People's willingness to accept a candidate based solely on rosy rhetoric is frightening. The fact that Obama has employed the strategy of missing controversial and sensitive votes (over 140 in the current Congress), showing up only to vote present and has not outlined specific proposals does not seems to concern his devoted followers. I do not understand. Missing votes allows him to avoid being pigeonholed, so he can pander to both sides of the aisle. Being vague allows him to flip-flop on the issues and then say he was taken out of context.
I am an African American who is not willing to put aside curiosity in favor of electing a black president. After seven years of Bush, I am more concerned with getting it right than making history. I criticize ALL candidates--no free passes.
I want to support someone who is going to improve the quality of life for my family and me. Is Obama willing to say unequivocally that he will overturn Bush's policies and restore the Constitution? Will he discontinue torture? Does he have a record of accomplishment of standing up for average citizens on health care, affordable medication, job creation, taxes, education and so forth? Does he follow his mentor"s (Lieberman) politics?
Obama is smart. He is taken advantage of our frustration with the Bush administration and has chosen an excellent slogan--Vote for Change. But he is not telling us what that change would look like. Why should he, though. Voters are not demanding that he be specific. He talks about bringing both parties together. Where have we heard that before?
Republicans are not concerned with compromise, unless democrats are willing to accept their conditions on policy issues. Maybe Obama is more than willing to vote on their side. He has voted republican numerous times on policies that hurt average citizens: making it difficult for citizens to sue corporations and against restricting the interest rate to 30 percent. Others cite sources that Obama has voted with Bush 53 percent of the time.
Look beyond the rosy rhetoric.
You've Gotta Fight for Your Right to the Democratic Party
If you care about rescuing this nation from the short-sighted greed and dangerous arrogance with which the Bush administration has poisoned this country, then you can only rejoice that the Democrats are fielding three such capable candidates.
Then why am I so worried?
Ever since the big three Democratic contenders have started slashing at each other my joy at seeing one of them become president of the United States has waned a bit. The vilification of Hillary Clinton by Obama and Edwards puzzles me. The right-wing attack machine has been rabidly going after both Clintons since the day her husband took office and now to see so many of her own party parrot their talking points is just plain loony.
Then to see her respond with her own freakish attacks on, for example, Obama's abortion rights record, just makes me want to throw up.
In the words of Rodney King, "Can we all just get along?"
If any of you are at all sincere about meaningful change in Washington, let that change begin with how you campaign. To that end, each of you needs to learn from the others.
Obama: I have always loved your message of thinking beyond left and right, red state and blue state and that hopeful message is why you're riding such a wave of popularity right now. The rank-and-file Republicans in the wild, however, are different from the ones in caged in Washington. Hillary's husband was the most centrist Democrat we've had in years. He bent over backwards to reach across the aisle, even appointed a Republican as his Secretary of Defense. And his reward? They unleashed a vicious, relentless attack machine that is still going after him and his wife to this day.
And just look to more recent history. The Republicans got their asses handed to them in the last midterms. You'd think they might be more amenable to compromise. Instead, in the Senate that you have worked in during the last year they have been more obstreperous than ever, blocking even the most gradual change on anything whatsoever.
You might be creaming her in these early primaries but you can learn something from Hillary since she has actually looked into the belly of the beast of entrenched corporate interests and learned the hard way the reach of their grasp. Look at those smiling pictures of Bill and Hillary in those first hundred days. She had the audacity of hope then too. Her healthcare plan back in 1993 was more revolutionary for its time than anything in the platforms of any candidate running today.
Right now you're the odds-on favorite to be the next president of the United States. Karl Rove, David Brooks and the neocons have championed your cause because they think they can either paint you as a Mocha McGovern in the run-up to November or a Java Jimmy Carter after. To either win the presidency or succeed once in office you're going to have to borrow some of Hillary's expertise in palace intrigue and realpolitik and some of Edwards's anger.
Hillary: You're the opposite of George Bush. He is the smiling incompetent, you're the stone-faced hyper-competent. A good friend of mine who worked for you and your family calls you Tracy Flick, Reese Witherspoon's brittle, brown-nosing character running for school president in the movie Election. It's probably already too late but you need to become a real person again. There is some crazy realty show coming on where this guy tries to deprogram beauty queens and turn them back into real women who no longer wave with just an upright, cupped hand. You need someone like him to get you dressed down, hair loose and let us know from the heart what you dream about for the future of this nation. Listen to Obama's magnificent Iowa victory speech. Don't talk to us about fear of the unknown, talk to us about the magnificent new American century that you would like to share with us.
