Obama No Lieberman? Sure, But What Is the Unifying Theory?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:23:55 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

Josh Marshall's cutesy headline about David Ignatius' column misses a key point. Of course, Barack Obama is not Joe Lieberman. But that is what the Media thinks "bipartisanship" means. That is the essence of High Broderism - unity means Dems capitulating to Republicans on the issues. The question then is how exactly will, if not through High Broderism, Obama unify the country in post partisan fashion? We are back to discussing Mark Schmitt's theory of Obama change. I hold to my view (for an opposing view, here is scribe's take):

SCHMITT: This is the math of bipartisanship. It's not a matter of sitting down with thugs like John Boehner and splitting the difference, but winning over just a few Senate Republicans from outside the South. And if the number is small enough, that's entirely possible. . . . Obama's approach is better positioned to take advantage of this math. . . . [A]fter the inauguration, I think that opposition to Hillary Clinton will remain a galvanizing theme for Republicans, whereas a new face and will make it harder to recreate the familiar unity-in-opposition.

Now for the cosmic explanation: What I find most interesting about Obama's approach to bipartisanship is how seriously he takes conservatism. As Michael Tomasky describes it in his review of The Audacity of Hope, "The chapters boil down to a pattern: here's what the right believes about subject X, and here's what the left believes; and while I basically side with the left, I think the right has a point or two that we should consider, and the left can sometimes get a little carried away." What I find fascinating about his language about unity and cross-partisanship is that it is not premised on finding Republicans who agree with him, but on taking in good faith the language and positions of actual conservatism -- people who don't agree with him. That's very different from the longed-for consensus of the Washington Post editorial page.
[Obama's theory of change] Sounds beautiful doesn't it? Obama is for taking the GOP seriously and winning the argument! Except we all know in real life that does not work. Politics is NOT a debating society.

To accept this theory of politics is to ignore EVERYTHING we know about politics and the Republican Party of today.

It simply sounds naive. Frankly, I imagine Obama, if he becomes President, will soon learn this and will learn that he is not the singular figure in the history of the nation who can abolish politics.

< Open Thread | Electability And The 50 State Strategy >

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 No Lieberman? Sure, But What Is the Unifying Theory? | 155 comments (155 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

There are two main reasons (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by Mike Pridmore on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:34:21 PM EST

Obama cannot do as he promises. One, the Republicans in congress are willing to vote in lock step and will block any progressive agenda. Second, although he will face a better position than Bill Clinton faced, he will still have to triangulate to get anything done, much like Bill had to do. When he starts triangulating, he will have a hard time keeping his base happy. They will treat him like his Illinois base did when he started triangulating his opposition to the Iraq War. Black Agenda Report has a great discussion on the latter here.

think Nancy Pelosi (none / 0) (#32)
by thereyougo on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:14:23 PM EST

As liberal and as clamoring as she wants to end the war, she runs against the Republicans.

This is what faces Obama.

Its all hype afaic and reminiscent of the caustic leadership of GWb the uniter and all the other cutesy rhetoric.
That load of bull hasn't cleared the room 7 years
later and I'm sure it hasn't for a lot of people too.

good article.

[ Parent ]

: and Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by thereyougo on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:17:09 PM EST

has shown she can reach consensus even with
that horrible bugman Tom Delay. This really stands out in my mind

[ Parent ]

The Obama Record (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:38:48 PM EST

Obama should have a bipartisanship or unity record to point to if we are to vote for him because this is his strength. Eight years in the State Senate, I read this article and frankly, based on this unless someone can prove it's totally wrong, there is no evidence of him having the ability to bring together or bipartisanship. Seven years when the Republicans led the Illinois legislature he did nothing, the majority of accomplishments happened the last year and most were dropped on his lap. All I get is a belief that he can do it, no real record, is this totally wrong?
Barack And Me

It's a lengthy record filled with core liberal issues. But what's interesting, and almost never discussed, is that he built his entire legislative record in Illinois in a single year.
Republicans controlled the Illinois General Assembly for six years of Obama's seven-year tenure. Each session, Obama backed legislation that went nowhere; bill after bill died in committee. During those six years, Obama, too, would have had difficulty naming any legislative achievements.
Then, in 2002, dissatisfaction with President Bush and Republicans on the national and local levels led to a Democratic sweep of nearly every lever of Illinois state government. For the first time in 26 years, Illinois Democrats controlled the governor's office as well as both legislative chambers.

During his seventh and final year in the state Senate, Obama's stats soared. He sponsored a whopping 26 bills passed into law -- including many he now cites in his presidential campaign when attacked as inexperienced.

I am glad he does not have such a record (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:39:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]

So (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:42:01 PM EST

Unity shtick is a lie?

[ Parent ]

I hope so (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:46:55 PM EST

That is Schmitt's theory.

[ Parent ]

But wait (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:49:53 PM EST

This is allegedly his only virtue, unity. If that is non existent and it's a lie, what's the point?

So, this sham will fall apart during the GE, and his whole shtick will collapse. and voters will choose the" straight talker", "maverick".

We are toast.

[ Parent ]

IT was not my point (1.00 / 1) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:52:28 PM EST

and I have always said he does not need the unity schtick. Unlike you, I believe his political talent is immense.

