Obama: Hope for a Change
Seems like everyone has advice for the Obama campaign. Democrats grouse in the New York Times that he better start putting "meat on the bones" of his hope and change rhetoric. Paul Krugman sensibly calls for some passion on the economy. Even Mark Penn, fresh off his incandescent performance in Hillary Clinton's run, agrees, sort of.
With Democrats racking up double digit leads in party ID, and what Republicans call their "brand" debased, McCain is running basically even with Obama in the polls. No wonder folks are starting to get worried.
This isn't time for hemlock. Imagine if, a year ago, someone had bet you that a black anti-war candidate named Barack Obama, barely three years into national office, would be running neck and neck with John McCain for the presidency. Not many of us would have put our money down. That said, there is significant cause for concern.
Part of the reason that McCain is still in this race is that, to date, the campaign has been almost entirely a referendum on Barack Obama. The Obama campaign has been focused on reassuring people that they should feel comfortable voting for a young African American with a funny name. The McCain campaign, once Rove's minions took over, has been focused on scaring people from voting for what they paint as the inexperienced celebrity with a funny name and a mysterious past. Obama's campaign foolishly discouraged support for independent expenditure committees. No one is really talking about McCain. Obama wins a race that is a choice; he could lose one that's simply a referendum on him.
And this is part of why people think Obama hasn't really said anything beyond "hope and change." In fact, he's put out detailed policy papers on all range of subjects, readily available on his web site. He's devoted many speeches to detailing different policies. But he's done very little clear contrast with McCain -- and it is the contrast -- the contesting of ideas and direction that gives a sense of passion and of substantial differences.
People -- most of whom will only start paying attention with the conventions -- want to know what he is for. Not what his policy positions are. But what he will stand and fight for. Where his steel is. And how that relates to the challenges they face. None of this is helped when he retreats on issues like trade or flips as on the wiretap legislation. But none can be determined without drawing a forceful contrast with McCain and taking him on.
McCain, of course, is a perfect setup for contrast, since he's offering mostly more of the same Bush policies that have proved so calamitous -- more top end tax cuts that have generated the slowest growth in sixty years and contributed to Gilded Age inequality, more corporate trade policies that have hemorrhaged manufacturing jobs and left us dependent on the kindness of Chinese central bankers, more billions devoted to the debacle in Iraq, etc. John McCain, same old, same old.
So why hasn't Obama gone after him? Why haven't we seen some populist fire so clearly in order?
Part of this is surely self-restraint. Obama, the essence of post-modern cool, wants to avoid appearing to be "an angry black man." And he clearly sees that as central to what has contributed to his remarkable success.
Part of this, I suspect, is a strategic choice. Obama had the same test in three primaries against Hillary (Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana): convince white workers that you understand their plight and that you will fight for them. He failed it in each occasion.
Now this is a brilliant and remarkably talented leader, both thoughtful and skilled rhetorically. He is not a person who flunks tests. So I suspect he chose not to pass them because he had another strategy in mind. Seeking to assemble to a broader suburban, upscale, independent, young, disaffected Republican coalition, he may have decided that a more populist posture would cost him as many votes as it attracted.
If so, this is a mistake. Obama is winning about 75% of self-described Democrats. He's doing fine with women, including former Hillary supporters, contrary to all the posturing. He's got to consolidate older and white working class Democrats. They want to know whether he will stand up for them. And they have good reason to be suspicious. It's not simply race, although that is surely part of it. Obama is the epitome of an urban professional, a man whose success, education and life sets him apart. Ask Al Gore and John Kerry, the resulting cultural suspicion would apply even if he were white.
On the other hand, showing folks that he would fight for them won't alienate the broader, new coalition that he's trying to assemble. Women, the young, independents, older Americans, disaffected Republicans -- all are concerned about the economy, all think we're deeply off course, all are looking for a dramatic change. Putting an edge on the contrast between his policies and McCain's would help, not impede, assembling that coalition.
Moreover, Obama needn't abandon his cool to bring some heat to the campaign. He simply needs to use his rhetorical gifts to sharpen the contrast between McCain's old and failed agenda and his own.
