Behind Obama's Wave of Victories: The More They Know Him...
In a race where Clinton seemed to have every advantage, why has Barack Obama now won eight primaries and caucuses in a row? If you look at the rhythm of the campaign, this is the first point where most of America's voters have a chance to consider him as a candidate with a serious chance of victory, and to genuinely engage his message. Democrats passionately want a candidate they can believe in, but also one who can win--and reverse the Republican disasters. As the presumed nominee, Clinton did everything she could to play on this, proclaiming herself as tough, experienced, and capable of taking everything the Republicans could throw at her. She lined up massive insider support, including commitments from 154 superdelegates (versus 50 for Obama) before a single vote was cast.
But as Obama began winning, voters who'd been paying only peripheral attention have started taking him seriously. The more familiar they've become with him, the more they've liked his message and chances, while their reservations about Clinton have only grown. Now, she and her surrogates are in a position of trying to rationalize eight straight Obama wins, including his 29-point Virginia victory in a state where she was up by 24 points less than four months ago, and her-23 point loss in Maryland, which she also led by roughly the same margin.
These recent losses, claims Clinton, were due to states with caucuses, major African American populations, or large numbers of young liberal professionals. But not only did Obama rout Clinton in Virginia among younger voters, African Americans, and independents, he also won a majority of white voters, staked a 55-to-43 lead among white men, and led among voters in every income and education level. Maine is one of the whitest and poorest states in America, yet Obama won it convincingly despite election-eve reports that blue-collar women might hand it to Clinton. And if you compare caucus margins, Obama won Iowa by a modest nine points and narrowly lost in Nevada. Since then, he's now won Washington, Nebraska, Georgia, Colorado, Minnesota and Kansas by more than 35 points, and Idaho and Alaska by more than 50. In my state of Washington, Obama took every single county, including the highly conservative rural ones, and the blue- and white-collar suburbs and exurbs. These weren't just latte-drinking liberals. Participants in my caucus couldn't stop talking about relatives and friends who'd never voted Democratic in their life, but were inspired by Obama's message.
The pattern in every state has been the same: Clinton started out with a massive early lead based on her (and Bill's) huge name recognition, connections with Democratic insiders, and the early endorsements gained in significant part on the desire of key leaders to go with the inevitable winner. Then Obama started campaigning, people responded to his story and his message, and the gaps begin to narrow. As recently as mid-October, national polls had Obama 28 points behind, and he trailed by 20 points going into the Iowa caucuses. He's now won 22 of the 32 legitimate elections, not counting Michigan and Florida. And given that he's now far ahead in recent momentum, even or ahead in national polls, and ahead in elected delegates, Democratic voters who earlier dismissed him as a candidate are far more primed to take his message seriously.
Before Super Tuesday I remember thinking, "if Obama only had three more weeks." To establish his electoral viability, he had no choice but to focus overwhelmingly on Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, hitting town after town to convince people who'd barely heard of him that he should be America's next president. He had no choice about doing this--a Rudy Guiliani big-state strategy would have been disastrous, as it was even with Guiliani's far greater name recognition. But it meant that Obama had no chance to create more than the most fleeting presence in the 22 states that voted on February 5th.
Although Obama and the other candidates did campaign earlier in some of those states, few voters were paying much attention until the caucuses and primaries began. And because of the massive compression of schedule, Obama didn't have time to do more than jet in and out of states that represented over half the total convention delegates. Think about the states that Clinton ended up winning that day. Following his initial Iowa victory, Obama had time for just three brief visits to California, one to New York State, one to Massachusetts, two to New Jersey, one each to Arizona and New Mexico, and none at all to Tennessee, Arkansas, or Oklahoma. Clinton faced the same time constraints, but began with infinitely more name recognition and institutional connections, and a superstar surrogate in Bill, so needed the boosts from her personal visits far less. By the time most Super Tuesday voters began to realize that Clinton was no longer inevitable, Obama barely had a chance to do more than briefly get their attention.
That doesn't even count the impact of early voting, where people made up their mind before they had the chance to be seriously exposed to Obama's ideas. As many as half the California ballots may have been cast well before Super Tuesday-before the Kennedy endorsement, Obama's major California campaign stops, or the massive Los Angeles Oprah rally. Most were cast before Obama's massive South Carolina victory, and the backlash against Bill Clinton's racially charged attempts to dismiss it. Early voting had a comparable likely impact in New Jersey, Arizona, New Mexico, and Tennessee, with Obama surging late, but with much of this momentum being moot for the significant numbers of people who'd already voted. In the words of Clinton campaign director, Ace Smith, "our whole campaign is based on reaching those voters....with millions and millions of ballots cast before election day. And we've been trying to identify those people for months." No doubt the Obama campaign tried to reach these voters too, but they had far less initial visibility to use as leverage. Obama still emerged from the day with a plurality of delegates, but would certainly have had even more if voters had just had more time to get to know him.
Even in constituencies where Obama is still making up ground, you see the same pattern. White voters backed him in Virginia, for the first time in a Southern state. Maine was supposed to go to Clinton because of blue-collar women, but Obama won by 18 points. He got 26% of the Latino vote in Nevada, and polls before Super Tuesday showed him getting just 19% of the national Latino vote. But he averaged 35% on Super Tuesday, even counting the early voting and other obstacles, and actually won Virginia's small Latino population. Clinton began with massive advantages among Latino voters, having locked up early endorsements from people like LA mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros, and United Farm Workers co-founder Dolores Huerta. Their political networks helped immensely, but mostly the margin has been simple name recognition. Clinton supporter Huerta joked that when Latino voters were interviewed about Obama, "A lot of them would say, 'Señor como se llama?' They didn't know Obama's name." But as Obama stressed in one of the debates, Latino voters did vote for him in his Illinois races, and are beginning to in his presidential quest. In the words of Obama supporter Miren Uriarte, head of a Latino research center at the University of Massachusetts at Boston, "What we've seen is the longer people become familiar with Obama's thinking, the more prone they are to vote for him." So his challenge with Latinos really does rest significantly on their simply not knowing him-a situation he's now beginning to change.
All this creates a critical argument to stress, both to residents of states yet to vote and to the superdelegates who will hold the convention's balance of power. In addition to Obama's dramatically expanding Democratic participation among young voters, African Americans and independents, and polling ahead of Hillary when matched against McCain, it means that his baseline of support may actually be much greater than we've seen so far. Those of us who support Obama need to raise this not as an excuse for complacency--we'll need to keep doing everything we can to get him nominated in August and elected in November. But we can make clear that his potential electoral strengths may just be starting to come into play. It seems the more voters know him, the more they like him.
Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the #3 political book of 2004 by the History Channel and the American Book Association. His previous books include Soul of a Citizen: Living with Conviction in a Cynical Time. See www.paulloeb.org
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
79 Comments so far
Show AllSo, Obama voted to INCREASE the military budget? That's not good, is it? But would he have a chance at getting elected if he didn't?
He's better than Clinton or McCain, but I agree with whoever it is on this site that keeps pushing the Green Party: we've got to get as many of them into as many political offices as we can.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out Common Dreams has endorsed Sen. Obama without saying it. I too would prefer Obama (although I will not vote for him) over Hillary.