He CAN be our Ronald Reagan. If he is willing to try to be.

[ Parent ]

Not so sure, BTD (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by auntmo on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:45:33 PM EST

You might remind your friends at Dkos that the Blue Dog Democrats they enthusiastically helped elect in 2006 are not inclined to assist him in passing any expensive programs that will run up more deficits.

How Markos has forgotten the very people he supported for Congress----and WHY he did so---is amazing to me.

The record of those Blue Dogs vs the record of Obama's wishes do not correlate. Especially with the deficits Obama will already inherit.

He'll end up triangulating, just because Markos's Blue Dogs will force him to.

[ Parent ]

Ronald Reagan (5.00 / 1) (#80)
by BernieO on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:10:33 PM EST

bamboozled the public while doing great damage to our country. His "greed is good" trickle down economic beliefs still plague us. Ditto his "there is no oil shortage" schtick.

[ Parent ]

Failure (5.00 / 2) (#87)
by BDB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:30:46 PM EST

My theory about Obama is that he will never live up to his talents or be a truly great leader until he has failed. If he wins it this time, I think he'll be okay, but not great, certainly not transformative.

If you look at great leaders, almost every one of them had some huge failure or disappointment in their lives, whether personal or political, before they became great. It toughens them up, makes them less politically cautious and a little more humble. Nothing causes one to question oneself like failure and, for the talented to whom so much comes so easily, that's a good thing.

[ Parent ]

x (5.00 / 1) (#106)
by CognitiveDissonance on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:29:14 PM EST

I not only see no evidence that he will try to be, but also - more importantly - that he wants to be. I see in him and his thin record a politician who has made big compromises, not someone who can push through a progressive agenda. But even worse, I don't see someone even committed to a progressive agenda. He is NOT the one.

[ Parent ]

Ronald Reagan? Isn't he the guy... (5.00 / 3) (#115)
by Avedon on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:47:20 PM EST

...who made all those nice working-class white people feel like he was on their side, all the while pulling the rug out from under them (and all of us)?

See, that's what I'm afraid of - that Obama is just as far to the right as he sounds. Since he keeps telling progressives to bugger off, I have trouble believing he won't be another Reagan - just one who happens to be running as a Democrat.

[ Parent ]

: Agreed (5.00 / 2) (#154)
by lentinel on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:25:10 PM EST

Your framing of Obama is exactly the way I see him.
Additionally, I think he would be ready to sell us whatever his corporate sponsors tell him to sell us.

[ Parent ]

Still looking (none / 0) (#22)
by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:54:02 PM EST

Well... (none / 0) (#56)
by Alvord on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:41:17 PM EST

...Obama may not have needed the unity schtick but he has employed it.

Ronald Reagan did not lie about what he was about. He put it out there for everybody to see. As first a Carter and later a Mondale voter I am disappointed Reagan won but he didn't do it by fooling the voters.

Obama is stuck with the unity theme. Is it worse if he means it or is it worse if he is lying? Pick your poison.

[ Parent ]

Alvord (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by auntmo on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:47:21 PM EST

Ronald Reagan didn't lie?

You were sleeping during Iran/Contra, right?

[ Parent ]

Um (5.00 / 1) (#72)
by Steve M on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:48:15 PM EST

The point was that Reagan was up front about being an unapologetic conservative.

[ Parent ]

I think you... (none / 0) (#85)
by Alvord on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:23:25 PM EST

...are deliberately misconstruing my comment. I said he didn't lie about what kind of Presidency he was going to lead. He was an anti-communist hawk wanted to cut taxes and get government off of peoples backs. That is what he ran on and to a large extent that is what he tried to accomplish.

Obviously he told lies as president (or the Alzheimers set in earlier than we know.)

[ Parent ]

: The above comment... (none / 0) (#86)
by Alvord on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:25:37 PM EST

is to auntmo

[ Parent ]

You want another Reagan?!! (none / 0) (#153)
by lentinel on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:21:19 PM EST

I don't want another Reagan.

[ Parent ]

: I want a liberal Reagan (none / 0) (#158)
by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:18:22 PM EST

I was a Liberal Reagan that will win 49 states in his reelection.
The notion that Obama is a crypto-Conservative is utterly ridiculous.

[ Parent ]

In his defense (none / 0) (#8)
by Mike Pridmore on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:42:07 PM EST

that was the year Democrats got control of the Illinois State government. But it is still just one year of a good record.

[ Parent ]

: Read the article (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:44:47 PM EST

The bills were thrown in his lap as part of "US Senator" building.
Ticked off some people who were actually responsible for legwork behind the bills.

[ Parent ]
: Read the article (5.00 / 4) (#20)
by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:53:17 PM EST

how he got that record. He got handed it to him by his Jones the Dem Majority leader, to the

Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills.

[ Parent ]

BTD - I respectfully disagree. (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by scribe on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:44:30 PM EST

If it walks and talks like a duck, it is. Until proven otherwise.

There's too much similar in what Obama says for it not to be Joementum.

Go read and comment.

