home

Obama's New Politics Doesn't Encompass New Policies

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:36:17 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Washington Post analyzes Barack Obama's campaign from an issues standpoint and finds he breaks little new ground.

When Obama changed his mind and decided to run for president after only two years in the Senate, however, he effectively dismissed the importance of policy proposals, declaring in one speech in early 2007, "We've had plenty of plans, Democrats," and in another: "Every four years, somebody trots out a white paper, they post it on the Web." He cast his "new kind of politics" in terms of his ability to transcend divisions and his unique biography and offered few differences on issues from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and the other Democratic presidential candidates.

His "new politics" mostly refers to tone and leadership style. I found this statement by a campaign aide quite telling:

Obama aides, however, say their approach will work because most voters are looking not for a new vision for expanding health care but rather for a reformed political system such as the one Obama calls for, one that would solve problems rather than resort to bickering.

I think a new vision for expanding health care is exactly what Democrats are looking for.

< Arrest Warrant Issued for Rezko Over Casino Gambling Debts | More On Puerto Rico >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama's New Politics Doesn't Encompass New Policies | 204 comments (204 topical)
    The more talk of Change the less things will (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by mogal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:47:17 PM EST
    CHANGE.  

    As always (none / 0) (#143)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:17:43 PM EST
    Change can mean most anything.  Reagan talked about change as did Bush II.

    As usual no examination of the content of change and in Obama's case it's all vapor.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Oh Jeralyn... (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:47:32 PM EST
    why don't you stop trashing Obama and focus on the issues!!!

    Oh wait... ;-)

    Very nicely done. Those who see no difference between Obama and Clinton on the issues should look a little deeper.

    I did exactly that (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by dotcommodity on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:06:08 PM EST
    I compared their climate policies after Obama pooh poohed Clintons healthcare policy. I got nervous after that. Indeed he does not care.

    Despite the rhetoric there is no indication that that he would be as progressive as Clinton on climate/energy policy, and might even veto Democratic policy if its not feeble enough.

    There is a pattern in his endorsers of feebleness in energy policy votes.


    [ Parent ]

    OH MY GAWD (5.00 / 10) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:47:56 PM EST
    Now they find out?  How long have we been talking about this?  This is so disgusting.  

    I thought so too! (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by felizarte on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:52:59 PM EST
    Now they're "analyzing!"  Is this the segue to their going back to Maverick McCain?  seems the majority of the MSM have decided that Hillary is dead and buried and now they are proceeding to McCain v. Obama.  Apparently they never heard the story of Lazarus.

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by rnibs on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:49:43 PM EST
    I can never understand why people say their policies are practically the same.  His health care plan is anything but universal.  And he talks about retirement security, not social security, because he wants to partially privatize it.  

    I think any decent Dem should be re-educating the masses as to what social security actually is rather than trying to destroy one of the most successful social programs ever.

    [ Parent ]

    That whole (none / 0) (#149)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:22:50 PM EST
    bring the Republicans to the table schtick should have made everyone vomit from the start.

    I've always felt that candidates actually do mean what they say and in Obama's case it was clear from the start, he's no progressive.

    Fear number one is that a Democratic President would trash Social Security.  It's enough to make your skin crawl.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by rnibs on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:27:17 PM EST
    A Dem president supporting partial privatization for Soc Sec would be very bad in my opinion.  Let a Repub do that.  Then the Dem congress will fight it tooth and nail, but if Obama puts it out there, it just might happen.

    This is why people are equating HRC to FDR.  She sees that people need help and wants to give them help, not take it away.  Old people who worked hard all their lives don't need to be eating dog food during their retirement.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (none / 0) (#205)
    by denise on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:42:40 PM EST
    the article states that Obama has proposed a universal health care plan - a bald-faced lie.

    [ Parent ]
    You are correct....lazy journalists should be (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:56:44 PM EST
    ashamed; once great journalists like Carl Bernstein should be ashamed, the obama aides and obama's followers should be ashamed....there is nothing new about obama.  For over a year, I have been saying obama is nothing more than business as usual.  Judging by many of his followers, he better get a new mantra and quick.  If it wasn't so sad, this would be laughable.

    [ Parent ]
    They are in the tank for McCain. (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:00:38 PM EST
    It's all bought and paid for.

    They're only starting to criticize Obama because they think he will be the nominee.

    It's going to be a very, VERY long summer.

    [ Parent ]

    Not for Hillary supporters..hehehe (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:13:42 PM EST
    We can watch Mr. "I am the nominee" get taken down by the MSM while the SDs look at Hillary for rescue from the morass that Obama will be by August. I just love it, love it, love it!! Imagine the huge debt the Dems will owe Hillary for bailing them out of the mess Obama's candidacy will be by the convention. I am grinning ear to ear just thinking about it. This is what I love about politics, it's never static, always flowing from one current to the other. I think the currents will converge for Hillary at the convention.