For example, McCain has sought to make trade a centerpiece of his campaign, even stumping in Mexico and Canada in support of NAFTA. Obama should take him up on this -- but he needn't imitate the populism of a Bernie Sanders or Sherrod Brown, as successful as that is, to make his point. McCain is frozen in an old fraudulent debate about free trade against protectionism. Obama should dismiss that as a fool's choice.
The reality is that our corporate trade policies -- of by and for global corporations and banks -- can't be sustained; they are making us increasingly dependent on the kindness of foreign creditors, like the Chinese bankers.
The challenge is a fundamental one to our society -- how do we sustain a broad and prosperous middle class in a global economy? More of the same won't get that done, as the middle class is now sinking -- despite working harder , longer and with greater productivity than workers in every other industrial country.
We need to start with a clear measure The success of this economy is not whether multinationals are profiting. Corporate profits have reached record levels, but wages have stagnated. The success of an Obama economy will be measured by whether working families are prospering, whether wages are rising, jobs are more secure, health care and education is affordable and available.
For this we need a dramatic change in course. Current trade deals are simply an expression of corporate lobbies. So no more -- until we forge a national strategy that works for working people, not just special interests. A centerpiece of this must be an Apollo Plan for energy independence, a concerted drive, creating jobs here by investing in efficiency and renewable energy, while seeding the research to capture the new green markets of the future. We need to reward companies for keeping jobs here rather than shipping them abroad - unlike McCain's profligate tax breaks for corporations which will reward them no matter where their jobs are going. We have to invest in education and training, in infrastructure and research and development so we can sustain a high wage path in a global economy -- unlike McCain's plan to lavish more tax breaks on the wealthy while cutting investments in vital domestic programs. We have to push for new global rules that raise standards for the environment, workers, consumers and small investors. We have to curb the casino financial speculation which is destabilizing the real economy, contrary to the advice of Phil Gramm, McCain's financial guru who is an officer in UBS, a bank now under investigation illegally abetting billionaires seeking to avoid paying US taxes. And we have to challenge the mercantilist nations like China that are playing by a different set of rules, putting companies on notice that that we will pursue more but balanced trade with Beijing. FInally, we have to make certain that workers capture a fair share of the increased productivity that they have produced. That requires empowering workers to organize. And it requires insuring basic economic rights -- starting with affordable health care -- that aren't at risk if you lose your job.
Can we sustain the foundation of our democracy -- a broad and prosperous middle class -- in the new economy? To meet that challenge, we can't keep digging the hole we are in. And it isn't enough just to stop digging -- although that would be a good start. We've got to chart the way out. And on that, McCain does not have a clue.
Now Obama's rhetorical gifts are far greater than mine. He can make this less abstract, develop it with stories about real struggles. But by expanding the trade question into what it is -- the question of a national strategy in a global economy, he can change the terms of the debate on the future prosperity and security of this country in a manner that McCain simply can't answer. He can draw the contrast by raising the stakes -- and summoning people to challenge the entrenched interests that stand in the way.
Krugman says what is missing is passion. Obama isn't about to become a passionate, kick ass populist rabble rouser. That's not what brought him this far. But he can challenge McCain forcefully -- on trade, on growth, on health care, on Social Security and Medicare, on national security -- in a way that grounds his argument in the struggles of working families. He can draw the contrast between his ability to mobilize the energy of people with McCain's ability to collect checks from special interests. He can show some steel, even while retaining his cool.
There are only a few times when campaigns can retool. The leadup to the Democratic Convention, when Obama got off the campaign trail, is one. The week of the Republican convention is another. After that, the race turns into a sprint, so the basic themes, contrasts, attack lines have to be in place. If Obama is going to sharpen this race, now is the time.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
O bama must strongly, consistently, and without apology raise Mc Cain's character problems. He cannot win by sticking only with policy. The public largely doesn't understand or care about policy in the abstract, nor about policy discussions. The public cares about "character". Thus, B ush I offed D ukakis by impugning his judgement and strength (Willie Horton); B ush II "beat" G ore by sliming his judgement and honesty ("invented the internet", etc.); and B ush II "beat" K erry by sliming his patriotism (Swiftboaters).