I linked to you in my post (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:46:29 PM EST

: Thanks! (none / 0) (#13)
by scribe on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:48:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]

You asked the most relevant question BTD (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by BigB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:49:39 PM EST

Your question what theory of unifying Obama has if it is not the Joe Lieberman bipartisanship is the most relevant question. I have not heard an answer to this question from any of the Obama supporters. Any Obama supporter here care to take up this question?

First (none / 0) (#59)
by muffie on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:43:44 PM EST

let me state that I absolutely agree that "theories of change" is the primary difference between Hillary and Obama in this, um, primary.

It is, unfortunately, rather difficult to decipher what Obama's theory actually is. I think an optimistic viewpoint of one possible Obama strategy, with regards to health care, looks something like this:

Make it clear that health care is a problem which needs to be addressed by the government. Clearly reject the standard Republican platform of "tax cuts" as doing next to nothing to hold down costs, cover more people, etc.
Rather than represent a plan as a "Democratic" or "liberal" plan, characterize it as a "pragmatic" plan. In essence, blur the usual lines of overly simplistic debate.
Appeal directly the populace. Encourage them to call their representatives, stage rallies, etc. Make it clear that opposition is on the wrong side of public opinion.
Hope the pressure either wins over the 5 or so Republicans necessary to pass health care reform, or (more likely, in my opinion) creates enough pressure to avoid a filibuster.

Would Obama go about things this way? I don't know.

[ Parent ]

The problem with this approach (none / 0) (#83)
by BigB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:20:05 PM EST

It is easy to convince people in blue states to supprt this. The question is how are you going to convince people in the red states. It is those senators we need to get to pass this in the senate. If anyone here ahs ever listened to rightwing talk radio and their callers, then you know it is pretty much impossible to convert them to the importance of universal health care. That is why this theory fo change of getting people to pressuer their representatives is doomed to fail.

Bush passed his tax cuts by intimidating the swing state Democratic senators, not by appealing to the voters on the left.

[ Parent ]

Look, Obama may not even really have a plan (none / 0) (#141)
by Virginian on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 06:43:34 PM EST

What he has advocated so far (and this is probably more Axelrod than Obama) is tantamount to the refurbished self-help book "The Secret."

Its not a new theory...its the theory that if you say everything will be ok, and your REALLY believe with all your might that everything will be ok...then "poof" it is.

I actually don't think Obama is that naive, but the people that don't see his rhetoric about "change" for what it is (sound bite politics), are tantamount to the people that were so desperate for good things to happen in their lives that they bought (and bought into) "The Secret." People are desperate for "not-George Bush" and that rhetorically is what Obama is selling.

[ Parent ]

: Interesting side note (none / 0) (#142)
by Virginian on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 06:45:35 PM EST

Oprah Winfrey hawked both...Obama, and "The Secret"...it may be a bit of insight into her mindset/world view...or maybe a coincidence...who knows (who cares, right?).

[ Parent ]

Hopeful analysis (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by magster on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:50:21 PM EST

Much in the same way as Bush branded himself to be a uniter, not a divider, before being the most divisive President in history, Obama has successfully branded himself similarly. Maybe Obama has purposefully innoculated himself from being a partisan as a means to govern very progressively and be the anti-Bush.

With that said, there is no need whatsoever to put a Republican in his cabinet.

Now, " but winning over just a few ..." (5.00 / 4) (#17)
by scribe on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:52:23 PM EST

"...Senate Republicans from outside the South." is one of those things better done by replacing them with Democrats. More and better Democrats.

Ask former Senator Chaffee of Rhode Island. He's recently written that, after he got over the hurt of being tossed from office, he's seen that the People were right to do so.

A friend from RI and I were talking the other night, and it still amazes him that a Republican with a 70% approval rating (Chaffee) still got tossed because he was a Republican. People were and are that p*ssed. Maybe even moreso now.

And, now, we have Obama telling us that we need Republicans in a Democratic cabinet? Please.

: The statistics I have seen kicked around (none / 0) (#143)
by Virginian on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 06:50:27 PM EST

the nets over the last 3 or 4 months have actually shown that the "anti-Republican" sentiments of 2006 have quieted down...it seems to be much more focused on a sentiment that is more in line with "Bush's term is almost over"
I think it would be a big mistake for us to expect he sort of 2006 gains this cycle...
Especially if Obama is the nominee, and he turns out to have REAL cross-over appeal (not the type we're hearing about in Texas)...he probably will not help the down ticket. Thats not to say the down ticket will need him too, but his cross-overs probably won't cross-over down ticket.

[ Parent ]

It seems to me that Obama is really hurting (5.00 / 7) (#18)
by tigercourse on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:52:27 PM EST

the progressive movement. At one point, I was more cautious then alot of the people who posted on Dailykos or Open left and the like. They were always the ones pushing hard for the Democratic brand and attacking Reid and the like for their many failures and screaming at Schumer for supporting moderates. But now that they've jumped on the Obama bandwagon, I'm the most partisan person around.

Going over to mydd and seeing many posters argue that it will be great to have Hagel in charge of Defense and Lugar in charge of State is a real eye opener. The progressive - or whaterver the heck it should be called - movement has been taken over by Obama's centrist campaign.