    [ Parent ]
    This Is SOP For The Media (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:17:13 PM EST
    Pick one Dem candidate as the candidate of media choice.  Do negative coverage or ignore other candidates. Positive coverage of the selected candidate, ignore or underplay all negatives until selected as the nominee. After selection, start vetting Dem candidate bringing up all ignored issues and revisit previously known issues. Tell the audience that these issues are suddenly something of great concern. Republican candidate now becomes the media choice.  

    [ Parent ]
    Happens every time (5.00 / 5) (#115)
    by standingup on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:44:06 PM EST
    "Insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting different results" truly applies to half of the Democratic party this year.  How many elections will they have to lose before they figure out the press should be called on their biased reporting in every instance instead of accepting it when you are delusional enough to think it is working to your advantage.  The end results will always be the same.  

    [ Parent ]
    Seems Like The Dems Are Averse To Learning (none / 0) (#146)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:20:31 PM EST
    from experience. The patterns and the trends are the same each election cycle yet they always believe that somehow this time it will be different. The Republicans clearly signal how they plan to go after Democratic nominees for president and the Dems (establishment and supporters) keep saying "That will never work." Except it does.

    Media bias should be challenged each and every time but it aint't gonna happen.  

    [ Parent ]

    What standingup says (none / 0) (#154)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:30:35 PM EST
    the press should be called on their biased reporting in every instance instead of accepting it when you are delusional enough to think it is working to your advantage

    is the story of what ails the Democratic party.

    Now the party is on the verge of nominating a candidate who is the very personification of that attitude. I guess that's one way I could identify Obama as a Democrat. There certainly isn't any other way.

    [ Parent ]

    There have been raging battles on th enet over (none / 0) (#32)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:09:11 PM EST
    UHC.  But hey the journo's only needed to use the The Google.

    [ Parent ]
    So now we know why we don't (5.00 / 9) (#4)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:49:48 PM EST
    hear about his policies. He doesn't have any. As for his "leadership" qualities, well, let's just say I haven't seen him lead, only follow!!

    a Reformed Political System (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:13:37 PM EST
    OK, so for all we do know about this man, doesn't that idea strike a bit of a chord of anxiety?

    The last time Rev Wright was allowed to speak publicly, he chanted, "a change it is a comin', a change it is a comin'"

    [ Parent ]

    Smoke And Mirrors Just Like The Last 8 Yrs. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:21:51 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    No policies, no leadership - maybe it's good! (none / 0) (#209)
    by songster on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:14:37 PM EST
    I've been trying to either convince myself that I should vote for Obama, or believe that there could be a good side if he's elected, and zfran's comment turned on a light bulb:

    This whole thing is a plot by Dean, Pelosi, and Reid to restore the constitutional balance.  Obama will be the puppet of a Democratic Congress.

    Go Obama!


    [ Parent ]

    And by the way... (5.00 / 16) (#5)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:52:00 PM EST
    this type of statement is EXACTLY why I find Obama supremely unconvincing and unqualified.

    Obama aides, however, say their approach will work because most voters are looking not for a new vision for expanding health care but rather for a reformed political system such as the one Obama calls for, one that would solve problems rather than resort to bickering.

    The only, ONLY people who think that way are the Beltway media like David "Pearl Clutcher" Broder. No one who actually needs healthcare is sitting around, hacking up a lung in an emergency room, thinking, "Golly gee! I sure hope Obama can stop the partisan bickering in Washington!"

    No, that person is thinking, "Why the h**l can't I afford my doctor bills?" In other words, that person wants to EXPAND HEALTH CARE.

    Unbelievable.

    ..and as "he" raises his arms about (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:57:07 PM EST
    all that follow him, you are healed!!!

    [ Parent ]
    Poor schools? HEALED ! (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by dotcommodity on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:14:01 PM EST
    "... cited education as one area in which Obama offers ideas that are not traditionally Democratic(!), arguing that the problem is not

    all about schools or funding( !!!),

    but about parents who let their children watch too much television."

    da dah!

    So it was all your fault...who knew?

    [ Parent ]

    I Would Definitely Vote For Someone Who Would (5.00 / 13) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:01:45 PM EST
    expand health care and not vote for someone who would stop the partisan bickering in D.C. The only way anyone is going to stop the partisan bickering is if they cave in to the Republicans without a fight. Since Obama during the primary has been more in agreement with Republican positions on SS, health care, Reagan foreign policy and Republican government regulation, abstinence only sex education, than he has my standard Democratic values on these subjects, my voting for him is currently in doubt.

    [ Parent ]
    We could stop bickering right now (5.00 / 7) (#43)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:13:15 PM EST
    Of course, it requires the Dems to give in once again. The only reason there is bickering is because there is opposition. There would be no bickering if the GOP would give in once in a while too, but they hold fast and the Dems get blamed.