Likewise, O bama needs to vigorously (but truthfully) question Mc Cain's character: on honesty (e.g., many flip-flops; Cone-of-Silence-Gate), on judgement (e.g., promotion of war in Iraq; desire to spend $10B/week there indefinitely; "Drill here, drill now"), and on temper (Mc Cain's widely known as a hothead).
If O bama keeps the focus on Mc Cain's bad character, he'll have him on the defensive. If O bama lets Mc Cain off on character (and particularly if he keeps prefacing every criticism with "Well, Mc Cain is a great American hero, but..."), O bama'll be on the defensive. And the candidate who's on the defensive is primed to lose.
Oops. "$10B/week" should read "$10B/month".
One of McCain's many lies and flips to win an election:
McCain has consistently attacked Obama as being ambitious.
Read this quote from McCain's 2002 book titled "Worth the Fighting For"...page 723 and on audio tape:
"I didn't decide to run for President to start a national crusade for political reforms I believed in or to run a campaign as if it were some grand act of patriotism.
In truth, I wanted to be President because it had become my ambition to be President. I was sixty-two years old when I made the decision and thought it was my one shot at the prize."
Hmmm...
Obama is so cool that he appears to lack fight. Furthermore he is so busy triangulating that it is fair to ask what this young man stands for. People vote on character, and unfortunately Obama is coming across as lacking in definition, guts, fire, actual positions on the issues and so on. He built his success in the primaries on winning a bunch of caucuses in red states where he proved he could appeal to small groups of idealistic progressives. The fact that HIllary beat him repeatedly in large working class states should make people really nervous. The fact that McCain is ahead in Indiana is huge, IMO. He has a history of disappearing into balanced positions which unfortunately come across as a lack of courage an d conviction. Personally, though I thought Hillary was the better candidate, I made a pledge to the Obama campaign and before I could send a check he caved on FISA. If he is unable to articulate just how the current course is anticonstitutional, if all he can do is get as close as possible to Republican positions, well, people will vote for a real Republican. McCain is not too bright, but that never stopped Bush. If current trends continue this election will be effectively over in about a week.
Let us not forget that Obama has been on vacation for a week while the news media has been letting McCain hammer Obama unchecked.
Many voters will not openly admit that a "black" President is a problem. They will look for any excuse that McCain or media can give them to not cast vote for Obama. However, I am a "old", "college educated", "hard-working-white" and from a "red-midwestern state". I can see through McCain and realize what is going on. I heard the code words used around the kitchen table in the 60's and 70's during the civil rights movement and how people wanted "those" people to be treated fairly but didn't one to live in the neighborhood. Times have changed and great progress has taken place in the equal opportunity area but racism is still a attitude we must fight against.
Don't think for a minute that stronger Russia won't be used by Republicans as a fear tactic just like "radical fundamamtal extremists" is being used.
Do you really believe that? It hasn't even started, I know that sounds as disingenuous as all get out, but for the majority of Americans, who are vaguely aware that this is an election year, none of them even start to really pay attention until the Conventions... which start when.... this coming week. After the Democratic convention, after the Veep picks are in, if you still feel like call this thing a loss, go ahead. Anything up to that point is just silly (and that's the lightest word I can use for it).
Americans are typically apathetic. Typically they are blithely unaware of events other that what is happening outside of their self-center I-am-the-core-of-the-universe worlds. A lifetime working on political action groups (championing children's rights, rights of the disabled, etc.) I can tell you that you have to just get in their collective faces to make a dent. 95% of them know who Michael Phelps is but that same percentage couldn't pick Biden or Liebermann out of a line up if their lives depended on it. And at least a third of them think that the Russians where "showing aggression to....someplace.... Geez, I hope Atlanta is ok, that's a cool city..." If you think I'm kidding, watch Jay Leno's Jaywalking segments sometimes... seriously, it's disturbing.
Good post democritus. I agree completely (although I don't think HillRC is any better). He's just your standard, run-of-the-mill Republican-lite. And after his treachery on FISA, and his dismal performance to date against McCain, I'd like to see the convention toss him. He's a huge disappointment.