Yes (5.00 / 3) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:53:22 PM EST

That was me at daily kos doing that.

Obama scolded me for it in 2005.

[ Parent ]

I do not understand (5.00 / 7) (#26)
by Steve M on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:02:55 PM EST

how the exact same Obama who got savaged when he tried to post at Daily Kos somehow became the conquering netroots hero. Is it really about nothing more, deep down, than being the anti-Hillary?

The netroots used to love nothing more than the Fighting Dem paradigm. Somehow they have persuaded themselves that Obama fits the paradigm when he presents himself as the exact opposite. Suddenly it's taking Republican arguments seriously and giving them credit that's the mark of a true progressive. I truly cannot figure it out.

[ Parent ]

Heh (5.00 / 4) (#30)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:10:18 PM EST

Bandwagon jumping by the A-Listers. Check out the Big ORange Satan's latest.

[ Parent ]

Gawd (5.00 / 4) (#38)
by Steve M on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:21:16 PM EST

I don't get the Dean thing either, which you accurately covered in your diary the other day. I know any number of Deaniacs who are in love all over again with Obama and I just don't get it.

Surely Obama has adopted some of the procedural aspects of the Dean movement - competing everywhere, building a strong grassroots base of online donors - but in terms of message he couldn't be more unlike the guy who told us all to be proud of being a Democrat again. Hillary Clinton, for all her faults, is a hundred times the unapologetic partisan that Obama is.

Maybe people are just looking hard for a savior and can't deal with the possibility that maybe this wasn't the year to find one. If all you do is evaluate candidates on their merits as standard pols, there's every reason for Democratic voters to be very proud of Obama, Clinton, and John Edwards too. But expecting Obama to be our Reagan when he never comes within a mile of Reagan's partisan message is crazy.

[ Parent ]

Gerstein and Kos sittin in a tree (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:25:37 PM EST

for Obama.

Nothing funnier than that to me.

[ Parent ]

The blogosphere (5.00 / 4) (#60)
by Steve M on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:43:44 PM EST

used to be a place without sacred cows.

When Russ Feingold would cast the occasional bad vote, the blogosphere would call it what it was - disappointing. A few overwrought commentors would inevitably start talking about a primary challenge.

What is the last example of an action or speech from Obama where the A-listers have expressed disappointment? Surely a President Obama would do some good things and some bad things from a progressive perspective. Have we simply lost the notion of a blogosphere that calls 'em as it sees 'em, that focuses on issues and message rather than personality? BTD is one of the last bloggers to hold true to this notion of what the netroots are supposed to be about.

[ Parent ]

The Last of the Mohican Bloggers (5.00 / 2) (#69)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:47:29 PM EST

That would be me.

[ Parent ]

That will be Obama;s downfall (5.00 / 1) (#100)
by sara seattle on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:15:43 PM EST

because sooner or later he will say or do something that will shock his followers

and they they will finally have to react - and likely it will be a hard fall for them - betrayal, falling out of love, shock and sadness -- followed by total rage.

So it will not just be the media reacting .... imagine however that happens before November -- then what --

I pray that Hillary stay in the race as long as possible

[ Parent ]

I'm worried about the opposite. (none / 0) (#124)
by Avedon on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:03:16 PM EST

Remember all those libertarian bloggers who had all those important principles until Bush came along and broke every single one of them - and instead of repudiating Bush, those "libertarians" discovered they were perfectly happy with Bush's unlimited, big-spending, ever-expanding security state government philosophy.

An awful lot of people are already shrugging their shoulders about Obama's RNC Social Security rhetoric, his anti-single-payer statements, his continual dissing of everything liberal - are they ever going to put pressure on him for liberal programs once he's in the White House? Or will they do what the libertoonians did and betray their principles to defend their new god?

[ Parent ]

: you mean the 25-30% (none / 0) (#152)
by sara seattle on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:03:40 PM EST

hardcore Republicans that will follow W over the cliff - like the lemmings they are?
Yah - you're right - sadly enough

[ Parent ]

Tonight on Crossfire: (4.50 / 2) (#58)
by andgarden on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:43:34 PM EST

2005 Markos debates 2008 Markos. Watch sparks fly!

[ Parent ]

: Heh (none / 0) (#71)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:47:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]

A vague theory of change (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by BigB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:18:45 PM EST

Steve M,

It may be because Obama supporters have only a vague idea of his theory of change. In fact even saying thay have a vague theory maybe giving them too much credit.

They are bsaically taken by his speech making style and beyond that know very little about his theory of change. At this point, it is all about winning and Obama loving and Hillary hating.

[ Parent ]

Well (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Steve M on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:22:34 PM EST

I know many Obama supporters who are very smart people, probably smarter than me. They're not all a bunch of 21-year old political naifs. I honestly just don't get what's going on.

[ Parent ]

A lot of apparently smart people support Obama, (5.00 / 3) (#46)
by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:31:01 PM EST

but why do they all sound so dumb when they explain why?