    BTW, after 8 years of bohica, I don't want to just give in for the sake of eliminating bickering.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama has shown such skill in that area, too (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:45:13 PM EST
    He'll just go to congress, scratch his cheek, brush off his shoulders, scrape his shoes, call them racists, tip his head back so he can look down his nose at them, and tell them all he's being respectful.


    [ Parent ]
    This is the problem. Obama is on every (5.00 / 9) (#47)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:14:29 PM EST
    side of every issue. Even by voting present, he's on both sides. You either stand for something, or you don't.

    [ Parent ]
    Let them eat process! (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by davnee on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:10:26 PM EST
    That's the Obama message in a nutshell.  But no, working class people are too stupid to figure that out, so they must not be voting for him because they are racists.  Yep, that's the explanation.  /snark

    [ Parent ]
    What kind of a system does that? (5.00 / 6) (#55)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:17:11 PM EST
    The two party system, the democracy, requires negotiations and debates to make sure all people are considered. Compromise is often the solution.

    I don't want a new system that is being campaigned for by someone who refuses to tell us what that new system is.

    [ Parent ]

    Compromise is seldom (none / 0) (#159)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:39:11 PM EST
    the solution.  There is no way to compromise Social Security as an example.

    After FDR's first 100 days the gains made were the result of bloody battles.

    Erecting a center consensus around the New Deal was what moderated the Republican Party for a generation.

    [ Parent ]

    Wow... a politician says he will get things done (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by dianem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:03:54 PM EST
    How novel. So... why isn't Obama running on his record of getting things done? That would be logical, wouldn't it, if he actually had such a record.

    [ Parent ]
    One of the Obamaphiles (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by denise on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:46:59 PM EST
    told me that Obama's not going to make the changes, WE'RE going to make the changes.

    I said, so we're going to have 200 million people on a conference line writing health care law?

    He said, No, we're going to start exercising and not being obese.

    I said, No thanks, I think I'd like a REAL president, please.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm sorry but (5.00 / 11) (#6)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:52:58 PM EST
    reformed political system such as the one Obama calls for, one that would solve problems rather than resort to bickering.

    I have always found this message to be funny.  Imagine they are all getting along because no one is working on any legislation.  Reminds me of team building exercises we were forced to have at work.  BBQ anyone?  We will send them all home with a book of affirmations and they will have to take turns reading one at all of their meetings.
    Do you think they will partner up, one will put on a blind fold, and the other has to give instructions on how to move around (with the hope of finding the bathroom)?

    Oh yeah, those days went over well....

    ever been to a corporate team building event? (5.00 / 8) (#37)
    by Robert Oak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:10:19 PM EST
    Where one is supposed to do trust exercises and discuss their issues mandatory?

    Meanwhile the corporate hacks are busy thrashing their workforce and firing people right and left?

    That's what is reminds me of, all words and no behavior, as if that is going to change anything.

    To me all that has happened is Karl Rove was dethroned as king of the media manipulators by David Axelrod.  Yeah, rah, a new public relations media specialist takes the helm.  I'm so excited by that.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama bears a striking resemblance to (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:48:42 PM EST
    all the incompetent consultants I've ever had to endure through those events.

    They use the confrontational threat method, coupled with how he makes me feel is so much more important than how I do my job.

    Very much like Obama's change plan.


    [ Parent ]

    Brilliant, I think you've hit on something (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by denise on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:02:05 PM EST
    Maybe the Obama-worshipers are those who, 1) haven't yet had to undergo corporate team building, or 2) still believe in corporate team building even though they've sat through the same crap 20 times and should know better by know.

    Maybe they're the people who put up those motivational posters in the workplace. "The achievement of your goal is assured the moment you commit yourself"! "Winners don't wait for chances, they take them"!

    Whenever I was working late, if no one was around I would throw one out.

    [ Parent ]

    Kinda funny (5.00 / 11) (#8)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:53:10 PM EST
    If you question the lack of substance, though, they always tell you to go look at the white papers posted on his website!

    Web site, indeed... (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by ParkSlopeVoter on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:25:40 PM EST
    I'm glad I'm not the only one to notice this.

    -MS

    [ Parent ]

    Or (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:41:34 PM EST
    to read his book.

    I've had that one tossed at me.

    [ Parent ]

    Read His Books (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:21:39 PM EST
    Have to admit that one really ticked me off. We have candidates INTERVIEWING for the highest office in the land and we the EMPLOYERS should go out and buy a book to find out why we should EMPLOY a person.

    To me this whole deal about presidential candidates writing books is a scam no matter who is doing it. If candidates or their supporters convince people that they have to buy the candidate's book(s) in order to determine who to vote for it makes any candidate, even losing ones, wealthy. As far as I'm concerned, it is the candidate's responsibility to prove me, the voter, with information free of charge on why he/she deserves my vote.

    My stand on this is not candidate related and goes for any and all candidates. The only difference is that no Hillary supporter told me to read her book.