Obama cannot win, Hillary and Bill were right all the time, He is -10 behind his own party, no rethoric or charisma can change the fact that American people cannot identify or relate to such a weird selection from the democratic party. I will vote for Obama no matter who is VP but his chances of winning are getting smaller by the day. Today's polls are giving Mc Cain 5+ and what is worst there is no strategy that could get him to get the 48% he will need to win.
On the other hand there are many way for Mc Cain to improuve his chances. Hide Bush, move to the left, saying he will do things different than Bush, stay silent to avoid gaffes, look relaxed and make some stupid jokes; are all good ways to win, he does not even need to attack Obama.
Obama is the worst candidate ever, not just because he belong to a 11% confrontational minority but because he is just weird, he does not even look like a "normal" black guy. If we put a white man as second, things will get worst and if we put another "color" person even worst no good option for Obama. What you are sugesting igoing to backfire rethoric and charisma will made American people feel he is trying to manipulate us. He will lose and he will lose so bad that it will be imposible to blame the Clintons.
Obama will win with a landslide. Silent America the new sleeping giant is waking up.
"weird"...what's that a code word for?
"doesn't look like a normal black guy"..please show us what a normal black guy looks like.
One more suggestion dcazalo1...learn to write and spell.
"Today's polls are giving Mc Cain 5+"
That's ONE poll, singular, and a highly dubious one. Also remember that it's the electoral vote, not the popular vote, that elects presidents. It doesn't matter whether McCain carries Texas by 10 votes or 100,000 -- he still only gets 34 electoral votes out of it.
I'm kinda suspecting that McCain does well in the general polls because of overwhelming support from hard-core red-state voters. When you look at it on a state-by-state basis he's not strong. His support may be deep but it is not broad, geographically speaking.
Zogby only polled voters with PUBLISHED phone numbers. "nuff said.
Many folks do not have their numbers published; my family is among them.
Well there you have it, commentary from the uneducated Right. He's too "weird" looking.
Obama is'nt saying anything different than any other Dem canidate has said over the last 40 yrs.
raise taxes, waste more money on the war on poverty and globaly to the tune of 845 Billion dollars.
universal health care.
If everyone is intitled to free health care why can't I get a free car or a free house?
and wast more money on a failed education system.
I do'nt see the hope and change.
I just hope I have change in my pocket after OB is done raising my taxes.
You are right. Obama is not sying anything different than any other Dem over the last 40 years.
These same lines have given us Carter & Clinton and that is all!
Did Clinton tax you to death? NO
Did Carter? NO
Did Cinton balance the budget? YES
What did McBush do?
Try reading his plan instead of pretending you know of what you speak.
You're expecting a Republican from Dallas to READ something?
"... and wast more money on a failed education system."
Well, it obviously failed YOU. Or was you HOME-SKULED?
Ever occur to you that the education system has failed, at least in part, because teachers are paid less than...just about everyone?
Wrong, in some areas beginning teachers are paid a meager wage. I diasagree with that, however many teacher recieve wages equal to other occupations. Once benefits are added many do very well.
Oh please, unless YOU have $5 MIL coming in each year, you can't afford to be republican. I amazes me to hear this drivel about Obama raising taxes. When will people understand that as long as its the poor and middle class continue paying the way for the rich and corporate instead of everybody paying their fair share this will be an issue.
certainly don't like paying taxes and I really didn't like it when Ronnie wiped out all deductions for the middle class plus made unemployment benefits taxable income which effectively raised my family's taxes by about 15%. That way he could say "I didn't raise taxes". What a nasty joke that was. Ronnie was actually shocked that 50% of Americans made under $50K. Typical Republican, no idea how 95% oF America lives.
You sound like your idea of a good life is to continue throwing your meager funds into the cauldron of the rich, make them happy with their newest mansion, their bigger yacht and their 10 carat diamonds, in the hopes that they'll eventually throw you a bone. Good luck on that one. You're dreaming. Meanwhile, your faulty reasoning is precisely what is responsible for the trouble the education system is in, the degradation of the roads, the polluting of the environment, the economy in the toilet, and on and on and on. So if you're looking for a free car or house, you'll have be on top of one of the corporations who so eagerly suck money out of the vast majority of us who are in the middle class. Good luck with that, because they aren't handing anything over willingly. You're a means to an end for them, a peon, a puppet.