[ Parent ]

Good question (5.00 / 3) (#48)
by Steve M on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:35:21 PM EST

I have seen otherwise intelligent Obama supporters argue that he will get health care reform passed by televising negotiations with industry lobbyists on C-SPAN, and when someone from the other side makes a misleading claim, Obama will trot out a bunch of experts and magically debunk them. I kid you not, there are people who think this scenario is actually going to play out.

[ Parent ]

That's How It Works In Their Reality-Based World (5.00 / 4) (#91)
by BDB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:56:55 PM EST

A lot of smart people work in fields where being right matters. Where if you can show you're right, others will agree to follow you. So Obama's message makes sense to them, especially if they haven't been involved a lot in politics. The problem, of course, is that politically active folks know it almost never matters if you're right or at least that is not usually the deciding factor. Republicans aren't obstructing healthcare because they don't understand the issue, they're obstructing it because they believe it's in their best political interest to do so.

Why it works on people who should know better, like Kos and Josh Marshall, I have no idea.

[ Parent ]

: because that is where the numbers are (none / 0) (#97)
by sara seattle on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:10:49 PM EST

the more Obama followers - the more DailyKos viewers
Simple as supply and demand - and advertising $$$

[ Parent ]

Smart people (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:37:41 PM EST

Look, the country is in a deep psychological depression. People want a positive up lifting message, I do not undervalue this one bit and I decided a few weeks ago that there is no way to attack them for that, I just end up looking and feeling like a bully. I guess it's the wounded soul syndrome Michelle talked about.

[ Parent ]

Speech-making (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by BigB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:39:56 PM EST

This is why I proposed the theory that they are really taken by his speech-making and are also swayed by the media marketing on his behalf.

Marketing works! We know that!

[ Parent ]

: Marketing does work ... (5.00 / 3) (#78)
by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:06:55 PM EST

but savvy people should realize it's working on them emotionally and pull back. Then force themselves to look at things from a cooler, more rational perspective.
Obama does seem to hold some kind of emotional sway over certain people that short circuits their brains.
I've encountered this even from friends. It's one of the things I DON'T like about him.
Given what's happened over the last 7 years, and the increased strength of the executive branch, we don't need another president that makes the public act irrationally.

[ Parent ]

A lot of smart people lying around Jonestown, too. (5.00 / 1) (#89)
by blogtopus on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:49:35 PM EST

Let's not forget there are multiple vectors for intelligence. Emotional intelligence and maturity are separate factors from other more 'normal' forms of intelligence.

Not to take away from our dear friends who have 150 IQs but support Obama, but intelligence is just a tool for motivations, nothing more.

[ Parent ]

: We have had this discussion in a group (none / 0) (#159)
by splashy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:10:50 PM EST

I belong to. IQ often only shows the speed of thinking, not how much imagination, empathy, or emotional intelligence is present.
As one person talking about the rabid right wingers that are intelligent, they may be just goose-stepping faster, rather than actually thinking about the ramifications.

[ Parent ]

A friend with a PhD who supports Obama (none / 0) (#44)
by BigB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:27:42 PM EST

I have a close friend who has a PhD and is a big Obama supporter. He doesn't know a lot about Obama. His reasons for supporting him are that he loves Obama's books, he finds him inspiring and that he will change things. Beyond that, he can't get more specific. He admits Hillary is more specific and Obama is vague and that the media has been tougher on Hillary.

This is of course a sample size of one.

[ Parent ]

rationalizing (5.00 / 1) (#139)
by Dr Molly on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 06:34:17 PM EST

I have a PhD and am surrounded by PhDs at work, mostly scientists. Believe me, PhDs don't have any lock on common sense or rationality. Even scientist-types, who are lovers of empirical data, exhibit the tendency to be irrational about facts when it suits their purposes to do so. I've come to the conclusion that facing facts and truth is a little bit more about morality and integrity than being smart. Having all of the above is the best!

[ Parent ]

: Ah yes Common Sense (none / 0) (#156)
by Florida Resident on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:32:07 PM EST

or as my father use to say The Least Common of all Senses.

[ Parent ]

It's psychology (5.00 / 1) (#94)
by Foxx on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:57:37 PM EST

A lot of people committed totally to Obama before they realized who he is. They so badly "want their country back," they believed he would give it to them. Look at that Obama chanting video that was blogged the other day, "I want a green economy," etc. etc. All about what people want, no evidence Obama will give it to them.

That kind of commitment is incredibly painful and wrenching to give up, it's a huge psychological shift that is required.

So the first little piece of evidence pops up, excusing it isn't that big a deal, so you do. Then the next one pops up, you excuse it again, and down you go. Ultimately you end up supporting something you previously despised.

It's kinda like a battering relationship. Starts out wonderful. Then you get yelled at, well they didn't really mean it, they had a hard day. Ultimately you end up in the hospital.

[ Parent ]

Agree -- I go around and around (none / 0) (#128)
by Cream City on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:16:06 PM EST

with some incredibly smart people on this. Just today, a genius type, a professor, author of many award-winning books, told me he is going with Obama because his Congresswoman Barbara Lee said so -- and she said it is because she could not vote for someone who authorized the war. Okay, but then said genius type said that Obama voted against the war. I said no, he did not; he wasn't in the Senate. So genius type came back with, well, Obama has not authorized funding the war. I said no, he and Clinton both have voted the same on war funding. So then genius type, who always is very arrogant about knowing more than anyone, said . . . well, I don't need to keep up with those details, but Obama has a very good history with gays. I said no . . . and we went around and around again, to the same result. This is one of those "highly educated," white, male Obama voters. Uh huh.