     

    [ Parent ]

    The books do reveal (none / 0) (#208)
    by denise on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:07:22 PM EST
    just how long ago he started running for president, though. To the exclusion of almost anything else.

    True, presidential candidates are all megalomaniacs, but some are worse than others - like the ones who think they don't have do actually do anything, except for allowing us to bask in their specialness.

    [ Parent ]

    I would like a new vision for health care (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by Panhandle on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:53:40 PM EST
    Instead all we've been offered is health insurance. It's my biggest problem with all the Dems. Health INSURANCE is not Health CARE. As soon as our politicians figure that out, then maybe we can actually get to addressing the problem.

    reformed political system? (5.00 / 10) (#10)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:55:20 PM EST
    What does this mean? I haven't heard of any proposals for "reforming" our political system from Obama. Has he proposed changing the structure of the  House or Senate? Has he proposed eliminating parts of the executive branch? Has he proposed any new government oversight mechanisms?

    Saying, 'I will charm the republicans', isn't a reform.

    McCain proposed Question Time the other day (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by davnee on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:15:52 PM EST
    He also eschews earmarks and has promised to crack down on them as president.  Oh and he has walked the walk numerous times on bipartisan legislation, including tough stuff like electoral reform and averting the nuclear option in the Senate.

    Transparency/accountability in government.  Check.
    Reduction of pork.  Check.
    Bipartisan cooperation.  Check.

    If political reform is my most important issue why wouldn't I vote for McCain?

    [ Parent ]

    Question Time would be cool. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:18:02 PM EST
    But only if they get to boo and hiss as well.

    [ Parent ]
    Also (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:33:46 PM EST
    He said he'd get rid of signing statements.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks . I missed that one. (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by davnee on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:38:47 PM EST
    Bringing separation of powers into better balance.  Check.

    [ Parent ]
    You're welcome (none / 0) (#138)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:09:41 PM EST
    You got me curious, so I went to John McCain's website.  I found this part of his plan that seemed interesting.  I had never heard of anything like this (which doesn't mean someone else hasn't proposed it).

    While most of his proposals are the typical conservative stuff, he does talk about a couple of interesting things like this (and a climate policy,which surprised me, coming from a Republican).

    "John McCain Will Reform The UI System So That A Portion Of Each Worker's Unemployment Insurance Tax Is Deposited Into A Lost Earnings Buffer Account (LEB).If an individual becomes unemployed, the LEB may be used to cover needed expenses, with a backstop of traditional UI if the account is exhausted before 26 weeks. Workers will have an incentive to preserve their LEB by getting back to work quickly, and may be eligible for a re-employment bonus if they get a new job quickly. The LEB will be portable, and upon retirement, the property of the worker.

    [ Parent ]

    As did (none / 0) (#163)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:49:08 PM EST
    every other Democratic candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:29:16 PM EST
    Saying, 'I will charm the republicans', isn't a reform.

    It is, however, the opposite of Bush, who said he had to charm the democrats.

    No wonder he is so often compared to GWB.


    [ Parent ]

    What he means... (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by kimsaw on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:05:47 PM EST
    is a convoluted message of bipartisanship, not based on policy strictly based on...? Well that is a real good question. Where does Obama compromise and where does he stand his ground?  What proof is there he is willing to stand up on abortion rights, public education, the war, nothing in his actions says this man won't waffle. NARAL's endorsement means about as much as John Kerry's or John Edwards. It lends nothing to Obama's credibility.  How many times does a man sit in a pew and vote present before the MSM actually do their job?

    Again the question, is he a democrat or isn't he, comes to mind. He may even want to have a independent or a republican for a VP. Talk about pandering. Agreeing to disagree is one thing, finding a compromise is admirable but selling out for political security is entirely another. 20 years in Trinity Church cements the deal. How does a man of unity sit in a divisive church for 20 years and then claim ignorance of its theology? How does that represent his ability to govern? It only signifies that Obama's political gain outweighs the need to do the right thing at any given time.  

    Does Obama believe in universal health care? He doesn't propose a system that insures all. You can join in if you want, you don't have to if you don't want to. That's a bipartisan stand that solves nothing and maintains the status quo.  His plan keeps everyone happy and the uninsured are still a burden on every other taxpayer. Does car insurance work that way? In my state I can't opt out I've got to have it. Are you happy, yet? I'm not.

    Obama's political reform and leadership is just a smoke screen. It's propaganda of the worst sort, because it offers up theatrics, not substance.

    What "change" has he brought?
     He opposed the war but what did he do to change its course while in the Senate?
     Did  he influenced his church and change the hate?
     Did he care about the Rezko slums and change the lives of its tenants?

    Obama's claims of political reform are quite like his tales of Selma and Auschwitz they don't add up.


    [ Parent ]

    Ok (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:56:07 PM EST
    He has not dissented from party orthodoxy in the way Bill Clinton did on the way to the presidency in 1992

    So he has been pretty much a standard Democrat.  This is now a flaw?  