Wasn't even that long ago Clinton was parading around in Iraq with Sen. John "100 Years-War-Cool" McCain touting the "success" of the surge.
Take your pick Tweedle Dee or Dweedle Dum, not really that much difference. Disagree? Check out their voting records on the war and get back to me please.
Vote your conscience and vote 3rd party.
Look at all the stories on Barak Obama on the main page. The only time Hillary Clinton is mentioned is with Barak Obama in the headline.
Wow. I think the Common Dreams staff is for Barak Obama.
Sean Gonsalves:
"Understanding The Obama Surge"
"Obama Receives Official SEIU Endorsement" at the top of the main page with his picture.
John Nichols:
"Harlem Mystery: Did Rangel's District Go for Barack Obama?"
FRIDAYS 1st Story:
Barbara Ehrenreich:
"Unstoppable Obama"
Robert Kuttner:
"Obama's Voice, Edwards's Message"
Cynthia Boaz:
"Buffy the Cynicism Slayer: Behind the Obama Phenomenon"
Friday - 14 stories not counting headlines 3 stories on Barak Obama, no stories with Hillary Clinton's name in it. Hmmmm.... democracy? It seems more like "fair and balanced." lol
THURSDAY STORIES:
Paul Rogat Loeb:
"Behind Obama's Wave of Victories: The More They Know Him…"
Jim Goodman:
"Clinton, Obama Must Answer to Farmers"
TUESDAY:
Tom Hayden:
"Death of Reform, Birth of Reform: Clinton Democrats Face the Obama Future"
Listening to National Propaganda Radio this morning "the praise and adoration of Barak."
I feel like the left and the Democrats are force feeding me the wonderfulness of Barak, and the more they do this with little substance to his speeches, and the more people get frenzied about him, the more I worry.
Should Common Dreams be acting like the liberal version of Faux News?
Cause that is what I am beginning to feel agitated about. I feel like everyone around me is chanting and swaying together and that kind of behavior scares me...
Liberals can be just as manipulative through the media using marketers, pollsters, sociologists, psychologists, etc., and as conservatives, and it is my opinion, albeit humble, that we should as Democrats, Libertarians, and Liberals, have higher standards and not engage in the same type of psych-ops through the media as the Republicans do.
Yes Common Dreams, I am saying that I am feeling manipulated (not only by this site) and I don't like it. I am not saying you are using psychops. But you do have the power through placement of stories and photos to manipulate subtly. I like this site so much and have such a high regard for the ideas and ideals that are shared here, I guess that is why I am saying something on this site.
an agitated planetary sister.
http://thomas.loc.gov/
This is Library of Congress website
has a function which shows legislation by Senator
For example
gov10. S.115 : A bill to suspend royalty relief, to repeal certain provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal certain tax incentives for the oil and gas industry.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Finance
Latest Major Action: 1/4/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Paul, when you write
"I don't buy the Obama people here who say 'look at the positions on his web site'. For crying out loud, I can whip up a web site that'll promise a chicken in every pot (tofu in my case), a world without crooks, the scourges of war and famine elimated, single-payer health care and alternative energy for all, etc. Hell, I can whip up better positions that Obama this morning if you want."
Do you say this about the positions of Clinton, or of Edwards when he was a candidate? If not, why not? Is your criticism here focused on the position papers of Obama only or on those of all candidates of whom Obama (being a candidate) is by definition included? If the former, why?
Have you read Obama's positions and position papers or are you discounting them sight unseen? Do you discount all candidates' published position papers on the issues as meaningless on the grounds that you could write better ones? Or only Obama's?
Looks kie Obama has sponsored some good bills (admittedly without knowing the details about them to be able to say for sure). The titles sound nice: As a state legislator, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws. He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare.
What I am saying is that while he has been in the senate he has not confronted the bloated military budget that I know of. To the contrary, I have heard he wants to increase the size of the military which of course will require even more money. Seeing as the military eats up around half of every tax dollar and we spend more on defense than the rest of the world put together it is curious he remains silent on this issue, one of the most important issues of our day. Unless we confront this monster it will eat up all the programs that help people not kill them.
Lobo Gris February 15th, 2008 3:12 am
That post was funny!
During the first - 8 - eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced
233 regarding health care reform,
I don't know that much about writing bills, but man that must have one bunch of F%&ked up bills if he needed 233 of them. The devil is in the details. Writing a bunch of bills doesn't shed light. Republicans can boast writing a bunch of bills too. One good bill trumps 820 bad ones. How about one bill to cut the defense budget not increase it. On that one he's no where to be seen.
Re Obama advisors....they're mainstream but overwhelmingly people who opposed the war--an excellent sign
See
www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/hillary-heeds-hawks-how-_b_85853.html
For a dozen reasons why this former Edwards voter is backing Obama, see
www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/31/6747/
Of course we'll have to push him if he's in office, but at least he's focused on building citizen participation, which is what most of us are about
And I also recommend reading Dreams For My Father--it really is a powerful book ...
areader: Great points. And the crux of the problem is that our current socio-economic and political ills, while manipulated by personalities, are probably mainly structural/endemic in scope. Mere personality won't bail us out.
The problems that put Bush into office, and allowed him to operate virtually without challenge, will largely remain after he leaves office.
Anniesee -
I absolutely agree with you. If people really wanted Change, or wanted Real Change, why weren't they supporting Kucinich or Edwards?!
All along, I could not understand why there were not more people for Edwards if they really wanted a progressive agenda. Both Obama and Hillary are pretty mainstream. They both have agendas that seem afraid to do what is really needed. I guess if you talk real change, you get yanked.
I am with the guy who just does not have a good feeling about Obama. Something bothers me also. It is too much like a cult of personality. It's like he is the Democrats' answer to Reagan and Bush, both 'personalities'.
* Before voting, do some reading (Compromised) and researching (googling) first. Here is a starting point.
http://www.fourwinds10.com./siterun_data/government/fraud/us_government/news.php?q=1202852702
I don't buy the Obama people here who say "look at the positions on his web site". For crying out loud, I can whip up a web site that'll promise a chicken in every pot (tofu in my case), a world without crooks, the scourges of war and famine elimated, single-payer health care and alternative energy for all, etc. Hell, I can whip up better positions that Obama this morning if you want.
The guy missed a lot of votes in 2007, has been thick on platitudes and weak on substance.
There will be a few things that'll define his credibility as a genuine agent of change:
1. Whether his VP running mate is another Lieberman-esque crypto-neocon. If so, we know who controls Obama.
2. Any name drops for cabinet positions, his advisors, etc.
Personally, I'm looking for deep thinkers, ethicists, hard-hitters like Nader, etc.
If we find the same old batch of scoundrels, well-connected fundraisers, AIPAC lobbyists, nuclear lobbyists, corporate handlers, etc. then we'll know -- well before November -- that Obama is the same ol'. Might as well have a third term of Bush. Won't be the first (or last!) rule he's broken. In fact, if they pushed the country just a little further over the brink we might have a stab at a real opposition emerging.
If Obama isn't the real McCoy, we really don't want him -- he'll be delaying it, rather than facilitating its transition. Again, I'm not being "cynical" here. This is a sober/skeptical analysis of 150+ years of strictly Republicrats in the White House. Has it led us forward? Or backward in some alarming ways?