I believe thqt Barak Obama is simply too decent a person to allow himself to get caught up in the hitting below the belt, misinterpretation, ediwtortion, and outright lying chat characterizes the McSame campaign.
How the public and the MSP deals with McSame's Rove type tactics and Obama's attention to the issues will say a lot about just how out of touch the US electorate is. I wish I felt confident enough in the voters' good sense to bet on Obama's election.
Voters care much more about "character" than about policy. Obama can win only be consistently, vigorously, and _truthfully_ attacking McCain's character.
Just watched McCain on CNN - once again - slam BHO for 'not supporting the surge', and how BHO would rather bring troops home 'in defeat instead of winning and with victory'
Well, Sen BHO - there's yer problem!
We KNOW you didn't vote for the war, we KNOW that you think the surge was a limited success - due in large part to other factors - you don't need to keep on reassuring us of this.
Instead, start asking McCain awkward questions:
OK, the surge was a limited success - rather than allowing McC to repeat this like a mantra, ask him about his plans going forward?
If the surge worked, why isn't the US making plans to withdraw?
As for 'winning' and 'victory', ask him what he means by it.
We've all heard him say it - but no one has questioned him as to what it means.
The NYT a few weeks ago rejected and op-ed piece by McC because he used the same emotive words, without defining them. They wanted him to define his words - specifically 'win' and 'victory'.
The McC campaign responded by getting snitty with the NYT editorial board and complaining about 'liberal' media bias. But the fact still remains that HE DIDN'T ANWER THE QUESTIONS.
It doesn't have to be clever or nuanced.
Turn the mirror on him for a change.
All he needs to do is call out every one of McC's statements and half-truths, and sooner or later McC's head
That's why I like him so much. He is like me and my friends and family. Decent. The candidates who play dirty, lie, obfuscate, spin, etc. are like aliens from another planet to me. People vote for people like themselves I believe.
"McCain is running basically even with Obama in the polls."
Not any more. Obama better leave Joe Biden where he is for now and select Hillary Clinton as his V.P. Biden will fit better as Secretary of State after the election IF Obama wins.
The first order of business better be getting those numbers back up after the recent screw-ups by the Obama campaign. If Obama lets his ego and Michelle determine his decision on what will be good for the Democratic Party, I don't think much of his touted judgement or David Axelrod's for that matter.
The closer Obama comes to the Washington power structure the closer his numbers will be to John McCain.
Want a lead Obama? Promise everyone in Washington will no longer have their jobs come november.
The latest Zogby Poll shows McCain leading Obama. The numbers are not good for Obama. What happened? During the Hawaiian vacation McCain and the Republicans managed to savage Obama and claim the lead. Yes, one poll does not make an election but this is all depressingly familiar. How Democrats manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is truly amazing.
That poll is BS. The methodology is suspect. Another Zogby poll taken just two days earlier had Obama with a three-point lead.
An eight-point swing in two days? Sorry, I can't buy it. Both polls are bogus.
Because he is the worst posible candidate he is too liberal and too weird and Americans do not relate to him. People all over the world vote for people that looks and act like them. A white guy in Haity where the white population is better educated will not get one black vote. minority guys are not suposed to be president in any country. French presidents look french, Italian presidents look Italian, Khazakistan presidents looks Khazakistan in the history of the election I can only find a counter-example: Fujimory in Peru and that was because Vargas Llosa was even more out of touch than "El Chino" (he is Japaneese)
PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD FOLLOW LEADERS THAT LOOK LIKE THEM.
WOW...I'll remember your most insightful commentary on how people vote.
Manmohan Sing is from the tiny Sikh community and is the prime minister of India.
I can't even begin to tell you how offensive and ignorant your comments are! We have this thing called a constitution, and it gives everyone equal rights, you might want to try reading it sometime, and have someone explain it's meaning to you.
If we use your ignorant idology, then we should have a Native American president as they are the original Americans.
Change > Fear (that's read change is greater than fear, juse in case you didn't get it)
Please listen. Obama! More ads showing what the war costs per month! More ads showing HOW you plan to help Americans without a lot of cost:
1. Take 5 million from corporate tax breaks and use it to supply Americans with free diabetic glucose testing supplies (costly and hard to get for many). Everybody knows somebody with diabetes.