    Perhaps he should run to the Right ala Bill Clinton?  

    All Democrats want to change health care.  The degree change may be argue but the desire is certainly there.  

    Hillary and Obama both adhere to Democratic orthodoxy on virtually all issues.  

    Hm (5.00 / 13) (#18)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:01:17 PM EST
    Do you perceive any cognitive dissonance between what you just wrote and the "change" message?

    [ Parent ]
    No contradiction. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by mattt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:11:36 PM EST
    Obama has always proposed a change in political tactics, leading to more effective and progressive governance - not a radical change in the Dem platform.

    [ Parent ]
    And (5.00 / 8) (#58)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:18:06 PM EST
    how would you describe that change he proposes?

    This much I know, when he was in Ohio and Pennsylvania railing about how the Clinton Administration was the reason all those manufacturing jobs got lost, he sure didn't sound like a guy who wasn't proposing any kind of change in the Democratic platform!

    [ Parent ]

    He's like (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:37:42 PM EST
    a motivational speaker. Motivational speakers propose this stuff all the time. It's about getting others motivated but when you don't have any goals then it just becomes motivation as a goal in itself. It's like change for the sake of change and nothing else.

    [ Parent ]
    How do they do they describe that change? (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by Robot Porter on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:44:45 PM EST
    Borrowing slightly from the catechism:

    Q. Can we understand the change Obama proposes?

    A. No, because it is a mystery.

    Q. What is a mystery?

    A. A mystery is a truth which we cannot understand.

    [ Parent ]

    For starters, (none / 0) (#131)
    by mattt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:03:50 PM EST
    his candidacy changes the electoral map.  By putting states like CO, IA, NM into play (and I think he carries them in November) he chips away at the "Coastal liberal elite" meme that the GOP has exploited to make progressism seem like a foreign concept to much of the country.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry, but (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by rnibs on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:38:47 PM EST
    i wouldn't count on Iowa being in his column.

    [ Parent ]
    Currently (none / 0) (#164)
    by mattt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:55:10 PM EST
    up by 6 over McCain in RCP average; 9 in the latest from Survey USA.  Also up 6 in CO.  Closing fast in MO.

    Meanwhile in traditional battleground states, he's now leading McCain in PA and OH.

    [ Parent ]

    There you go (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:10:30 PM EST
    the glory of Colorado's 9 electoral votes in exchange for Florida's 27, Ohio's 20, Michigan's 17, Pennsylvania's 21, possibly Massachusetts' 12 and/or New Jersey's 15.

    Obama either can't win or is a risk in all of those states.

    By the way Hillary is well ahead of McCain in NM as well so how in hell does that make Obama a map changer.  Hillary can also carry W VA and possibly KY. Obama hasn't a prayer in either.

    If there's any map expander it's Hillary Clinton. Why do you think she keeps winning while the press continues to trash her?

    Face it, your candidate is a HUGE risk.  If McCain goes moderate after the GOP convention and the press and GOP unload on Obama, he's probably toast.

    Inasmuch as coastal elitism is concerned Obama is the very symbol of that elitism. Or maybe you've forgotten how he trashed working people and didn't have a clue about how to rectify the situation.  

    [ Parent ]

    Check your polls. (none / 0) (#182)
    by mattt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:41:52 PM EST
    Obama leads McCain in PA, OH.  In Michigan he trails by the same amount as Clinton (within margin of error; I expect either would carry the state vs. McCain).  He leads McCain in NJ by double the margin that Clinton does.

    MA and NJ are not in play for McCain any more than KY and WV are for Clinton.  KY/WV voters preferred Hillary to Barack, but preferring her to McCain is a different story.

    Obama beats McCain in WI while Clinton loses.
    He leads McCain in MN by double Clinton's margin.
    He's in a virtual tie with McCain in VA where Clinton loses by 10.

    Sure, his candidacy is a risk.  Clinton's would be too.  For all the complaints about sexism and media bias vs Hillary in the primary....do you think it'd get any easier for her vs. St. John McCain?

    [ Parent ]

    Flatly not true (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Eleanor A on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:59:45 PM EST
    Even a cursory glace at RCP.com gives up the lie.

    In Ohio, out of three polls taken in recent weeks (SUSA, Quinnipiac, Rasmussen) ONE of them has Obama in the lead (SUSA).  The other two both show McCain leading, while Hillary is up between 7 and 11 points in the same polls taken over the same periods.

    In PA, yeah, Obama's up - half as much as Clinton (again, same polls taken over same time period.  Obama up an average of 6, which sounds good, until you consider that Clinton's up 12.)

    So.  That leaves you with Iowa and Colorado.  Since CO has gone Dem once in the last 50 years (1992, not 1996), I'd say you face a steep battle.

    Also, what happened to Obama supporters championing both Georgia and Virginia?  Obama's down in both states.  In Virginia only by a couple points, but in Georgia he's down by nearly 14 points.