The very existence of "superdelegates" is an outrage!!! It is completely undemocratic and needs to be abolished. Those who arrogantly presume that some individuals are better qualified to vote and give those persons the same voting authority as many thousands or ordinary voters do not believe in the democratic process and should be pumping gas rather than participating in politics. It is unAmerican and undemocratic..... it is in effect a treason against the people of America and the very concept of a government of, by and for the people as conceived by our founders. Both parties have tricks up their sleeves to allow the bigwigs to dominate the process. Then they piss and moan about poor voter turnout and "apathy". Every American's vote should count the same both in the primary and general election, and delegates to the convention and the electoral college need to vote proportionally..... to do otherwise is to disenfranchise many of the voters.
LET THE VOTERS DECIDE..............!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No matter where one is on the political spectrum, one should not get too caught up in campaign tactics. Obama's campaign is obviously a Democratic version of Reagan's campaigns, all vague and full of hope. That is a tactic, one that was successful for Reagan and has been so far successful for Obama, and has nothing to do with policy positions. Based on voting records and stated policy positions, when compared with other Democratic US Senators, Obama is one of the more progressive members of the party, which does not give progressives too much reason for hope, but at the same time does not completely extinguish hope as the other remaining serious candidates do.
On a more positive note, this particular campaign tactic could excite and appeal enough common people to free Obama to some degree from the ties he, like virtually all other Washington politicians, has to the entrenched plutocrats. It is unlikely, but stranger things have happened in politics.
"Can someone tell me what's so inspirational about Obama's message? I'm still trying to figure out what the CHANGE is going to be once he enters the White House. . ."- - Spartanladkenny
As Barbara Ehrenreich says: You don't bother to check the weather when you're jumping out of a burning house.
Obama has never been convicted of a crime.
Bill Clinton has been impeached.
Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War.
"I did though at least expect him to correct the false statements he made when he was trying to protect the Presidency. Instead, he talked about it as though I had laid it all out there for the taking. I was the buffet and he just couldn't resist the dessert."- Monica Lewinsky
http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2004-06-25-lewinsky-clinton_x.htm
"When I think of the person that I thought was Bill Clinton, I think he had genuine remorse. When I think of the person that I now see is 100 percent politician, I think he's sorry he got caught."- Monica Lewinsky
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/04/lewinsky.interview/
"All of us have heard this term 'preventative war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time… I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing." - Dwight D. Eisenhower
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower
"As Blair has said, in war there will be civilian was well as military casualties. There is, too, as both Britain and America agree, some risk of Saddam using or transferring his weapons to terrorists. There is as well the possibility that more angry young Muslims can be recruited to terrorism. But if we leave Iraq with chemical and biological weapons, after 12 years of defiance, there is a considerable risk that one day these weapons will fall into the wrong hands and put many more lives at risk than will be lost in overthrowing Saddam." -Bill Clinton, March 18, 2003
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,916233,00.html
"If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power."- Dwight D. Eisenhower
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower
"During a campaign swing for his wife, former President Bill Clinton said flatly yesterday that he opposed the war in Iraq "from the beginning" - a statement that is more absolute than his comments before the invasion in March 2003."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/us/politics/28clinton.html
"Clinton: I didn't think I was voting for the war"
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/31/clinton_i_didnt_think_i_was_vo.php
"Hillary Clinton on Iraq"
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4802
The Washington State Caucus was unique in that it was not simply latte sipping uber liberals. The variety that attended was unusual. I sat next to a woman who always voted Libertarian or Republican.
I do have concerns about Obama. One of them is that he won't do anything about our huge military spending budget. I think we need to shut down bases worldwide, and stop having some idiotic war every 20 years. Militarism is almost a religious way of thinking in this country. Frankly I'm sick of it. Obama needs to open the Black Budget in both the Pentagon and the CIA. How can you have a free society when you have a group of people doing unknown things and who are not accountable to the people?
On the other hand, why is Obama appealing to the right wing? Hillary tried to be more conservative to appeal to the Republicans. Obama did not even bother. Like militant liberal says it's time to be more aggressive not less. Bipartisanship just means liberals bowing down to fascists. They need to stop that. It's time that this 30 Reagan march to fascism came to a halt, but not only that, it's time that we really reflect upon what our country stands for.
Additional, edit function didn't work
Your link doesn't work. It comes up as page could not be found.
Lobo Gris
yari February 15th, 2008 3:36 am
Thanks yari for posting that comparison. That is the type of information a voter needs to make an informed choice. The one thing that would make it better is if you would post as to where we could find and read the actual bills that Barack has authored and co-sponsored. Your link doesn't work, comes up as page could not be found.
Lobo Gris
This post is taken from barackobama.com
It is in the blog below the John Lewis article
2/15/Let's take a closer look at who's really qualified and or who's really working for the good of all of us in the Senate. Obama or Clinton.
Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term - 6yrs. - and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law - 20 - twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.
These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress www.thomas.loc.gov, but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you.
1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive. 16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.
There you have it, the fact's straight from the Senate Record.
By Ben Vos Yesterday at 10:11 pm EST
Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize.
(these refer to time in Illinois Legislature)
During the first - 8 - eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced
233 regarding health care reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.
His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded **the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law, **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, - became law, **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, - became law, **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee, and many more.
In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.
An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record according to some who would prefer that this comparison not be made public.
He's not just a talker.
He's a doer.
What is needed is a side by side comparison of voting
records on all important issues. I am working on it
Check out www.thomas.loc/gov.
jlover February 14th, 2008 7:07 pm
"TO THOSE WHO DON'T TRUST OBAMA…….CAN YOU GIVE ME 2 REASONS ?
1. He speaks in nothing but feel good platitudes. If I come up with a slogan like "yes we can" is that enough for you to want to vote for me for president?
2. As a state and then a U.S. Senator he avoids taking a stand by not voting or voting present when the tough bills are brought up. It's one thing to say you're against something it is something completely different to take an actual stand on an issue with your vote.
Lobo Gris
Paul Bramscher, when you write:
"There's no clear way to explain his sudden rise on the political scene. My theory: he was groomed 5-10+ years ago for the job of feel-good platitudes . . . The Bilderbergers or whoever they are know the script."
How about Obama in Chicago with some local backers just freelanced a run for the presidency, somehow got the formula right of framing images like a preacher giving an inspired sermon, and connected and started winning. On analogy with Huckabee on the Republican side who didn't ask anyone's permission, wasn't recruited, just started running and, for a brief moment, looked like he could win the thing. Huckabee has now receded, but Obama did not. Now Obama has overtaken Hillary and looks favored to win. Obviously along the way some bigwigs jump in to support a winning or inspired candidate for a variety of reasons ranging from noble to venal. But what evidence is there that Obama is not a Democratic version of the Huckabee phenomonen on the other side?
