Obama On The Stump On His Theory Of Change

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 06:09:16 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I know I am boring everyone to death with this but here is Ezra on Obama's stump speech in New Hampshire on the theory of change:

Spent the morning at an Obama rally in Concord. It was the first time in awhile that I've seen his stump speech, and it's much improved since my last exposure. There are long passages devoted to the sorts of criticisms I and others have made of his theories of change, and he now speaks much more concretely of a Mark Schmitt like approach: Occupying the moral high ground of unity and constructive outreach, converting individuals open to persuasion, and using those advantages to battle interests intent on protecting their privilege. The insurance, pharmaceutical, and oil industries get called out by name, as groups who Obama is aware will "protect their profits." He argues, explicitly, that we need to expand our public numbers to overwhelm such private intransigence. For those skeptical of the rhetoric of unity, it's a much more confidence inspiring stump.

Anyone know if the new stump speech is on YouTube somewhere? I'd love to see it. I have two observations on Ezra's observations.

[More....]

One, I like very much that Obama is addressing these concerns. either for political reasons (almost certainly the reason) or for other reasons, it is good that Obama's folks are thinking about this.

Two, explaining the Schmitt Schtick seems to me to defeat the purpose of the schtick in the first place. I really need to see the speech though.

< More On Obama's Theory Of Change | The Impulse To Defend Hillary >

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 The Stump On His Theory Of Change | 27 comments (27 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Insurance companies (5.00 / 4) (#9)
by Judith on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 07:03:34 PM EST

have zilch interest or incentive in changing. High road means nothing.

This whole "unity" schtick (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by chancellor on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 07:22:32 PM EST

is a concept pushed by Obama so that he can present himself as the "solution" to a "problem" we don't have. The majority of Americans are in agreement on the key issues: 1) end the war in Iraq, 2) restore the Constitution, 3) restore the middle class through good-paying jobs that don't get sent to India or China, 4) preserve Social Security, 5) eliminate special tax breaks for the very wealthy and the large corporations, and 6) provide universal health care. The real problem--to which Obama is not the solution (although he's had several years in which to show he could have been part of the solution)--is that our congressional representatives are more interested in having job security and health benefits for themselves than they are in addressing the issues we elected them to address. Obama's just taken a page from Karl Rove's playbook. Whether you bill yourself as the "agent of hope" or whether you bill yourself as a "compassionate conservative," it's all marketing hype without any substance behind it.

Nice summary. I completely (none / 0) (#15)
by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 07:24:35 PM EST

agree. But why didn't the Iowa Dem. caucus goers?


American Idol nation, perhaps? (none / 0) (#20)
by chancellor on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:20:48 PM EST

The thought has crossed my mind, (4.00 / 1) (#22)
by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:23:29 PM EST

and, since my roots are in Iowa, I can see why. Not much going on in the winter until high school basketball tournaments start. Will New Hampshire primary voters, with their "Live Free or Die" state motto, be so easily swayed?


every time an Dem says "polarizing" (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 01:08:56 PM EST

a GOP angel gets its wings.

(go with me on the fantasy that the GOP could actually have an angel)

I agree that Obama is using the GOP talking point (and media pushed meme) about Clinton being polarizing to work against her. The truth is that she has not been polarizing in the senate and there is plenty of proof to show she has earned respect and done well. NY likes her -and who would have thought that? But please, the number of dopes who take as fact whatever particular idea that pops out of the teevee make it hard to combat logically.

Obama is clever to use the tools at his disposal - they are powerful.


Don't you think more people will (none / 0) (#24)
by oculus on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:30:35 PM EST

get their "read" on who won tonight's Dem. NH debate from the TV summarization than from watching the debate for themselves? My depend on what else is on, I guess. At least my newspaper gives quotes post-debate.


Yes (none / 0) (#25)
by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:16:56 PM EST

I thought Bush was a total loser in 2004. I actually listened to the answers. The media didnt back down on their unwavering and catastropic support of Bush.

I learned in 2001 that just because someone works in the media doesnt mean they are smarter than anyone else - it just means they chose a job with a potential megaphone.