[ Parent ]

: The "Yeah Buts" (5.00 / 0) (#138)
by blogtopus on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 06:21:33 PM EST

Plenty of those to go around. Zeno had a paradox based on that mind of mentality. There is nothing so outlandish that you can't take an infinitesimal part of it and make THAT seem sensible. The problem is when you try to expand that sensibility back into the outlandish reality.
Just as there is no movement so pure that you can't find a complete monster following it, there is no claim so crazy that you can't find some miniscule part of it that sounds reasonable. Creationists rely on this, and so do many Obama supporters, when reality comes crashing down on 'Hope'.

[ Parent ]

I bet if I went over to DK and posted (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by tigercourse on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:08:29 PM EST

something critical of Hagel, I'd get troll rated. In one of their threads, someone says that Wes Clark shouldn't be in the cabinet because he supported Clinton, but that Hagel is a great choice. The poster gets alot of recommends.

This is nuts.

[ Parent ]

: Nuts!!! (5.00 / 3) (#36)
by BigB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:20:47 PM EST

That is really nuts. Hagel over Clark? I bet if Obama said Karl Rove will be helping his campaign, his supporters will be doing a Mexican wave.

[ Parent ]
: You get troll-rated over there ... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:35:01 PM EST

if you say things critical of Obama, especially if that criticism is at all clever.

[ Parent ]
: that Obama even mentions (5.00 / 4) (#57)
by thereyougo on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:42:43 PM EST

Hagel for a cabinet position makes the charge against Hillary for her war vote unbelievable, and hypcritical. Hagel talked like he was against the war, but gave GWB his full support when it mattered--his vote.

[ Parent ]

Of course... (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:56:36 PM EST

look, they had to kill the "class" interest issues and blur the waters with identity politics. This Progressive movement is not populist. This is a misconception.

[ Parent ]

Remind me ... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:57:29 PM EST

how doe we know that "of course, Obama isn't [another] Joe Lieberman"?

Transubstantiation (none / 0) (#28)
by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:07:09 PM EST

This is why I am an agnostic. You have to believe. Transcend reality and go for it. The gist of the Course of Miracles, Oprah's other pet project. Sorry, you can delete if it's insulting, but honestly, this is what it looks like.

[ Parent ]

Funny ... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:26:09 PM EST

and I think you're right.

But if believing in Obama is a form of transubstantiation, what is the Obama version of the Eucharist?

[ Parent ]

: The booth: voting (none / 0) (#45)
by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:29:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Obama (none / 0) (#67)
by thereyougo on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:46:52 PM EST

went to the Oprah school of marketing yourself to the larger audience and he learned well, but you have to say this about him. His organization transformed politics to the 50 state strategy that Dean pushed. Now everyone will be doing it.

[ Parent ]

Or not! (5.00 / 2) (#79)
by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:09:27 PM EST

If he only carries 6 states in the general, he'll be forgotten faster than the Macarena.

[ Parent ]

no, he won't be forgotten (none / 0) (#98)
by Kathy on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:12:13 PM EST

he will be a joke, just like McGovern.

[ Parent ]

Okay ... how about ... (none / 0) (#105)
by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:25:10 PM EST

he'll become a joke like the Macarena?

I wonder how contrite the net roots Obama supporters will be if he loses badly?

[ Parent ]

as someone else said before (5.00 / 2) (#110)
by Kathy on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:36:42 PM EST

"If Obama loses, they will find a way to blame Hillary."

[ Parent ]

Oh, yes ... (none / 0) (#123)
by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:58:44 PM EST

you're exactly right!

I remember talking to a friend on 9/11 (the day itself) and he said, "Somehow they're gonna find a way to blame this on Clinton."

It wasn't long before Republicans were doing exactly that.

Blaming the Clintons is a national pastime.

Of course the Obama fans will find some way to blame an Obama loss on one or both of the Clintons.

[ Parent ]

The DLC will blame "the left" (none / 0) (#127)
by Avedon on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:12:41 PM EST

The DLC always blames the left when the Democrat loses. They will insist that Obama was "too far left".

And everyone will blame blacks and women, and it will be another 25 years before they let another one of us run a serious campaign.

[ Parent ]

: Only 25 years? It may be more . . . (none / 0) (#130)
by Cream City on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:18:57 PM EST

My paper had a story this morning on how few women are in political office in Wisconsin -- with one of those brave souls, past mayor of a city and past president of our state mayor's association, saying that what women are seeing will discourage them from entering politics. I hope not, but more women in politics is not part of the "hope" and "change" agenda for Obama, from what I find on his website.

[ Parent ]

They won't be (none / 0) (#126)
by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:12:28 PM EST

contrite in the least. They will be angry and screaming fraud.