On Brzezinski, Obama has a rather long list of foreign policy advisers, and I almost suspect the requirement to be on Obama's list of advisors is (a) have a name, (b) endorse Obama, and (c) breathe. Is there evidence that Brzezinski has influenced Obama in any specific way, or is even on the short list of advisers Obama consults? Brzezinski doesn't seem to get quoted on foreign policy questions speaking for Obama; he's not part of the daily Obama campaign. I hope Brzezinski has no actual role in an Obama administration, and that nothing much more is going on currently with Brzezinski than that he bought his way onto Obama's list of advisers by being an early endorser.
Daniel David February 14th, 2008 3:19 pm
"For those of you who have gone into orbits of rage, the "sheep" I am talking about are not the CD posters or the left-of-Democrats critics of Democrats. I am referring to the Democrats themselves (us, for me, since I am one) as the sheep that need leading."
Like I said glad to see you classifying yourself for what you are. But if you are a sheep that needs leading, why are you trying to lead others? Shouldn't you just be a quiet good little sheep and follow?
Lobo Gris
This Rezko story is overblown. Unless there is evidence of crime on Obama's part (which no one has claimed) this is just another case of an embarrassing campaign contributor or backer. Every candidate has them. I doubt this story will gain much grassroots traction. If it does, Obama may need to sell his house and live elsewhere for symbolic distance, but a hundred million Americans fired up about "yes we can" aren't going to pay much attention to Rezko getting sent up on charges of crimes that Obama didn't do.
To those who say Obama is rhetoric without substance, this charge is, excuse me, bullshit. GO TO HIS WEBSITE where there are plenty of specifics and position papers, clear and explicit. The difference between Obama and Clinton is not in degree of specifics, but in style of communication to audiences, in which Obama speaks in images and vision. (It is working--look at how Obama connects. Look at how Obama frames issues. Look at the astonishing groundswell of support that has resulted.)
Three reasons to support Obama, very concisely:
(1) Republican control of the presidency is taking America into fascism. McCain is in bed with the present neocons and Bush administration figures bigtime--a McCain presidency will be the present administration continued (minus the disposable Bush personally)--the same policymakers, the same thinktanks, the same people. The fact that McCain personally may be only mad and not self-consciously fascist is beside the point--he will be enabling fascists in and around him bigtime. Also, control of the presidency is everything. (Congress is increasingly irrelevant by comparison.) The power is in the presidency overwhelmingly.
(2) Obama is not a fascist.
(3) Obama can beat McCain.
These three points are alone sufficient to back Obama.
No more torture. No more gulags. Obama '08.
to jlover "TO THOSE WHO DON'T TRUST OBAMA…….CAN YOU GIVE ME 2 REASONS ?"
http://action.dennis4president.com/forum/posts/id_2809/
Obama letter supporting Israel's collective punishment of Gazans.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4111483
Rezko though his wife helped Obama buy a home at discount by overpaying by $300k on the lot next door with a simultaneous closing.
Change what Change? The Republicans I know are gleeful at the prospect of Obama vs McCain.
When big Media goes easy on Obama and dumps on Hillary I wonder why - and go the other way just to play it safe.
MiMiCcS, Thanks for the link.
If true, looks like there is some serious dirt lurking out there on Obama.
Your choice is Obama backed by Brzezinski who will give you war in the Balkans and Russia and maybe China, and Hillary who is owned by Israel and Wall Street and will give you war against Iran at a minimum.
Obama will have to deal with his ties to Rezko, the MSM is keeping it low profile for now, but once Obama is established as the nominee the hammer will strike and he will get the Swift Boat treatment. Hopefully he handles it better than Kerry.
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2008/3507obama_shorthairs.html
McCain will probably choose Condi has his running mate, so maybe Obama will have Hillary as his (or a female born again hispanic, maybe Hillary can change her name to Gonzalez and find Jesus, it's sad that race, sex, and religion end up in play).
Dont overlook Bloomberg as the 3rd party candidate, especially if Obama takes the nomination. The Hispanics do not trust Obama, which does not bode well for key states like California, Texas, Florida and NY that he needs, especially if Bloomberg runs.
I still prefer Obama to Clinton, but there is no real change with either.
Read this:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/feb2008/obam-f15.shtml
The principal difference between Obama and Bush is of a tactical, not a principled, character. It is not over whether the United States must maintain access to oil and control of strategic territory, but over what methods should be used. Obama advocates a greater emphasis on diplomacy, economic penetration, covert action and political subversion, in combination with military force.
Good grief. "...had the chance to be seriously exposed to Obama's ideas." Whatever that is; hope?
Conclusion: Vote for Obama because he is winning.
Obama is going to be the next Reagan, do doubt. There's no clear way to explain his sudden rise on the political scene. My theory: he was groomed 5-10+ years ago for the job of feel-good platitudes while we continue getting hosed at home, and hosing others abroad. The guy whose job is to make us forgive and forget Iraq, Bush, the whole works. The Bilderbergers or whoever they are know the script. After a fiasco you need a uniter. After a tragedy you need heroes -- manufacture them if necessary. After a putsch you need facilitators, etc. All feel-goods, no substance.
Obama is following a script, no doubt. And I suspect I know where it's coming from -- because we've heard it several times before.
Do they know Obama is planning to increase the military budget? That's not change.
That he's for the death penality. No change.
Nuclear power is okay with Obama. What change?
Obama wants to adequately fund NCLB. If he was for change he'd scrap it.
Free trade? We already have that.
HMOs running our insurance? Okay with Barack.
Actually all these people supporting the BaRock Star DON'T know him.
I can see there are some nuanced tactical differences between the candidates. Many of you have pointed out these differences in post after post trying to justify your positions.
What if we come at these differences from another direction and that would be the economic system. Is it not true that this system has objective laws that have to be followed regardless of the party in charge. The law of competition and the law of maximum profit demands each multinational corporation find the cheapest natural resources and labor. It also means they must continue to develop technology regardless of how many people are put out of work. What is the first thing a corporation does when it fails to make maximum profit. It lays off as many workers as it it takes to regain a competitive edge. Any corporation that does not follow these objective laws goes out of business. I don't want to get into this to deeply for brevity's sake, but I just think we have to understand the relationship between the economic system and elections. Both parties have to support the economic system and this system can't give us peace, single payer universal health care, nationalized affordable energy, affordable housing, end to global warming etc. If capitalism could give us what we need. Why hasn't it?
Some folk's just never learn 7years of George Bush and they want another disaster named Obama--like someone said there will be million's of bumper stickers if Obams should win DON'T BLAME ME I was for Hillary.Obama all talk no substance.Do people not know that when Obama was a state Rep. that he voted PRESENT 118 times that is voting for nothing and you want this amateur for president?.In my worst nightmare Obama's wife is First Lady make's me sick to think about it.
The difference between the two is that HRC has already establishe a record as a war criminal while Obama desires to become one. Who cares!
In addition to having a father that is Republican, I have a brother that's a 24er (he's part of the 24% who think Bush is doing a good job). He has said that he can live with Obama but not with Hillary. With Obama, there's a chance (albeit a small one) that the US could be united again. That's another HUGE reason to pull for Obama.
My FOX-News junkie dad has said repeatedly that Republicans are pulling for Hillary to get the nomination because they know it's the only chance they have of McCain getting elected. That, in itself, is a HUGE reason to pull for Obama.
