Obama Says No To DFHs*: Just Like The DLC

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 02:08:39 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Not very unifying if you ask me:

I think there's no doubt that we represent the kind of change that Senator Clinton can't deliver on and part of it is generational. Senator Clinton and others, they've been fighting some of the same fights since the '60's and it makes it very difficult for them to bring the country together to get things done."

This is not new for Obama, in spite of Sully's ridiculous claim that he came up with this. Obama said the same thing last year:

. . . Basically, where the country is at right now, [Obama] asserts, is that you’ve got to move beyond ideology and you’ve got to address real problems in real time in real ways. He argues that it’s time to get beyond the ways in which issues were defined by the 1960s. He said ‘We don’t want to re-litigate the 60s,’ that many issues that were popular, that the interests and interest groups that were defined in the 60s have run out of steam and that we’ve got to move beyond them.

The DLC could not have said it better. In fact they said the same thing when the were supporting triangulation in the 1980s and 1990s. Too funny. If Hillary had said something like that, she would be excoriated by the Haters. Obama's silly nonsense will, of course, be explained away.

*DFHs.

< Beltway Dream Shattered: Americans Oppose Iraq Debacle In Record Numbers | Obama Is Right To Support Peru Free Trade Pact >

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 Says No To DFHs*: Just Like The DLC | 39 comments (39 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Wow (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 04:44:07 PM EST

That is a stunningly brilliant riposte from you.

What can I say to that?

I know -

"Your momma"

This is a baited post (none / 0) (#1)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 02:11:18 PM EST

Can I lure my prey in?

Apparently. (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by oculus on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 02:31:33 PM EST

: Heh (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 02:51:15 PM EST

This is how a BTD posts read (none / 0) (#2)
by Jgarza on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 02:29:03 PM EST

Hillary wants to give tax breaks to the rich. it is on her website here

In New York, Hillary championed tax incentives like wage credits for businesses and job creation in upstate New York and elsewhere.

She has supported permanently ending the marriage penalty,

She supports corporate welfare and look at her using republican talk on taxes.

Snared you again (none / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 02:51:54 PM EST

Fish In A Barrel (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by squeaky on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 02:52:56 PM EST

: Heh (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 02:55:58 PM EST

Obama and Hillary (none / 0) (#3)
by DA in LA on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 02:29:24 PM EST

Just don't do it for me. I honestly don't know what he is doing with his campaign. He constantly drives away his base.

First sexism, now ageism. (none / 0) (#5)
by oculus on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 02:35:14 PM EST

BTD defends Charles Manson (none / 0) (#10)
by Jgarza on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 02:53:10 PM EST

BTD defended dirty f'ing hippies against supposed attacks from presidential hopeful Barack Obama.
but,
Charles Manson was a dirty f'ing hippie.
therefore,
BTD is defending Charles Manson.

Tell BTD to stop supporting serial killers!

Heh (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 02:54:26 PM EST

Mind like a steel trap . . .


How did you happen to choose Talk Left? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by oculus on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 02:57:57 PM EST

Jeralyn's (none / 0) (#18)
by Jgarza on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 03:07:56 PM EST

Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Is absolutely wonderful, I love reading her posts on the subject, and there are few blogs the specifically cater to that.

It just when you click on the page BTD's many logic fallacies are just sitting there. I no i don't have to post to it. but its like bad wall paper, even if I don't have to talk to it, I still have to look at it.


Interesting. I have been advised in the past (none / 0) (#19)
by oculus on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 03:12:50 PM EST

by some here not to read and comment in the criminal justice portions; my views on criminal justice system are apparently tainted because I spent some time in the DA's office as a prosecutor.


Uh oh (none / 0) (#20)
by Molly Bloom on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 03:22:09 PM EST

I didn't know those of us who briefly spent time in a DA's office had tainted views... and geez, the Public Defender took me aside and said your heart is not in prosecution...


: Actually, it was 6+ years. Apparently (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by oculus on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 03:25:05 PM EST

that is long enough. Although a L.A. Times investigative reporter once quoted the jury foreman as saying it didn't look like I wanted to be there. Very perceptive. 14 not guilty verdicts is a very long read!

: ha :-) (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Jgarza on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 03:25:45 PM EST

that is a cute story.
It just may not be possible to taint you!

WOW BTD (none / 0) (#11)
by Jgarza on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 02:54:14 PM EST

and look at the kind of people who completely agree with you. sound logic sure does attract sound logic!

Guilt by association? (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 02:55:38 PM EST

How's that Donnie McClurkin thing working out for ya?


guilt by association (none / 0) (#16)
by Jgarza on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 03:00:24 PM EST

isn't that the entire basis of your post.

you do irony well.


If by association you mean (none / 0) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 03:28:36 PM EST

actuallly speaking the actual words I am quoting, then yes.

I am associating Obama with his actual statements.

You are too funny.


no by association (none / 0) (#24)
by Jgarza on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 03:34:30 PM EST

i mean with the DLC!
do you read what you write?