[ Parent ]

In response to scribe's post in the open thread... (5.00 / 7) (#25)
by Oje on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:02:20 PM EST

I mentioned that Obama's position on the defense and foreign policy secretaries is one of the most prevalent memes from the "old poltiics." Bill Clinton appointed William Cohen to the position of Secretary of Defense for exactly this reason. Fifteen years later we now know that this kind of hedging against Republicans does nothing to confront and refute the idea that Democrats are weaker than Republican on defense and foreign policy. So, first, Obama still does not break out of the "old politics" despite the taglines to the contrary.

Second, how does the "man of judgement" reconcile his withering critique of the Iraq War and the events leading up to it with the tacit assumption that Republicans are best suited to head our defense and foreign policy establishment. I know that there were Republican luminaries who opposed the war, but these individuals had no impact on the outcome. Does Obama mean to suggest the most marginalized and ineffectual Republican is a better candidate than any Democrat to run our military and foreign policy establishments?

There are multiple layers to his remarks. This is one of digby's potential moments for a transformational politics. Obama also fails here to defend the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. We Democrats have the possibility to change the meaning of strong on foreign policy, strong on military. Hillary Clinton should hit Obama hard on these comments by suggesting that his position reflects the fact that former military generals like Wesley Clark, etc., etc., have endorsed her. Obama's cabinet will promise more of the same military expenditures and foreign policy failures. Americans want Democrats in control of the military and foreign policy, not Republican's marginalized voices.

If anything (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by Steve M on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:06:26 PM EST

building that sort of bipartisan bridge simply serves to reinforce the meme, because it shows that when a Dem wants to look competent on foreign policy, he has go to looking for a Republican.

To be fair, you could make the case that Bill Clinton's rebranding of the Democratic Party on issues like crime and national security was unavoidable and necessary at the time, if we didn't want every national Democrat to end up looking like Dukakis. But I hope we all agree that one way or the other, we're past that point by now. Putting a Republican at Defense or State doesn't make us look fair and bipartisan, it makes us look like we couldn't find a qualified Dem for the job.

[ Parent ]

I understood it... (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by Oje on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:21:02 PM EST

At the time, Clinton's position seemed necessary coming out of the Cold War era. I do not entirely fault him for the position at the time.In hindsight, though, it was a mistake. I agree, we are past that point.

So the question is, after Bush II, how could any Democrat continue to fall into such political traps, especially the "man of judgement?"

[ Parent ]

: In Bill Clinton's favor (5.00 / 2) (#84)
by Daryl24 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:22:37 PM EST

Cohen was a moderate to liberal Republican. They don't seem to exist much anymore.
He was also arguably the main player in making sure the bulk of Newt's Contract on America died in the Senate.
For that alone Bill owed him a cabinet position.

[ Parent ]

I've always thought this was obvious. (5.00 / 1) (#129)
by Avedon on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:16:19 PM EST

We don't need Republicans. If we thought they were right, we would be Republicans.

They've been bad on every single issue. They're no good at defense, no good at ecominics, and no good at making the trains run on time. They're worse than useless for the purposes of government. I'm not even sure many of them would make a competent janitor - because that would require actually doing something.

[ Parent ]

Thanks (5.00 / 3) (#31)
by Lou Grinzo on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:13:36 PM EST

Thank you, BTD, for posting this. You've focused on precisely the thing that has kept me from being an strong Obama supporter:

"That is the essence of High Broderism - unity means Dems capitulating to Republicans on the issues. The question then is how exactly will, if not through High Broderism, Obama unify the country in post partisan fashion?"

Sadly, I don't see how the progressives in this country avoid a death by a thousand compromises in an Obama WH. Look at how hardball the Republicans have played, even after their debacle in the '06 elections. Does anyone have any proof whatsoever that they will change their ways on 1/20/2009, even if Obama wins a landslide victory over McCain? I wouldn't bet my lunch money on that, let alone my hopes and dreams for the country I love dearly.

The only scenario in which I see real, progressive movement on major issues is a Dem in the WH coupled with enough Dems in the House and the Senate to shut out the obstructionists. Last time I looked, I think it was virtually impossible for the Dems to get a reliable 60 votes in the Senate post 2008, which means we could be in for filibusters or "compromises" as far as the eye can see.

I don't want just movement for the sake of movement, I want movement in the direction this country needs.

Just to be clear: If Obama is the nominee, I will vote for him if I have to crawl to my polling place with two broken legs, simply because I think he would be vastly better than McCain. But it increasingly feels like it would be a case of holding my nose with one hand while I pull the lever with the other.

I can't vote for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by BigB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:23:41 PM EST

Lou, I can't get myself to vote for Obama. Nor will I vote for McCain. I will either write-in Hillary or simply stay home.

[ Parent ]

Don't be a 2000 Nadarite (none / 0) (#49)
by pluege on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:35:41 PM EST

This is the Nadarite position. It is completely unrealistic and NOT how the US political system works, nor is it intended to work. The US political system is binary - only two parties. A binary system could never be more than a least worst choice for most of the voters. If you are American, this is what you have - nothing else.

Anything, ANYTHING that helps put a republican in the White House is a complete disaster and pretty much buries for good any opportunity to undo the immense damage of the bush/cheney years. It is absolutely true that Obama is NOT the best candidate to begin recovery from the bush years (neither is Clinton). But not voting for the Democratic candidate, whomever that is, IS a vote for the republican and all the disaster that entails.