I don't know if anyone will be able to deliver what Americans are longing for...a united US..but I think that is why people are supporting Obama.
I think Obama will be our next president and I wish him well. Its going to be tough following Bush and his destructive policies. But people all around the world want the US to start again moving in the right direction...
The competitor is China ....and its an economic competition...
True for ye, militantliberal! ;)
I marvel for the billionth time how the Democratic Party shrinks from assertiveness, if that's not too tautological. Individually and collectively, the Dems project a universal milquetoastiness-- except when they're lecturing a recalcitrant constituency or scampering about in the jousting lists of an election campaign. But even then, it feels like a fitful, put-upon, synthetic assertiveness.
Obviously, I'm aware of the analysis that the Dems have in some sense deliberately acquiesced or yielded the entire balance of a zero-sum quantity of assertiveness to the Republicants.
This is why I distrust facile "third way" arguments. Bill Clinton also preached a superficially high-minded gospel of achieving a robust, constructive working relationship between parties and branches of government. Yet somehow his boldest, and most operationally successful initiatives favored the corporate sector, e.g. NAFTA, the Communications Act, welfare reform. He didn't do nearly as well with progressive issues, from nominating Lani Guanier to advancing the problematic issue of gays in the military.
And, as I've noted ad nauseam, icky social justice and government misfeasance issues such as the continuing pursuit of criminal activity in the S&L and Iran-Contra scandals was not only taken off the table-- it was ceremoniously carried to the sink and flushed away with the garbage disposal running.
I venerate Abraham Lincoln, who strikes me as resonant and authentic even from across the intervening centuries. But I'm wary of grandiose, faux-Lincolnesque appeals to reconciliation.
I'm suddenly reminded of a fragment from a "Good Times" episode, in the midst of a conversation on some forgotten plot point. Florida says to her husband, "But, James! Doesn't it say in Scripture that the lion shall lie down with the lamb?"
And James (John Amos) promptly retorts, "Yeah, baby-- but what Scripture don't tell you is that the lion is the only one who got back up!"
TO THOSE WHO DON'T TRUST OBAMA.......CAN YOU GIVE ME 2 REASONS ?
Hey, militantliberal. I agree with you on issues of mandatory Health Care and to hell with bi-partisanship,
but this belief of Hillary Clinton having a bandwagon --it sure as hell isn't happening in the caucus.
You win caucus by bandwagon.
Anyway, I agree on mandatory HC and to hell with bi-partisanship
Mandates are essential to get a Universal Health Care Act.
The fight for mandated health care for this country is essential.
Talk about saving the poor and misguided of the world serves a lot of lofty idealism.
It is much harder to be poor in America.
I'm tired of the feel-good consensus of compromise.
I want someone who battles in the trenches,
not buries me with promises.
Promises of the liberal's never-blooming rose garden be damned!
I cut my teeth long ago, and now I've hedged my bets.
Later,
Rob
I never really liked Obama more than Hillary, but I always loathed her more. So I'm glad to see voters tipping over her bandwagon. But other posters are right. Obama's message is mush. As for "bi-partisanship", forget it. I want mandatory national health care. I want an oil profits tax. I want the troops out of Iraq. I want Bush officials investigated, tried, convicted and executed for torture, illegal domestic espionage and war crimes, preferably in American courts but in international courts if necessary. I want a steep tax hike on millionaires and billionaires to pay for the war and social spending that we desparately need. I want the repeal of the Military Commissions Act. I want America open to Canadian drugs. I want amnesty and citizenship for 12 million illegal immmigrants not guilty of any other crime. None of that will happen with "bi-partisanship". Political struggles may end with a compromise but they should never begin with a compromise.
"I am going to be a lone voice on this one…
I don't trust Barak Obama. I can't shake it.
peace."
You are NOT alone on this one! I have never heard anyone put as many words together as Barak Obama does, and at the end of it says absolutely NOTHING at all. All gobbledy-gook.
Things are not looking good, at all regarding the coming (s)election.
Daniel David February 14th, 2008 1:32 pm
As many posters here have intoned for months, there is a LOT wrong with the Democratic Party of recent years, and it's hard to imagine anything better for it than to be re-defined for four or eight years by Obama's brand of wise rhetoric herding those (us) sheep back into a sensible pasture.
DD: That's not a pasture that's a barracks next to a slaughterhouse.
Wise Rhetoric indeed...from the people who gave us full IMPUNITY FOR THE SOCK PUPPET AND THE TELECOMS.
And yes, I want you to fill both Houses and the WH with DIMS - just so you can go to a death camp sentenced without trial or jury by A DEMOCRAT...
Yu keep given'em "the good news" - and tell them they don't have to do anything but vote in Master's rigged elections.
Happy Valentine's Day :)
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/Cmzm
Washington, D.C.
"We are not standing on the brink of recession due to forces beyond our control. The fallout from the housing crisis that's cost jobs and wiped out savings was not an inevitable part of the business cycle. It was a failure of leadership and imagination in Washington – the culmination of decades of decisions that were made or put off without regard to the realities of a global economy and the growing inequality it's produced.
It's a Washington where George Bush hands out billions in tax cuts year after year to the biggest corporations and the wealthiest few who don't need them and don't ask for them – tax breaks that are mortgaging our children's future on a mountain of debt; tax breaks that could've gone into the pockets of the working families who needed them most.
It's a Washington where decades of trade deals like NAFTA and China have been signed with plenty of protections for corporations and their profits, but none for our environment or our workers who've seen factories shut their doors and millions of jobs disappear; workers whose right to organize and unionize has been under assault for the last eight years.
It's a Washington where politicians like John McCain and Hillary Clinton voted for a war in Iraq that should've never been authorized and never been waged – a war that is costing us thousands of precious lives and billions of dollars a week that could've been used to rebuild crumbling schools and bridges; roads and buildings; that could've been invested in job training and child care; in making health care affordable or putting college within reach.
And it's a Washington that has thrown open its doors to lobbyists and special interests who've riddled our tax code with loopholes that let corporations avoid paying their taxes while you're paying more. They've been allowed to write an energy policy that's keeping us addicted to oil when there are families choosing between gas and groceries. They've used money and influence to kill health care reform at a time when half of all bankruptcies are caused by medical bills, and then they've rigged our bankruptcy laws to make it harder to climb out of debt. They don't represent ordinary Americans, they don't fund my campaign, and they won't drown out the voices of working families when I am President.
This is what's been happening in Washington at a time when we have greater income disparity in this country than we've seen since the first year of the Great Depression. At a time when some CEOs are making more in a day than the average workers makes in a year. When the typical family income has dropped by $1,000 over the last seven years. When wages are flat, jobs are moving overseas, and we've never paid more for health care, or energy, or college. It's a time when we've never saved less – barely $400 for the average family last year – and never owed more – an average of $8,000 per family. And it's a time when one in eight Americans now lives in abject poverty right here in the richest nation on Earth. "- Barack Obama
Healthcare, Education, and Minimum Wage
"I'll change our tax code so that it's simple, fair, and advances opportunity, not the agenda of some lobbyist. I am the only candidate in this race who's proposed a genuine middle-class tax cut that will provide relief to 95% of working Americans. This is a tax cut –paid for in part by closing corporate loopholes and shutting down tax havens – that will offset the payroll tax that working Americans are already paying, and it'll be worth up to $1000 for a working family. We'll also eliminate income taxes for any retiree making less than $50,000 per year, because our seniors are struggling enough with rising costs, and should be able to retire in dignity and respect. Since the Earned Income Tax Credit lifts nearly 5 million Americans out of poverty each year, I'll double the number of workers who receive it and triple the benefit for minimum wage workers. And I won't wait another ten years to raise the minimum wage – I'll guarantee that it keeps pace with inflation every single year so that it's not just a minimum wage, but a living wage. Because that's the change that working Americans need.