    There's simply no way for him to make up for the loss of Florida and Michigan without picking up Missouri, plus Colorado and a handful of others.  Try it yourself at 270towin.com.

    (Oh, and right now McCain up 3 vs. Obama in Missouri, while Clinton's up 2.  Apparently she's closed 7 points on McCain in two months, according to Rasmussen.)

    [ Parent ]

    links please (none / 0) (#186)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:45:12 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Sure (none / 0) (#190)
    by mattt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:57:03 PM EST
    [Tried to embed link but can't get it to work....go to realclearpolitics.com, click "Polls" at the top then look to "Battleground Polls" on the left.]

    [ Parent ]
    Don't you think its rather telling (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by tree on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:13:32 PM EST
    that when you were asked what is the change in the political process that affects how things get done in Washington that Obama will bring to the Presidency, that all you could come up with off the top of your head is that he might be able to win in IA? That's the change you are looking for? That's your reason for voting for him?

     If that's it, then why don't we just nominate McCain as a Democrat? We can then guaranty that the Democratic candidate will win in a landslide( as will the Republican nominee as well). And we can all feel good about finally winning IA. Jeesh.

    [ Parent ]

    McCain will squish that Western hope. (none / 0) (#184)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:44:15 PM EST
    It's unlike any map that has ever delivere a dem Presidency.

    [ Parent ]
    And those tactics appear (none / 0) (#165)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:56:24 PM EST
    to be compromising with Republicans.  Not acceptable.

    [ Parent ]
    Nope (2.33 / 3) (#35)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:09:56 PM EST
    Because change is a vague term that means different things for different people.  IMO, the biggest thing that Obama is saying he is going to change is that we will no longer have one of the worst President of the past 100 years in office.

    And regardless it is nothing more than a campaign slogan.  

    It sucks for Hillary that her campaign didn't realize that the American people are ready to get rid of a wildly unpopular President who has been in office for 8 excruciating years.  But that isn't Obama's fault.


    [ Parent ]

    What? (5.00 / 14) (#52)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:16:30 PM EST
    You think Hillary didn't realize that the American people are ready to move on from Bush?  I realize you're trying to be all witty and get your digs in, but that is one of the most incoherent things I have read all day.  What are you arguing, that when Hillary repeated every 5 minutes how wonderful it will be to move on from Bush's failed policies, she was actually running for Bush's third term?

    Your frank acknowledgment that change is nothing more than a vague campaign slogan, and that Obama really offers nothing aside from standard Dem orthodoxy on a substantive level, is really quite a bit more honesty than I expected.  Tell me, if "change" doesn't refer to anything substantive in Obama's policies, what does it mean to you?  Why do you consider it so important to elect this man in preference to the alternatives, if he's just another orthodox Democrat?

    [ Parent ]

    I have been (2.33 / 3) (#66)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:24:55 PM EST
    very clear about my support for Obama from the get go.

    I believe that the "change" he will bring in will be an ability to push through Democratic legislation despite the the cries from the opposition.  I believe that he will be our Ronald Reagan.

    I'm arguing that early on Hillary didn't understand why the change slogans were getting so much traction.  

    It was one of many mistakes her campaign made.  

    [ Parent ]

    Stop that. Ronald Reagan was a fierce partisan. (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:28:32 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Of course he was (none / 0) (#86)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:31:25 PM EST
    but he was also able to get a Democratic controlled Congress to pass all sorts of noxious stuff.

    He used his charm and charisma to get the voters behind him.  He made some allies on the Dem side and pushed through legislation because the American people supported it.

    His policies sucked but he was extremely effective.

    [ Parent ]

    You have no idea what you (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:34:33 PM EST
    are talking about.

    [ Parent ]
    Then why hasn't Obama (none / 0) (#155)
    by Evie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:31:57 PM EST
    used his charm and charisma to get a Democratic controlled Congress to pass all sorts of good stuff?

    According to factcheck.org, as of 4/1/08, he's passed only two of his own bills into law.

    [ Parent ]

    Stop that. Ronald Reagan was a fierce partisan. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:28:32 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:35:54 PM EST
    fundamentally don't understand history with your statement. Reagan ran an issues based movement not a movement about Reagan the man. Obama is quite the opposite. Besides, Obama will not have a landslide victory in the unlikely event he wins the election. If he naively thinks that the GOP is going to automatically go along with him on any issue then if he makes it into the white house, he'll be finished in six months. This is one of his most clueless ideas. He's so in love with himself that he thinks that everyone else loves him that much. It's the same bubble syndrome that killed W.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah he ran on an issue alright (none / 0) (#147)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:21:32 PM EST
    He ran on the "I'm not Jimmy Carter and he created all of your problems" issue.

    Or maybe you were referring to his issues based 1984 campaign

    Reagan was the master of the political sucker punch.  

    Why is it so hard for you guys to consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, Obama is a pretty good politician who knows how to win?