That isnt to say that Fareed Zackaria isnt smarter than most - but even he backed the Iraq invasion and he is a MUSLIM. Hello?


Guess they aren't all the same, anymore (none / 0) (#26)
by oculus on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:21:53 PM EST

than we are.


yes, like us - (none / 0) (#27)
by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:26:39 PM EST

flawed...

but what makes them different is the potential to persuade based on being seen as in a position "to know" i.e well he works for a paper and YOU dont so he MUST know more than you do!

Reminds me of the time somebody told me my opinion on the politics in Iraq was less valuable than a soldier's because the soldier was actually IN IRAQ.


: AP has a story up about whether (none / 0) (#28)
by oculus on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:35:47 PM EST

US voters are now prepared to elect a black man president, based on Obama's win in Iowa. Interesting.

Catchier titles needed. (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 06:36:28 PM EST

P.S. Geekesque, whom one would anticipate would be here today, is tearing into Hillary and Bill Clinton on DK instead.

Catchier titles needed. (none / 0) (#2)
by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 06:38:50 PM EST

Umm (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 06:55:16 PM EST

In the frame of mind he is in now, based on your description, better he be over there.


: News to me that Univ. of CA and Harvard (none / 0) (#19)
by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 07:54:46 PM EST

donate $$ to political candidates. Got to wonder about how the regents are spending my tax dollars.

: Kudos for the (none / 0) (#21)
by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:21:12 PM EST

"neo high Broderism" title,though. That one has amused me all day.

Repeat post due to extreme boredom. (none / 0) (#3)
by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 06:39:59 PM EST

We can talk about Obama all day (none / 0) (#4)
by Jgarza on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 06:41:42 PM EST

and we have.

Lets look at the alternative: Clinton

what is her latest ploy, not attacking Obama but attacking democrats that voted for him. This hardly seems like a smart strategy.

"I'm well aware that New Hampshire, and America, has a lot of voters who don't think they need a president right now, they're doing fine, they're well educated," she said. "So for them this election isn't about 'me and my family' it's about, you know, 'how I feel' and 'what I hope for.' And that's great, but there are more people in New Hampshire who need a president who will be your champion."

Um so now her strategy is to attack the candidates supporters. Isn't this Limousine liberal a right wing talking point? I'm waiting for Taylor marsh, Jane Hamshire and Digby to say something. Will they? doubtful

Actually, that's pretty good, I think. (none / 0) (#5)
by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 06:45:18 PM EST

Well, (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by chancellor on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 07:06:34 PM EST

the last line is pretty good because it's stolen almost verbatim from John Edwards. In fact, if you look at either Obama or Clinton, they've stolen both concepts and verbiage from Edwards, whether it's about health care programs or "champions."


: maybe (1.00 / 1) (#12)
by Jgarza on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 07:08:13 PM EST

JE should have brought up Obama's Kindergarten Essays because that is where this argument belongs.

insulting intelectuals (none / 0) (#6)
by Jgarza on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 06:50:57 PM EST

in new england? i would have thought that would work in Iowa or in the Midwest, Ohio, but this is a contest in new Hampshire in new england. It has suburbs of Boston in it.


doesn't "intellectual" (none / 0) (#8)
by Judith on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 07:00:33 PM EST

have 2 Ls?

Anyway, has Ted Kennedy weighed in? Pun intended.


probably (none / 0) (#11)
by Jgarza on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 07:06:35 PM EST

that pun actually made me laugh. man i have a lame sense of humor.


: glad you laughed (none / 0) (#13)
by Judith on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 07:20:53 PM EST

gotta keep a sense of humor.

clarify please (none / 0) (#16)
by Satya1 on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 07:36:19 PM EST

I may be able to find that video for you. But can you clarify for me what you mean by your second observation? I'm having trouble understanding your point of view because to me the Mark Schmitt articles are simply windows into the potential of classic, Saul Alinsky organizing.

: Saul Alinsky? (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 07:52:51 PM EST

I do not see how Alinsky is related at all to Scmitt's article. Please explain what you mean.