Edwards: I love your eagerness to take it to the man and frankly I've always thought that a charismatic white male Southern populist could cakewalk into the White House. Your problem, as I see it, is that like Obama you don't tell us your mechanism for affecting the change we all desire. You're running for president not Tsar. Jimmy Carter was another southern outsider elected with a mountain of promise behind him. The system that he and that you correctly deride for being corrupt and anti-American doesn't just roll over and die the moment after you're sworn in. That system is anything but stupid, realizes that there is only a very slim chance that one of the gang that can't shoot straight on the Republican side will be our next POTUS so are already planning on how to subvert all or your noble goals. Unless you're elected with 80% of the electorate, what's your plan for battling them?
Comments for this post are now closed
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
Obama is as conservative as Hillary is. He is anti-union, pro-NAFTA and pro-insurance company politician. Check his voting record.
Obama is a member of the most conservative part of the Democratic Party: The Democratic Leadership Council/New Democrats. Bruce A. Dixon, editor of The Black Commentator gives some insight into what this means:
"The DLC's mission is to erase the last vestiges of social democracy from the Democratic Party, so that the corporate consensus will never again be challenged in the United States. Acting as a Republican Trojan Horse in the bowels of the Democratic machinery, the DLC claims the "real" party lives somewhere off to the right, where George Bush dwells, and that minorities, unionists, environmentalists, feminists, men and women of peace - virtually every branch of the party except corporatists - must be purged or muzzled...[e]very African American politician associated with the DLC should be considered suspect, and closely watched. There is no reason for them to be there except to make deals with the party's right wing - which believes that Gore lost the 2000 election largely because he became too closely identified with Blacks and labor."
The DLC does not care for Democratic progressives or activists who advocate for change. It only cares about corporate interests. Listen to the DLC founder, Al From, talk about Dick Gephardt's health care proposal:
"Every primary season unleashes the pander virus. Dick Gephardt's $2.5-trillion health care plan is the latest case in point. While Gephardt is right to base his candidacy on 'big ideas,' his health plan only underscores the folly of appealing to Democratic activists instead of the Democratic rank-and-file. When activists think big, they always do so with the rank-and-file's money." In other words, the rank-and-file"s money, you are beholden to their policy demands. Obama is second only to Hillary in taking money from insurance companies.
Why would anyone looking for change be a part of the DLC? Is Obama taking leads from his mentor, Lieberman?
Rather than imitating Edwards, why not just elect the real deal? That way we'd have the one who created the positions and dialog in the first place. He'd come in pretty handy when the obstacles we do not yet know about come rumbling toward us.
Good piece it embodies pretty much how I feel abuth them, especially Obama
Even though the media refuses to do their job and report FACTS so educated voters make their decision instead of being biased and suppoting ONE candidate. WE THE VOTERS WILL NOT STOP EDUCATING WHERE MEDIA FAILS MISERIBLY by Giving Obama a free ride and doing a disservice to the country. It really is about Obama's message. He can't point to a record of accomplishment so he talks about bringing people together and giving people hope. The media has forgotten their job! They are responsible to inform voters of the differences between candidates, not to endorse or support just ONE! As they have with obamaboy!
**CNN last night Lou Dobbs said they polled the young voters supporting obama (which is how he is winning the recent caucuses) NOT ONE COULD SAY WHERE HE STOOD ON ANY ISSUE?? With the country at odds with so many foreign countries, it is horrifying to think of Barrack "Hussein" Obama (Muslim) running our country. You think we are in trouble with bush/Chaney!
ROCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) " A group of about a dozen anti-abortion protestors interrupted one of Barack Obama's New Hampshire rallies Monday night.The group shouted in unison, "Abortion is abomination," forcing Obama to pause in the middle of his speech. When the noise erupted, Obama first paused and looked up into the balcony where they were standing. They were escorted out by police.Before leaving the room, one protestor yelled, "True change is ending abortion!" Change has been a major theme of Obama's campaign.