2. Take govt incentives from helping the big lumbering companies, big pharma, more and use it to build senior citizen centers in semi-rural areas (we need them!!!)
3. Take 100 million from Halliburton regular spending to build golf courses etc at military bases and show exactly how we can use that money instead as rewards for people that carpool to the office three days a week OR get rid of their second car (yes, it is actually verifiable).
4. Why not take all that war on drug money (it hasn't worked - proven) and beef up boys and girls clubs in the bigger towns: show kids swimming, playing guitar, laughing,, running, it DOES keep kids off the streets - use Santa Cruyz or NYC as examples: show footage of BUSY happy boys girls clubs. Cripes.
Just some examples!!!!! I CAN THINK THESE UP WHY CAN'T HIS CAMPAIGN AND PUT IT INTO ADS! I AM ANGRY.
In other words BURST the bubble of Dems as big wasters.
Obama 08
JLTP, your post is so on target! Totally agree, you can't stay above the fray and win. So true about the general electorate, they want simple, easy to understand answers. Indeed, the republicans have their modus operandi down to a science!
I certainly hope that Obama (and his advisors) have read and will put to good use the book, Don't Think of an Elephant! by George Lakoff. It’s all in the FRAME you put around the picture. Now's the time to mat and frame the product to be viewed and appreciated... our next president Obama; who is quite the masterpiece.
Haven't you read the news?
McCain and Obama aren't "even." McCain is way ahead both in popular and electoral vote.
So much for this great change we were going to see.
The Democratic Party is suc h an exercise in futility...
Every cycle the same thing - hopes and hopes and loss --- all the time.
Aren't you tired of losing over and over and over again?
"McCain is way ahead both in popular and electoral vote."
Electoral votes? You don't say. Chew on this: http://pollster.com.
According to those projections Obama is just six EVs short of victory. For McCain to win he would have to hold onto ALL the "leaners" AND pick up ALL the toss-up states. Not bloody likely.
Kinda the way Hillary lost the primary.
Where did you get that information?
So the electoral votes flipped by 100 -200 in a few days? I find that hard to believe.
Haven't you got the news? Faux News is offering it's simple-minded viewers a chance to win a free lobotomy - you shoud enter - the operation will not take as long.
McCain is "way" ahead in the electoral count? On what planet?
The question is probably whether Obama can defeat Karl Rove....
Obama cannot defeat anybody cause he does not relate to the American people he is just too weird.
The question if Hillary would have done better is already answered: of course she will have done better; -10 his own party is an old time negative record no republican or democratic candidate have ever matched. The worst candidate ever. People all over the world votes for candidates that LOOK like them.
Who is to blame: the radical wing of the democratic party and the Kennedy clan. We are going to lose one more time.
If we cannot win here we cannot win anywhere, at least we will have both chambers of congress.
What makes him "weird"? That he can talk in coherent English sentences? That his skin is brown?
"People all over the world votes [sic] for candidates that LOOK like them."
Take your racist crap elsewhere, you illiterate troll.
There you go again..."weird"..Please define.
And 20% of the repubs aren't going to the repub convention. What's with that?
Hey maybe it would be helpful if anyone could name a single useful thing Obama has ever done for a constituent...ever.
What about McCain? Name one useful thing that McCain has done for a constitutent...ever
This election isn't a referendum on Obama. Its about the Presidency of the United States. If people don't find that appealing enough, then pivot and make it about a 'referendum about McCain'.
I can name several hits the veterans have taken because of McCain. Does that count? I've seen the damage he's done.
I'm sorry - but is this the new standard you tribblers are attaching to leadership? What he has done for a constituent? Let me know when you got one for McCain, m'kay?
What's happening is that Obama is losing his own base by going to the middle. That spectacle of him quoting Bible verses with Rick Warren didn't help....
