approach on Social Security - a serious approach gets you nowhere in today's political climate with a Media that perpetrates the myth that Social Security is in crisis and a Republican Party that will pounce with mendacity and distortions.

Thats an odd statement, last time i checked the only person who's position on SS is bringing political Hillary Clinton. Apparently it is working too, since she has dropped in the latest polls

In University of New Hampshire poll Clinton's lead shrinks by 9 percentage points:
Dems: Clinton 35, Obama 21, Edwards 15, Richardson 10.
GOP: Romney 32, Giuliani 20, McCain 17, Paul 7, Huckabee 5.

: forgot to preview (none / 0) (#36)
by Jgarza on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 03:06:01 AM EST

Thats an odd statement, last time I checked the only person who's position on SS is bringing political heat is Hillary Clinton. Apparently it is working too, since she has dropped in the latest polls.