Mr. Ellis, I don't consider the Clintons Democrats. Look at their record closely. The Clintons deserve what they get from us liberals and the republicans. They can't sit on the fence forever, triangulating.
Good honest critsizm. Great writing. Hope my man Obama reads every word. You have made some excellent points.
Something about calling Obama a "Mocha McGovern" and "Java Jimmy Carter" is rather unsettling to me.
Good post, because your thoughts are along the lines of mine today. It's beginning to look like the Democrats really can screw up a good f%#@@K!
If the Dems were really into change they would have all agreed on a spokesman (Pres) and filled in th ecabinet posts with Theri indidvula strength. Instead of debating each other each would have time to discuss the task they would take on in the Democratic held Executive Branch.
Why we focus on one person an dnot the entire adminstration line up is ridiculous.We've learned about those 'other voices' in Bushes head and what influence they have had. Pull back the entire curtain. I want to know how the Sec of State will handle the Middle East EXACTLY!
We need to stop betting on one person to make all the right decsions- It's called the Executive branch for a reason. I don't want any more childhood friends in position of National Importance. NO MORE NEPATISM, EARN YOUR HIGH RANKING POSITION!
The Democratic Party does not deserve my vote because it has been soft on the criminals Bush and Cheney and complicit in the Iraq War and the war on our liberties.
It's not the Democratic Party. It is the Democratic Charity!
You make a contribution to find a home for a diplaced politician...
Infighting is great, we need more. I love to see a BSin politician get pinned down unable to explain their plans, positions or even why they deserve to be in office!
If they can't fight now and define who they are and why we need them; then how the hell are they going to fight the Republicans in Congress to get any changes in how this country is ran?
Great post. Glad you recognize that Edwards has not been all that specific how he would get his programs through. He keeps telling everyone he would do this, he would do that. What about the congress?
An excellent piece, Mr. Ellis. I particularly liked your advice to Barack Obama:
>you're going to have to borrow some of Hillary's expertise in palace intrigue and realpolitik and some of Edwards's anger<
I'll certainly vote for whichever Democrat wins the nomination, which right now looks to be Senator Obama, but I'd be a far more enthusiastic supporter of his if I saw just a hint of the anger Edwards evinces.
Obama is an academic and speaks mostly in abstractions, while the Clintons have an actually governing record that I want to see continued. Bill and Hillary are the best wonks around and the most qualified to discuss policy on the national stage. I didn't hear Obama's great speach, but I'd bet my well pruned hedges that is was full of empty rhetoric. Journalists and young people are total dingbats to fall for that stuff. Now especially, when we need the best people in office, it will be a tragegy if we loose the Clintons.
Great piece Trey. Frankly I'm just sick of this Democratic infighting. None of our candidates are perfect, but all would be 10 times prefable to even the most competent Republican.
Obama is the most likely next President, and he has an uplifting message, but partisan Republicans are not going to change for him. The right wing attack machine will attack him with all their might. He should work with them in certain cases, and draw partisan lines in things we should not negotiate. If he doesn't stand tough to them he will be a one term President they'll make a fool out of.
I really hope this doesn't turn into trench warfare as the Clinton campaign intends. I'm hoping for a 12+ point Obama victory in NH, followed by a raft of key endorsements on Wednesday, and the announcement of a VP soon after the SC primary. Edwards, Webb, Richardson... there are several excellent choices.
Let's get this over with so our candidates don't rip each other to shreds. This may not have been Obama's turn, but it appears to be his time. He's the right candidate for this unique political climate, I think he'll beat any of the GOP contenders by a considerable margin.
To be honest, I think that any of the top three Democrats should be able to win the election. But I think that Obama will generate the highest turnout (particularly among solidly Democratic demographics such as minorities and under-35), grow the coalition, and carry more congressional races for the Democrats.
The racists aren't going to vote for a Democrat no matter which one we nominate. Obama is probably our best shot in the south since he'd really mobilize the black vote and possibly the hispanic vote the southwest (although this is less likely against McCain).
The man is brilliant and an excellent listener. He'll surround himself with an experienced and diverse cabinet. He'll be an outstanding president, a president we can all be proud to call our commander in chief.
Strength Through Peace!