    [ Parent ]

    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:00:13 PM EST
    Reagan ran on issues like missle defense and tax cuts. He also ran against Carter. But you are mistaken that it was only running against Carter.

    Obama has never had a tough general election campaign. So far he has done very poorly against McCain. Even the GOP is laughing about how fast he caves when they punch at him.

    [ Parent ]

    LOL (none / 0) (#171)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:09:58 PM EST
    He has run a poor campaign against McCain?  You do realize that he is still running against Hillary, right?

    No one voted for Reagan because of missile defense.  And SDI was an idea more than an issue.

    [ Parent ]

    Feh (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:11:41 PM EST
    don't blame Hillary for his mistakes. He has gone toe to toe with McCain and lost every time so far. The "I'm so disappointed" whine really doesn't play that well with voters.

    [ Parent ]
    Whatever you say (none / 0) (#176)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:18:48 PM EST
    You come up with a new reason why Obama lose every day.  Clearly you don't like his chances.  

    FTR, I wasn't blaming Hillary.  I was stating a rather obvious fact.  

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:29:12 PM EST
    his chances aren't too good according to the polls. He has another pastor disaster on the horizon and I'm sure the GOP will have more and more to come. Basically, I see it as a rerun of 2004 with less EV's for Obama. Obama won't have a united Dem party behind him like Kerry did and is doing worse with independents. Add two and two together and you can see the writing on the wall.

    It's better to be a realist and face the truth than pretend things are what they are not. I did that in 2004 and the let down is way worse than facing the truth from the beginning.

    [ Parent ]

    Well we shall see (none / 0) (#187)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:45:49 PM EST
    I see a completely different political climate today than 2004 so to each their own.

    I assume you are talking about the white priest talking silly stuff?  That won't even be a minor story.  It has no juice in comparison to Wright and most people will simply not have the interest to follow it.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:55:16 PM EST
    I heard Wright was nothing too but it tanked his numbers. What is wrong with Obama's judgement that he makes such poor choices? The problem is that these tell us who Obama is and what his ideology is. He's defined by these things since he failed to define himself.

    [ Parent ]
    No they don't (none / 0) (#195)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:20:48 PM EST
    They don't tell you any of that.  You choose to make inferences based on them.  

    Guilt by association is a tried and true smear tactic.  But it is still just a smear tactic.

    [ Parent ]

    When (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:33:25 PM EST
    someone goes to a racist church for 20 years by their own choice it should tell you something. It was a conscious choice made by Obama to adhere to that radical ideology. He voluntarily put those radical pastors on his campaign. Exit polls showed that lots of voters thought that he shared that ideology and why wouldn't they? After all, there's lots of other churches to choose from right?

    [ Parent ]
    No he did not (none / 0) (#211)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:58:12 PM EST
    put those radical pastors on his campaign.

    People that are upset about the evil horrible pastors are simply looking for a reason to not like Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:44:21 PM EST
    has absolutely no record of achievement anywhere except for getting some suckers to vote for him during this campaign.

    He's never done anything to warrant his election to the US Senate let alone the Presidency.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:39:38 PM EST
    He's havig a prblem getting a plurality but after elected he's going to magically get more traction?

    [ Parent ]
    Please (5.00 / 5) (#108)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:39:44 PM EST
    It was Obama that was getting traction.  "Change" is just a buzzword.  Arguing that Hillary failed to understand that "this is a change election" is just vapid.  Obama got away with arguing that Bill Clinton's policies were part of the problem just like George Bush's, and kudos to him for doing so, but don't try to tell me that it's Hillary's fault for not understanding something.

    Here is the thing.  How can you possibly see Obama as our Reagan when he can't even muster the political courage to fight for something as minor and incremental as mandates for health insurance?  A lot of progressive policies are going to sound politically unpopular unless we find the right way to sell them.  Where is the evidence of Obama ever selling the public on something politically unpopular?  Instead he goes around promising $1000 tax cuts.

    [ Parent ]

    Here is reality (none / 0) (#142)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:16:03 PM EST
    Hillary was supposed to win.  She was way ahead.  How did she wind up where she is now?  Steve, you seem smart enough to know that simply blaming the media is the excuse of losers and almost always wrong.  

    I find it amazing that you guys aren't even willing to criticize her campaign.  

    Perhaps Obama isn't fighting for mandates on health insurance because he doesn't believe in them?  I sure don't.  I see no reason to believe that they will meaningfully change the price of health but they will create a bunch more regulatory agencies and bureaucratic morass.  At best they will slow down health cost inflation for a few years but I don't even believe that is likely.  

    [ Parent ]

    Relevant Reality (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by santarita on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:44:57 PM EST
    I am not a huge fan of either of the two remaining Democratic candidates but I prefer Hillary.  I've heard this criticism before about her losing a substantial lead.  I just don't see the relevance.  So Obama's advisors figured out how to game the nominating process.  And so Obama and his advisors know how to use the old politics of strong-arming superdelegates.  Why are these admirable?