My universal health care plan brings down the cost of health care more than any other candidate in this race, and will save the typical family up to $2500 a year on their premiums. Every American would be able to get the same kind of health care that members of Congress get for themselves, and we'd ban insurance companies from denying you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. And the main difference between my plan and Senator Clinton's plan is that she'd require the government to force you to buy health insurance and she said she'd 'go after' your wages if you don't. Well I believe the reason people don't have health care isn't because no one's forced them to buy it, it's because no one's made it affordable – and that's what we'll do when I am President.
If we want to train our workforce for a knowledge economy, it's also time that we brought down the cost of a college education and put it within reach of every American. I know how expense this is. At the beginning of our marriage, Michelle and I were spending more to payoff our college loans than we were on our mortgage. So I'll create a new and fully refundable tax credit worth $4,000 for tuition and fees every year, a benefit that students will get in exchange for community or national service, which will cover two-thirds of the tuition at the average public college or university. And I'll also simplify the financial aid application process so that we don't have a million students who aren't applying for aid because it's too difficult. "- Barack Obama
Credit Card and Bankruptcy Law
"Finally, we need to help families who find themselves in a debt spiral climb out. Since so many who are struggling to keep up with their mortgages are now shifting their debt to credit cards, we have to make sure that credit cards don't become the next stage in the housing crisis. To make sure that Americans know what they're signing up for, I'll institute a five-star rating system to inform consumers about the level of risk involved in every credit card. And we'll establish a Credit Card Bill of Rights that will ban unilateral changes to a credit card agreement; ban rate changes to debt that's already incurred; and ban interest on late fees. Americans need to pay what they owe, but they should pay what's fair, not what fattens profits for some credit card company.
The same principle should apply to our bankruptcy laws. When I first arrived in the Senate, I opposed the credit card industry's bankruptcy bill that made it harder for working families to climb out of debt. Five years earlier, Senator Clinton had supported a nearly identical bill. And during a debate a few weeks back, she said that even though she voted for it, she was glad it didn't pass. Now, I know those kind of antics might make sense in Washington, but they don't make much sense anywhere else, and they certainly don't make sense for working families who are struggling under the weight of their debt.
When I'm President, we'll reform our bankruptcy laws so that we give Americans who find themselves in debt a second chance. I'll close the loophole that allows investors with multiple homes to renegotiate their mortgage in bankruptcy court, but not victims of predatory lending. We'll make sure that if you can demonstrate that you went bankrupt because of medical expenses, then you can relieve that debt and get back on your feet. And I'll make sure that CEOs can't dump your pension with one hand while they collect a bonus with the other. That's an outrage, and it's time we had a President who knows it's an outrage."- Barack Obama
Fair Trade
"It's also time to look to the future and figure out how to make trade work for American workers. I won't stand here and tell you that we can – or should – stop free trade. We can't stop every job from going overseas. But I also won't stand here and accept an America where we do nothing to help American workers who have lost jobs and opportunities because of these trade agreements. And that's a position of mine that doesn't change based on who I'm talking to or the election I'm running in.
You know, in the years after her husband signed NAFTA, Senator Clinton would go around talking about how great it was and how many benefits it would bring. Now that she's running for President, she says we need a time-out on trade. No one knows when this time-out will end. Maybe after the election.
I don't know about a time-out, but I do know this – when I am President, I will not sign another trade agreement unless it has protections for our environment and protections for American workers. And I'll pass the Patriot Employer Act that I've been fighting for ever since I ran for the Senate – we will end the tax breaks for companies who ship our jobs overseas, and we will give those breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in America."- Barack Obama
Civil Infrastructure
"For years, we have stood by while our national infrastructure has crumbled and decayed. In 2005, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave it a D, citing problems with our airports, dams, schools, highways, and waterways. One out of three urban bridges were classified as structurally deficient, and we all saw the tragic results of what that could mean in Minnesota last year. Right here in Wisconsin, we know that $500 million of freight will come through this state by 2020, and if we do not have the infrastructure to handle it, we will not get the business.
For our economy, our safety, and our workers, we have to rebuild America. I'm proposing a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years. This investment will multiply into almost half a trillion dollars of additional infrastructure spending and generate nearly two million new jobs – many of them in the construction industry that's been hard hit by this housing crisis. The repairs will be determined not by politics, but by what will maximize our safety and homeland security; what will keep our environment clean and our economy strong. And we'll fund this bank by ending this war in Iraq. It's time to stop spending billions of dollars a week trying to put Iraq back together and start spending the money on putting America back together instead."- Barack Obama
1messageofmany
I'm another in agreement with your view.
What puzzles me about the enthusiasm shown for Obama is this: if people are so keen for change of the kind he promises, why didn't they get behind Kucinich, or even Edwards when they had a chance? But they didn't - they let them fall by the wayside - and they were the ones who would have brought REAL change to the country.
I know part of the answer lies with MSMs determination to sideline and ignore Kucinich and Edwards, due to their own corporatist background, but the people could have overcome this if they are as keen for change as it now appears they are.
MSM has given them the go ahead with Barack Obama. It's good that there is at least one candidate they are allowed to enthuse over, and at least he's a Democrat. That's the best of it.
I have two Republican friends who are voting for Obama. They say it's about time for someone like him and they think he'll help unite the country as they're sick and tired of the manufactured divisiveness and the Reps being just out for themselves. AND they think McCain is nuts and they have nowhere else to turn.
I think this is probably one of the most level-headed attempts Paul Loeb has put out in months.
He is honestly attempting to distinguish the differences from the caucus and the primary systems
and how this might read into the larger Democratic party. Rather than take Tom Hayden's approach(CD, 2/12/08)
which is to structure the argument as "revolution vs oligarchy" --protest in Denver (!)--overthrow
the corrupt super delegates if you have too- dogma., Loeb attempts to argue Obama's recent votes
indicate his ability to reach the "traditional" democratic base that supports Clinton.
Loeb's main assumption is that with the remaining time line, and with more active management of the talking
points, he can get his candidate's message out. Loeb's argument is best supported by his belief the political
campaign momentum of Obama influences the decision of the voter. I don't know if this is entirely clear in the
votes, nor do I find the caucus system as a good representation of anything but those from the party willing to
participate in a caucus. I too participated in WA Caucus, and came away with a completely different summation.
Loeb phrased it, "if more people knew Obama, they'd like him."
I worry this is Personal identity. Policy isn't stressed, it's the appeal of personality and motivation. I equate this to the activist's
liberal ideology summed as such, "if we could teach the masses, then they'd identify with the world
more like us." I believe this represents a position of privilege, which many of us are all guilty of --some more
than others.