The Song!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVGfWvvv7WE
This is probably the best analysis of the Obama weaknesses that I've seen. It's less strong on criticism of Edwards (his policy specifics are out there). And as to Hillary, yeah right, hyper-competence is SUCH a handicap. (Apparently we'd rather elect a "human" mushmouth.)
Still, Mr. Ellis, it's a welcome change from the wet-pantied Obama bonerism more typical of this site.
I'll certainly vote for Obama if he gets the Democratic nomination, but he better start getting a solid staff of advisers together, because he's going to need a bunch of hard-knuckled fighters, and even more tutors to get beyond feely good rhetoric -- and up to speed. Otherwise he will indeed get walked all over like Jimmy Carter did.
Sorry, everybody, but you blew it when you blew off BIDEN and Dodd.
You wanted the media darlings, well you got 'em. I am frankly already sick to death of them... Shrillary is just shrill... Johnny One-note is just that, the same response (actually there are two: his father's mill job or the girl who died because of the insurance company), no matter WHAT the topic... and Obama I had to turn off as soon as he began his speech today when he started doing that phony "I'm charge up", pep-rally thing and the pseudo preacher bit... makes my skin crawl, I'm sorry to say...but then I've never been one for speechifying.
We can only hope that whoever wins chooses a wise and respected running mate, AND that somehow BIDEN and DODD will be major players with major influence.
"let that change begin with how you campaign"
Kucinich is already running that campaign!
Don't believe the MSM polls!
Kucinich is sweeping the online polls.
You know: the informed voters. The blogosphere: US!
http://www.dennis4president.com/go/resources/polls/
Check out the other videos while you are there.
Kucinich is the only candidate consistently working for the 98% of the American people. He has proven as mayor that he is not for sale.
Kucinich is so feared by the MSM that his impeachment of Cheney got zero headlines. Russert was tasked with "Moon beaming" Kucinich, and finally Kucinich was just excluded from the debates, since he was getting huge applause for impeaching Cheney.
I take issue with the primary assumption of this article, that all 3 Dem frontrunners are "capable candidates".
One poster has commented that the 3 differ only in style, not substance.
I disagree, there is still a BIG difference in substance between Mr. Obama VS. Mr. Edwards / Ms. Clinton... and that difference is IRAQ.
Any political leader who had the foresight, judgment, and courage to say "NO" to Iraq in 2002 when everybody else was saying "YES", is capable of leading this country (Obama). Any leader who apologizes may still be capable (Edwards). But any leader who refuses to apologize is NOT capable (Clinton-Bush), and is probably extremely dangerous for the country (see Iran).
Hillary supporters may believe that Iraq is just one "issue" among many... but I believe that Iraq is our primary issue, and in a very deep way, it is connected to everything that is wrong with America's current direction.
Personally, I'm not going to trust Ms. Clinton with health care if she can't apologize for the health care & deaths of American servicemen & Iraq civilians.
my suggestion to those big three would be to sound as little like rosie and the donald in their comments as possible...just be noble!
Thank you Mr. Ellis. Great article.
Hey Trey,
None of us need a crystal ball to see that the
right wing attacj machine will blast away at
whoever the Dems put forth, Obama included.
Obama needs to prepare an immediate respone team to blast back. A agree with your assessment about Obama needing Hillary's
talents for palace intrigue and Edwards passion.
Let's hope Edwards is selected as Vice President. It would be a shame to beat Hillary
only to ask to run for Vice (she wouldn't).
Edwards is from the South. He would be a perfect
addition to an Obama ticket.
Loading comments…
The McCain campaign implied on Wednesday that Barack Obama's commitment...
Before the largest crowd of his campaign, Democratic presidential contender Barack...
When Katie Couric told Haaretz that "The glory days of TV news...
There is one more John McCain gaffe that...
As we have observed throughout the last several years,...
In a flagrant political act, the State Department has...
**UPDATE 7/25** ThinkProgress now reports that the bar...
** Update below: Nas delivers Fox petition to Stephen...
BARCELONA, Spain — Christian Bale swept into Barcelona on Wednesday night to attend a...
If you're wondering about the recent articles claiming that a study found...
HOUSTON — A "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico off...
WASHINGTON — Rescue legislation sailed through the House on Wednesday aimed at...
Posted January 7, 2008 | 12:27 PM (EST)