The Theory Of Change Referendum

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 08:28:39 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

E.J. Dionne sums up one part of the Democratic choice:

Clinton[] claims that her experience readies her for the coming battles for change that all Democrats devoutly wish to wage.
. . . The Edwards campaign is . . . appealing to the many Democrats who are in a fighting mood.
But Obama is running as the candidate who can transcend these fights. . . . Clearly but obliquely referring to Edwards, Obama preached that anger won't cut it, either. "There's no shortage of anger and bluster and bitter partisanship out there," he said. "We can change the electoral math that's been all about division and make it about addition."

I am on record that Obama's talk on change is pure nonsense. I am confident now that Mark Schmitt is right, that this is just a schtick. The problem is in politics, schticks matter and limit what you can do.

In any event, the events in Pakistan may make this much less of a change referendum after all. And that is not good for Obama.

< LATimes Iowa Poll: Clinton Leads | Friday Open Thread >

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.

The Theory Of Change Referendum | 2 comments (2 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The Theory Of Change Referendum (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by GOPmurderedconscience on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:07:45 AM EST

All this hogwash about being "above" politics, ending the "bickering" in Washington DC, ending "politics as usual", "uniting" the country is simply puke inducing to me.

For those who forgot, this is exactly word for word, what George W Bush ran on in 2000. Each time Obama says these things I want to barf.

If you want to be above politics, get out politics. You cannot be in a specific game with the purpose of playing a different game.

Moreover, no matter how you cut it, you win election to advance your agenda, not to transform the other guys into best buddies.
Paul Krugman makes a great case in Slate why partisanship would be important should we win in 2008

It Should Be, It Could Be (none / 0) (#2)
by seabos84 on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:47:54 AM EST

but, alas

we've got the spineless chickens of DC in charge.

RayGun ran on complete lies and partisanship and completely screwed little people

AND

that should have been and could have been an ideal opportunity to run against the fascists and their lies, BUT

we had spineless chickens, just like we got spineless chickens today... except

when people like Dean or Edwards start spouting off about fighting, the Dem establishment has a spine about sabotaging people like them.

there has been an unbelievable opportunity to FIGHT for peee-ons and make a change for decades, but

the fat dumb and happy DC Dems are too comfortable at the front of the trough AND only put effort into making sure no one threatens their place at the trough.

rmm.