In all openness, I want my vote to count too. With only two main options left, I didn't go with Obama.
Less than two weeks ago, I camped with Clinton. Torn down the center over this, I also realize I don't
need to personally identify with her. It is because of Universal Health Care and her straight forward
political policy message. And while I don't personally agree with her every foreign affairs policy, I can
at least foreshadow some of the decision that will come down the pipe. At which time, I would think we
Progressive Democrats would successfully thwart a full scale war. At least with a Democratic WH,
the progressives are better suited to be represented (re: 1998 thwart Bill Clinton's attempt to invade Iraq;
re: Johnson resignation over Vietnam, Johnson's push for Civil Rights Act). Obama's foreign policy message
is open-ended and ambiguous, leaving room for much speculation on exactly how he is going to implement
his policy of liberal interventionalism. And much like the highly praised, and highly active, and highly
transient population of young Americans, he may just move on to some other state in 1-2 years.
Peace be with you,
Rob
casual_jabber@yahoo(dot)com
I just read a great line - and haven't read the most recent posts yet (time contraints right now) so hope I'm not being redundant. Representative Elijah Cummings - D of Maryland, introduced Obama saying this isn't a candidate, this is a movement. And really, that is what is happening. People are so excited because at last we have a chance to create change, we feel empowered. He is the catalyst, we are the change.
kathyodat
1messengerofmany, you're not alone.
As a committed iconoclast and cynic, I have a natural aversion to messianic politicians-- and don't get me started on simplistic slogans and full-bore happy horseshit. I believe that a demoralized and despairing electorate is eager for a chance to jump on any bandwagon that looks like a sweet chariot to salvation.
I remain bothered by Obama's exceptionalism, militarism, Zioncentric view of the Middle East, and pretense of being so transcendental that He will invite the corporate lions (and Republicant/neocon snakes and scorpions) to lie down with the lambs to form a post-partisan consensus.
My brother and I are usually in complete agreement on political issues, but he's become cautiously pro-Obama with reservations-- we both look forward to the Clinton machine finally rolling into the ditch, barring internecine chicanery. My brother, to his credit, isn't starstruck by Obama, but is more hopeful than I that if Obama prevails, he will indirectly empower the abandoned progressive constituency, and may feel ready and willing to dance with the progressives that brung him to the Oval Office.
I remain skeptical, but I respect my brother, and I grudgingly admit that this might come about. I'm not feeling it yet, though, so you've got company.
"Barack Obama, friend of republicans"
Susan,
My hope (sorry for picking an over-used word) is that Obama is "friend of Republicans" only in the sense that he treats Republican voters with respect, that is, he takes seriously whatever aspirations they may have that are legitimate ('legitimate' in his view of the world, of course) and not reactionary. Antagonizing well-meaning (if misguided) Republicans is the conventional way of doing liberal and left-wing politics, and which Obama wants to depart from. But this is different from (yet another) move to the right.
Kwan February 14th, 2008 1:53 pm:
Hey Kwan - when I was composing the post in question, I was going to write out a list of the why's, what I have done's, the discussions I have had with people who know alot about Barak Obama and are really passionate about his work and platform, the research I have done, etc. and even if I gave you all of what I "know" and you shared even more information with me concerning him, this gut feeling that has been with me for some time, would continue to happen - I can't shake the feeling that I do not trust him.
I told you I would be somewhat of a lone voice.
For those of you who have gone into orbits of rage, the "sheep" I am talking about are not the CD posters or the left-of-Democrats critics of Democrats. I am referring to the Democrats themselves (us, for me, since I am one) as the sheep that need leading. And I think Obama could lead us very, very well back to a more sensible pasture.
And the rest of the un-party-affiliated citizens (like some people who work in open shops getting benefit of union efforts but are too self-righteous to actually join the union) will just be darn lucky if it happens that way, since the left-of-Democrats crowd has yet to field anything of any political substance whatsoever.
yes, after years of the DLC moving the Democratic Party further and further into republican territory, Barack Obama, friend of republicans, is going to save the party ... yeah, sure ...
He and his followers may well kill it if he doesn't get the nomination ... but more republican-lite is not going to save "the brand" ... trust me.
Kathyodat said, ... "I see that people are far more ready to embrace a black man for President than I gave them credit for."
I've been watching Obama pick up more and more of the white vote as the campaign progresses, and it occurs to me that one reason (among many) why he seems to be a uniting figure is that he ISN'T black -- he's half-white, half-black -- and a perfect metaphor for reconciliation!
The exit polls, with their racial breakdown of the voters, are making me feel better about my country than I have in a long, long time.
Daniel David, I am not in the Democratic pasture. For me it's Obama or I'm out of here. Although I'm sure his coattails are as long as Hillary's are short. Super delegates, take note of that.
From what I read, very few people here say of the Democrats "My party, right or wrong". Now that's my definition of sheep.
kathyodat
Daniel david wrote, with clarifications in brackets:
"and it's hard to imagine anything better for it than to be re-defined for four or eight years by Obama's brand of wise [dissembling, meaningless] rhetoric herding those [leftist critics of the Democrats] sheep back into a sensible [i.e. imperialist, corporatist status-quo] pasture."
Mr. David, that's the most arogant, insulting, statement I've ever read.
Yep, Billary is riding on a wing and a prayer...
Still couldn't see getting very excited about Obama. He's just very fuzzy on substance like our liberals.
Our great liberal leader -Mr Dion- just did a 180 degree turn around flip-flop and now is supporting the extension the Canadian Afghan mission to 2011 (it was slated to end in 2009) perhaps to coincide with Obama's year and a half.. and then well circumstances change..the fog of war.. no, they're not bases, but rather encampments... and yadayada
And then for added liberal audacity with words, Mr Dion is taking issue with the Conservative plan because it doesn't nail down the end of the mission to 2011.
Hope you have a good comedic/"fake news" sense of humour 'cause I'm guessing you're going to need it... if Obama becomes president. And if McCain becomes president, elected by Nixon's 'silent majority' ...well that's one to drown our collective tears about at the pub.
Glen Goodman I agree with your observations 100%. I myself don't trust Obama much in terms of his agenda, but my distrust for H. Clinton is absolute. On the other hand, he is a natural politician, both in terms of his instincts and his likeability. Hence I would agree with your concluding statement "An Obama nomination presents some exciting possibilities".
Looking ahead to November, think also about the turnout that each would generate, both among Republicans and Democrats. Nobody like Hillary can unify Republicans (against her, of course) while depressing the turnout among Democrats. Obama on the other hand is generating excitement. Some may cynically laugh at what they dismiss as "Obama's platitudes", but inspiring an electorate is what makes you win elections. Obama is doing that, and doing it in a masterful way.
Daniel David February 14th, 2008 1:32 pm
"rhetoric herding those (us) sheep back into a sensible pasture"
Glad to see you classifying yourself for what you are David, just don't try to include the rest of (us) in it.
From what I've seen the posters on CD, present company excluded, have shown themselves to be anything but sheep.