Stupid comment. Since when is having some relegious knowledge the same as moving to the right/center ?? Shessh! Not every bible believeing christian is a wing-nut you know
I am a senior citizen, never written anything to reply, however, as a white female who has worked all her life, cannot understand why McBush is getting all the good play and the bad is ignored. his first marriage, his wife's sister, who they don't claim, Cindy said she was raised an only child, their ten mansions, the Keating five, the flip flops and his continued bragging. Whoever can vote for this person must be either rich, ignorant, or listens to Rush, or just goes to the polls to vote to say they voted. They cannot care about what happens to this country. Margie
Jeezuz....what is with you moonbats? How on EARTH can you fault Obama for going to the middle...where THE VAST MAJORITY OF VOTERS LIVE?
Are you telling me/us that you won't vote for him if he panders to the middle? PUH-LEEZ....that's as stupid as saying the fundies will vote for Obama (or sit out altogether) if McCain picks a moderate running mate.
If you honestly think he has a prayer if he picks up the 'progressive' flag and tries to ram it down our nations throat...you're freakishly deranged. Obama's WEAKNESS is that he's perceived as an uber-liberal...not his strength!! He needs to count on the fact moonbats will back him no matter what he says/does between now & November.
If you don't do EVERYTHING you can to get him elected...regardless of any perceived shift to the middle and/or the selection of a moderate running mate, you're traitors to your cause and to the nation. Wake the frack up....pandering is GOOD if it helps your guy get elected. The other team knows this...why are you so blind?
Huh?
Putting "meat on the bones" runs contrary to the Emmanuel DNC strategy of winning the "conservative" vote. The whole strategy rests on showing Obama to be just as right-wing as McCain, but "smarter". Thus the Obama statements in support of Israeli arpartheid and expansion, expanding the military, admitting Georgia to NATO, devastating Afghanistan with greater fury, launching attacks against Pakistan, and continuing threats against Iran.
The problems with that strategy are many:
(a) progressive support and votes are lost
(b) conservatives are not won over, but come to regard him as inconsistent and deceptive, and McCain "safer"
(c) it becomes impossible to rationally critique US foreign and domestic policy, and decry the control by the robber barons, because that might appear too "radical" for allegedly "moderate" voters.
(d) the alleged moderates can never be won over because they can never be presented with anything outside the "conventional wisdom" of Fox News.
(e) so, without meaningful debate, the "issues" become trivial, and defined by the corporate media, and McCain's handlers.
You are so right. Let me break it down even simpler, and use a phrase that many are using today:
"Why vote for a Republican-lite (Obama) when you can have the real thing (McCain)?"
And that, sadly, is that Obama's "run to the center" (in other words, run to the far right) strategy has bought him -- a complete erosion of the fantastic support from liberals and progressives and even grudging admiration from independents and some conservatives, that was going to make his election a shoo-in.
He'll still win, but it will no longer be a shoo-in. Just watch the Daily Show or some other place where young people get their "news." No longer are there wild, sustained cheers every time Obama's name is mentioned. Some muted applause, but that's about it. Hardly statistically relevant, but I think that that's a useful weathervane of opinion; Obama has watered down his "brand" so much with his "run to the center" that many of us (who still intend to vote for him) are starting to wonder just what the heck we're voting *for*.
Obama's problems have nothing to do with issues, the problem is his looks, people all over the world follow leader that look like them. Could you picture Mussolini in Germany? No, he was Italian 100% and that is why many (not all) Italian loved him, not because of the issues but the looks. The same thing if Hittler were Italian, no way. A few weks ago the most Idiotic president of Bolivia got 68% why because of the issues no because he is Indian like 70% of the Bolivian population he looks and act and talks (badly) like them. Obama problem is he is the child of an American hater mother with a Kenian Muslim who have clildren with a Kenian women before and after, raised in Indonesia who went to Harvard law school. he is TOO weird too atypical, too out of mainstream America. no rethoric will change this perception.
Weird people like me will vote for him but he is going to lose an election that should have been ours who is to blame the radical wing of the Democratic party and the Kennedy clan.
You are so out of touch of the American people that you are not even able to understand the need for him to go to the right.. If you find one person that changes to Mc Cain because of Obama moving to the center I will give you a mIllion dollars you make no sense. BY By Obama.
agree 100%....well stated.
AIPAC, FISA, Oil-Drlling, Faith-based pandering has eroded Obama's credibility and principles he expoused during the primaries not to mention his inability to deal with the Rove-adopted smear tactics of the Clinton's effectively and expeditiously.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