Talex? (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by squeaky on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 03:35:21 PM EST

: Shudders. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by oculus on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 03:44:44 PM EST

: Smells like it. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by Edger on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 04:17:31 PM EST

Using the same words (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 04:25:02 PM EST

is a fair point I think.


Well, I guess an interest group's (none / 0) (#17)
by andgarden on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 03:05:48 PM EST

having run out of steam is justification for cavorting with Donnnie McClurkin.

I guess it takes one to know one (none / 0) (#27)
by RedHead on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 04:19:41 PM EST

"If Hillary had said something like that, she would be excoriated by the Haters."

Gee, I never thought of you as a "Hater" when you penned "the dangers of obamaism" My bad, for seeing things half-full. I just thought you were a Clinton rear guard.

You see next to nothing frankly (none / 0) (#28)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 04:24:06 PM EST

Gotcha! (none / 0) (#31)
by RedHead on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 04:28:47 PM EST

Come here, my pretty.

Mwaawwawawawawwawawawwawaww

Oh Honey, never let them see ya sweat!!


You need to know something to sweat (none / 0) (#35)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 04:44:45 PM EST

over something.


Um, ??? (none / 0) (#36)
by RedHead on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 04:53:26 PM EST

Doused with a bucket of anti-phony, BTD melts into a pool of gibberish and non sequitur.

Sad, but predictable.


Making my point (none / 0) (#37)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 04:59:01 PM EST

beautifully.

Thanks.


You have to toughen up (none / 0) (#38)
by RedHead on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 05:22:58 PM EST

Honey-child, incoherent replies and flailing about are not a signs of confidence, and must NEVER occur in front of jury.

Sugar, you have to buck-up, even if ya client is a turkey (HRC). To me, displaying weakness in a court room is grounds for termination.


: Heh (none / 0) (#39)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 05:39:33 PM EST

Taking back my phrase.

Not the same thing (none / 0) (#32)
by Tom Hilton on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 04:31:43 PM EST

The DLC could not have said it better. In fact they said the same thing when the were supporting triangulation in the 1980s and 1990s.

But there's triangulation and there's triangulation. The DLC was all about substantive 'triangulation'--that is, they argued for adopting policies that split the difference. Obama uses rhetorical triangulation while being generally fairly progressive on substantive matters.

The former is (I trust we can agree) a Very Bad Thing; the latter, not so much.

: Wrong (none / 0) (#33)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 04:43:05 PM EST

The DLC was both rhetorical and substantive.
Unless, you are going to defend Bill Clinotn triangulation as substantive and NOT rhetorical, your argument makes no sense.
And indeed, that is the point, to stay strong
Substantively, you must stay strong Rhetorically.
Rhetorical weakness will lead to substanitve weakness.
you make the same mistake Matt Yglesias makes.
It is a stunning misreading of the political history of the Nation. But, the reality is Yglesias is terrible at poltiics.

This is a long running theme (none / 0) (#40)
by Satya1 on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 09:46:06 PM EST

This is a long running theme of Obama's and goes back to his book, Audacity. I think these 2 sources of the theme are not very good representations of the idea. The first one is too brief and the second too confusing. If you don't have time to scan his book on this, why not simply post the exchange from Meet the Press where it is laid out much more clearly?

By the way I think Newman (a philosopher) has it wrong and I think the problem is language confusion between philosophical and political spheres. I don't believe Obama is saying issues of the 60's have run out of steam. He is saying that the narrative or argument for the Dem party is what needs changing. Here is the MTP exchange:

MR. RUSSERT: You do write this, and it's a very interesting observation, "When you watch Clinton vs. Gingrich or Gore vs. Bush or Kerry vs. Bush"--so that's `98, 2000, 2004--"you feel like these are fights that were taking place back in dorm rooms in the sixties. Vietnam, civil rights, the sexual revolution, the role of government - all that stuff has just been playing itself out, and I think people sort of feel like, Okay, let's not re-litigate the sixties 40 years later." Are you suggesting that those political players are, are the past and you represent a new generation that won't get caught or bogged down in those kinds of debates?
SEN. OBAMA: I think, I think the categories we've been using were forged in the `60s. You know, I think the arguments about big government vs. small government, the arguments about, you know, the sexual revolution, military vs. nonmilitary solutions to problems. I think, in each and every instance, a lot of what we think about is shaped by the `60s, and partly, you know, the baby boomers is--are a big demographic. I write about the fact that, whether it's the market for Viagra or how many cup holders are going to be in, in a car, a lot of it's determined by what the baby boomers want. Our politics isn't that different, and my suggestion is that--take the example of big government vs. small government. My instinct is is that the current generation is more interested in smart government. Let's have enough government to get the job done. If, if we're looking at problems, if the market solution works, let's go with the market solution. If a solution requires government intervention, let's do that. But let's look at what are the practical outcomes. And I think that kind of politics is what the country's hungry for right now.