[ Parent ]

It is not a Naderite position (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by BigB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:44:42 PM EST

The Naderite position is that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. I don't agree with that. There is a lot of difference between Hillary and the Republicans. With this vague theory of unity Obama is espousing, I don't see how he distinguishes himself from the Republicans.

Also, I don't think he is qualified to be president. I cannot vote for an unqualified candidate just because he is a Democrat. That would be putting the party above the country.

[ Parent ]

: we don't have to look far to see what (5.00 / 1) (#74)
by thereyougo on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:52:56 PM EST

a neophyte (GWB) has done to the country. Its the elephant in the room that shouldn't escape the electorate's collective vision.

[ Parent ]
: Do you really think... (none / 0) (#131)
by Avedon on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:20:17 PM EST

...that McCain is qualified?
The Republican nominee and the Republican nominee are the only choices we will have - anything else is fog.
I may not be sure that Obama is a good idea for the presidency, but I know that McCain is definitely not. That's all I need to know to vote for the Democrat, whoever it is.

[ Parent ]
: Naderite Position as Delusional Purity Vote (none / 0) (#135)
by pluege on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:46:46 PM EST

No, the Naderite position is one that ignores the realities of US politics, and rationalizes that there is something to be gained by protest votes or voter abstinence. george bush is what we got for the 2000 Naderite protest vote - it wasn't worth it.
Doing anything other than voting for the actual democratic candidate in November will do nothing except help the republican win. And if that happens because of "protest" votes or non-participation, then 2008 non-dem voters are going to have at least as much destruction on their hands as the 2000 Nader voters do.

[ Parent ]

Some would argue (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:49:22 PM EST

that the "binary system" is a bad idea (I would, for instance). The binary system ensures that a politician can abandon their base because the base has nowhere to go.

And the binary system was not the founding fathers' intention.

We NEED third parties.

[ Parent ]

Third party (none / 0) (#75)
by BigB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:54:08 PM EST

If Hillary doesn't get the nomination, maybe that is where we have to go.

[ Parent ]

: Listen (none / 0) (#101)
by Kathy on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:18:15 PM EST

If Obama changes the democratic party so much that it is unrecognizable, then I can understand why some folks would not want to vote democrat.
I mean--what makes us democrats? The fact that we are not republicans; our positions on Choice and taxes and social services. If Obama brings in so many disparate groups, from republicans to-who knows?-the Nation of Islam-then what, exactly, will the democratic party stand for? "Change"?
Too much change for me.

[ Parent ]

the worst of all worlds (none / 0) (#102)
by Tano on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:19:44 PM EST

Viable third parties will almost guarantee that the winner of elections will NOT have a mandate from a majority of the people. Building polticial coalitions, building governing majorities is a prime function of the political process. Its almost like a tournament system - with the general election as a competition between the final two. Third parties leave this process unfinished. There are no coalitions that have earned the support of the majority.

Having viable third parties will be a disaster for the poltical process. It circumvents any need to work together, to make the necessary compromises that are a hallmark of people negotiating together to put forth a platform that they can agree on. You will end up with very weak presidents, and a very fractured political landscape that cannot even serve as an effective opposition to the weak president. Nothing good would come of it.

I often thought that if only Nader had run in the Democratic primary, that we would have had such a different poltical world today. Not only because Gore would probably be president, but because Nader, and Naderism, would have found fertile root within the Democratic party, and would have done a lot to reform the party. Nader was, in the end, an almost unimaginably foolish man - who set out to alienate and drive away from him and his ideas the very people he should have been targeting, the very people most receptive to his ideas. If Gore had somehow lost the election anyway, I suspect Ralph would have been in a very strong position to win the nomination himself in '04, and many of his good ideas would be part of the Democratic agenda.

[ Parent ]

Yep, that's how we got Margaret Thatcher. (none / 0) (#132)
by Avedon on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:22:23 PM EST

60% of the electorate voted against Thatcher, but they were divided into two different parties, and so Thatcher kept getting re-elected.

You really think the US needs that?

[ Parent ]

Changing the System is NOT in the Cards (none / 0) (#137)
by pluege on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:53:59 PM EST

I agree that binary has many drawbacks, but the US can not, and will not change to something else without completely re-organizing the government. Its not in the cards - there is NO transition plan.

What lefties need to do is work within the Democratic party to affect change. But note that if the Democratic party drifts leftward, the rightards calling themselves Democrats will drop out to be republicans or independents.

[ Parent ]

Yep, exactly (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:05:17 PM EST

Voting for folks no matter what crap they pull -- just because they're "the Democrat" -- is a way to ensure they'll continue to ignore the ideas that bring people to the Democratic party in the first place.

Some short-term loss is good for long-term strength.

[ Parent ]

: Tempted (5.00 / 2) (#82)
by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:20:03 PM EST

at times I get tempted, thinking, ok, to all those young women who say:" I am a feminist but..." I want to say, here, go see how easy it is to get those rights back.

[ Parent ]
: For women (5.00 / 2) (