Lobo Gris
Paul Rogat Loeb, great article. At first I was wary about the Republicans and Libertarians crossing over. I thought they were doing it to get an unelectable candidate nominated. Now I see that people are far more ready to embrace a black man for President than I gave them credit for. People are crossing party lines because they are responding to his message of inclusiveness instead of divisiveness. I think we see a man who can help us heal the breach. Who can help us find solutions that we can live with, and also, a man who gets things done. His message to all of us is, "Come along with me, come pick up part of the load. Together we can do this." We no longer have to sit around like abused victims, waiting for the next blow.
zazmo, one of the things Obama wanted to accomplish when he won a seat in the Illinois Senate but realized that with the present power structure would not happen, was, in addition to single payer health care, publicly financed elections. He said you need the right people in the Oval Office and Congress. We're on our way.
kathyodat
Sen. Obama should avoid flying in small planes.
I think that the worst thing you could possibly say about Obama is that there is an outside chance that he might be almost as bad as Hillary. That is no reason not to vote for him since we know that Hillary is every bit as bad as Hillary. One writer wrote that he (or she)didn't trust him. Do you trust Hillary? In a sense I do. I know she will betray us. I should say continue to betray us. Do you think when she reassured her war-buck supporters that she would continue the occupation that she was lying to them? Or to us when she implies she would withdraw? A Clinton nomination will be a disaster for Democrats and for everyone. An Obama nomination presents some exciting possibilities.
Could be worse.
Could be Hillary.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/04/6836/
Remember,
You can be enthusiastic now and cheer for Obama. But as soon as he gets into office a different game must be played. The politicians themselves also change their tune once they are in office, so as voters you must also anticipate this.
Obama is not a goal in itself, just a step on the way. Keep him focused on the reforms that have to take place and keep him accountable if he errs on the way or gets tempted by the power like so many have before him. If he loses focus, treat him the same way as you've treated Bush for all these years: with utter contempt.
Obama is dynamic and will definitely enlarge the democratic base. Clinton is extremely conservative and hawkish on foreign policy and has for expedience only changed her tune on Iraq in order to win the nomination. I look at her votes and her spirited defense of Bush's reasons for going into Iraq and I would never trust her.
1messageofmany-You don't trust him because? (honest non-judgmental question)
Can someone tell me what's so inspirational about Obama's message? I'm still trying to figure out what the CHANGE is going to be once he enters the White House although anybody after Bush will be a welcome change, even Huckabee!
the electorate's mode is very simple. first we identify the choice that the ruling class seems to like. then we find the choice that is least like the first one. then ...
I am going to be a lone voice on this one...
I don't trust Barak Obama. I can't shake it.
peace.
Daniel,
Recent years? When were the Dems ever an untroubled party? At Chicago in '68? When Reagan was among them? When LBJ failed to fully investigate JFK, and probably brought us the Vietnam War? The racist Dixiecrats? In the prohibition era?
As many posters here have intoned for months, there is a LOT wrong with the Democratic Party of recent years, and it's hard to imagine anything better for it than to be re-defined for four or eight years by Obama's brand of wise rhetoric herding those (us) sheep back into a sensible pasture.
It's good to hear people like this author so excited and supportive. We're all excited. People who have never voted before are excited. As Chip Davis wrote, and C.W McCall sang on the radio years ago (about truckers and CB radios), "We got ourselves a CONVOY."
And for those who remember that old 80's ditty:
"They even had bears in the air. So we crashed the gate doin' ninety-eight and said LET THEM TRUCKERS ROLL, ten four."
(Pardon my enthusiasm. I've caught the bug.)
Possibly same issue with Obama. We have a one-sided mideastern policy and can't possibly broker a peace there. We'll defend Israel in ways even if it spells our own ruin, apparently?
But maybe it's mainly about the oil, and Israel is along for the ride. One can never be sure which bedfellow is driving the show.
Hillary has to bow to AIPAC, and will invade Iran to get their financial support. Americans are sick of all the Middle East lies: yes, tiny Israel is afraid of the big bad Arab states, yes, oil is peaking soon and we don't have a replacement energy source yet. But can't we just talk openly and honestly about things, as though this were, oh I don't know, a *democracy* ???
Sorry, Americans don't want to kill thousands of Iranians because it's powerless President quoted an ayatollah saying 'the Israeli regime will soon fade into the pages of history'. Hello, we have the Internet now, we don't have to believe TV networks that try to bang the drums of War.
Hillary sold her political soul for an early lead in the Primaries. We don't need another Maggie Thatcher trying to prove she has balls by attacking people every year...
Hillary Clinton: a female Joe Lieberman with a wig on... No thanks.
'Our government is supposed to kick the candidates in the unfairly-high-spending political campaigns out of our election races' huh?
So you think Obama should be kicked out! I suppose a true Hillary supporter would think that is the only fair thing to do!
Hillary campaign has last I heard raised and spent over 140 million dollars over the last year, and has, up till recently, been based on large donations of the maximum allowed.
Obama has a reported larger number of donors than Hillary, and a larger percentage of small donors (like myself in that I make small donations to his campaign, $10 or so once a week when I get paid.)
And the press has been reporting on campaign receipts, and both candidates have reported happily about their recent donors' contributions.
Why doesn't Hillary open up her tax return like Obama has? (Personally, I could care less about Hillary's tax return, but I thought I'd throw that out there anyway.)
Obama '08. Hope and Change, not Splash and Bash.
Glad you changed your post zazmo intimating that Obama supporters are paid. I heard plenty of that BS from Repubs when publically volunteering for the Kerry campaign. You no longer sound like a plant.
One simple answer explaining the money in elections is that is the way the game is played when campaign ads cost money, printing costs money, transportation costs money in a long and yet compressed, state to state system.
I agree the entire system, not just the political system, is corrupted by big money. What do you suggest a candidate do in the mean time before we resolve and act to change the game?
Then again, maybe you are a plant after all.
Why is the progressive media saying nothing about how much Barack O-big-money's political campaign is spending? When president Bush's campaigns shattered the campaign spending records in 2000 and 2004, the progressive media screamed that he was trying to buy his way into the office.
Our government is supposed to kick the candidates in the unfairly-high-spending political campaigns out of our election races (i.e., implement adequate campaign spending limits.) Otherwise, the campaigns of the progressive candidates and the campaigns of the candidates from our poorer classes cannot get enough funding from rich people and corporations to win our election races.
Could it be that we, the working and just getting by poor, recognise that, unlike Hillary, he hasn't moved from dead poor in 1992 to a net worth of $60 million today?
She loaned herself $5 million -- I can barely lend myself five bucks. But in 2001 she and Bill were crying poverty, busted by years of lawsuits.
So, what the odds she'd create a system where people like us are doing better than, or as well as, people who went from zero to $60 mil in seven years flat?
Sorry, don't buy it. Nor do I support a hereditary aristocracy or domestic royalty. We fought a war of independence to dispense with monarchs.
At least with Obama we know we're getting someone who's been where we are, and doesn't expect the job as his due...
There is an online petition asking the DNC to choose the candidate with the most votes and delegates rather than take the chance that Washington Insiders will override the will of the voters with a secret "backroom deal".
Please sign the petition and pass it on to your friends.
Petition http://www.petitiononline.com/Superdel/petition.html