    [ Parent ]
    Campaigning prowess (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by Evie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:47:03 PM EST
    is not the same thing as being a good President.

    So even if Obama has the bestest campaign in the whole wide world in the history of ever, that does not mean he would be the better President.

    But how good can he be when half of the Democratic party won't vote for him?

    [ Parent ]

    Uh (none / 0) (#151)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:25:08 PM EST
    Concluding that I am unable to criticize Hillary's campaign because I think it's stupid to say "Hillary didn't realize people wanted a change from Bush" is more than a bit silly.

    As for mandates, even Ezra Klein will tell you that they're necessary.  The most common refrain I hear from Obama supporters is "mandates are a political loser," which I think displays an amazing lack of political courage.  If you have a different position, that's fine, but I'd still like you to show me an example where Obama has successfully sold a previously unpopular idea to the public.

    [ Parent ]

    Missing the point entirely (none / 0) (#169)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:08:09 PM EST
    Of course Hillary knew that people were tired of Bush.  What she didn't realize was that the change theme would resonate BECAUSE people were tired of Bush.  Instead she tried to make her early campaign about how competent and great she was.  

    You are asking for a fairly unlikely example.  Senators don't really "sell" people on ideas, unpopular or popular.  Perhaps leaders of the Senate do to some extent.  But certainly not back bench junior Senators such as Obama or Hillary.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:27:47 PM EST
    You have a lot of faith that he will be able to do it.  Is that faith based on any evidence?

    [ Parent ]
    About the same faith (none / 0) (#183)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:43:00 PM EST
    that you have that Hillary will achieve what you think she will achieve.  

    Politicians and faith go hand in hand.  That is why we get so easily disillusioned by them when they fail to meet expectations.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (none / 0) (#202)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:58:52 PM EST
    If I was going around saying that Hillary would be our Reagan, you'd have a point, I guess.

    [ Parent ]
    Then if both (none / 0) (#188)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:49:04 PM EST
    you and Obama do not believe in UHC then leave the Democratic Party.  If you were ever were a Democrat.

    [ Parent ]
    Her campaign failure (none / 0) (#210)
    by denise on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:27:15 PM EST
    was not to recognize how easily caucuses could be hijacked by armies of well-prepared young people. Period.

    I very much regret that, but don't hold it against her. If we're going to judge the candidates qualifications for office based on how effective their campaign strategies are, then GWB in 2004 should have been the most qualified person in the history of the US. He pulled off a miracle.

    We've finally, for the first time, reached the point in this country where the majority wants universal health care, and nothing is more important in my opinion. It's going to be a very hard fight and the deck is still stacked against it, but it's finally within sight. And of the three major Democratic candidates we started with, we're choosing the one who's practically announced that he's tepid about it, who proposed a plan that can't work, and who did it, unfortunately, to pander to young people. The candidate who gave us Harry & Louise Redux. He makes me sick to my stomach. I don't think the man has an ounce of political courage. He hasn't shown me anything that he really cares about.

    [ Parent ]

    Pushing Through Democratic Legislation (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by santarita on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:39:48 PM EST
    The only chance of accomplishing this is if there is a veto-proof majority of Dems in the Senate and there is a strong majority in the House.  It will not be because he is bringing in "new politics".  If you have watched any Congressional hearings or floor debates since 2006, you would have seen how obstructionist the Republicans have been.  I don't see that mindset changing, in part because there are fundamental disagreements between Republicans and Democrats on major domestic issues.  

    [ Parent ]
    Right you are santarita (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:58:01 PM EST
    but don't expect Obama supporters to understand what you're talking about.

    To Obama supporters, he'll simply change everything by some magic that is a mystery known only to Obama.

    The Obama crowd doesn't understand that there are major, fundamental differences between the two parties, especially since the Reagan years.

    So now that Democrats are in a position to gain a significant upper hand, the Obama crowd is rushing into the breach to rescue the Republican Party.

    We are living in an era of madness.

    [ Parent ]

    I once had (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by standingup on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:19:02 PM EST
    some respect for you lost it with "the biggest thing that Obama is saying he is going to change is that we will no longer have one of the worst President of the past 100 years in office."    

    [ Parent ]
    Well ok (none / 0) (#70)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:26:35 PM EST
    Whatever you say.  

    You can continue to think that the reason the change message is resonating is because all of his supporters are dupes.  Doesn't bother me much.

    [ Parent ]

    No (none / 0) (#193)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:00:32 PM EST
    the change message is ONLY resonating with his dupes.

    [ Parent ]
    The change (none / 0) (#30)
    by Panhandle on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:08:07 PM EST
    Obama and Clinton both offer change. The change would actually be getting something done. If we keep the House majority and get a good enough Senate majority, I think any Dem Pres could accomplish some good things.

    [ Parent ]
    To accomplish (5.00 / 6) (