He's also moved into a statistical tie with HRC in Iowa. So yeah, alienating us might be the ticket to winning over them. And yes, it does make me fool dirty for supporting him.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ar9Rki_9H79o&refer=us
Feel dirty, feel like a fool, whatever.
I can't quite tell what his position on Social Security is from that article. It doesn't sound like he's calling for the privatization of social security:
He accused Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, of dodging tough questions about whether the government should tax workers' earnings above the present cap of $97,500 to help pay for Social Security benefits.
Whatever. I'm fine with Obama going weird if that's what's necessary to win. Black Adlai is still Adlai. And if doesn't help, great, the primary will have weeded him out.
If Giuliani is the GOP nominee, we're going to have a Dem candidate -- be it Clinton, Edwards, or Obama -- who tries to out-Christian him.
So, you know, brace yourself for the feeling dirty. You wanna be a yaller dog Democrat, you're going to have to feel a bit doglike, I'm afraid.
Black Adlai is still Adlai.
You mean an anemic campaigner who favors states' rights and loses presidential elections? Grrrreat!
It didn't bother me that the "ex-gay" gospel singer was singing at the Obama event. It does, however, seem pretty bad that he was there to talk about homosexuality rather than to sing:
At Barack Obama's gospel concert here last night...Donnie McClurkin, the superstar black gospel singer, decried the criticism he has generated because of his views that homosexuality is a choice.... He said his past statements about homosexuality had been twisted and he had been unfairly maligned.... "God delivered me from homosexuality," he added. He then told the audience to believe the Bible over the blogs: "God is the only way."
What to make of this? Did the Obama campaign actually not know that McClurkin was going to talk about this?
6: I mean a brie lib fave who impresses with his intelligence and decency but can't get the job done.
It's so much less horribly anxious-making to watch the Republican primary.
Surge, Huckabee, surge!
Am I wrong in thinking Osama will nudge Giuliani into the win no matter who the Democrats put up?
10: i find the locution "nudge into the win" almost perfectly ambiguous.
if x nudges y into the win, who wins, x or y?
10: I think so, but I couldn't prove it.
there is one upside to obama's gay-baiting:
it makes the baby sullivan cry.
10: As I've said before, the Republican-Al Quaeda alliance is both obvious and nearly unremarked. People who think the Dems are a shoo-in next time around aren't accounting for the Republican base, which includes Osama.
What can Osama really do, though? Produce a tape which Fox News will then report as evidence that the terrorists want Hillary to win? But they would report that in any case.
holy shit--
i'm realizing that i read 10 as 'obama', hence my 11.
scary. and i don't even *work* for fox news.
and i don't even *work* for fox news.
16: You're doing it as part of your "community service"?
Insert obligatory Edwards plug here.
the Republican-Al Quaeda alliance
There are one two many u's in this.
10: Yikes. I hope not --- a Guiliani win and I'm out of here.
There are one two many u's in this.
And several million too many you's.
15: What can Osama really do, though?
At a minimum, he can remind everyone of his continued existence and freedom. For reasons too perverse to contemplate, this will play in favor of the Republicans (as it did with Bush last time).
And if he's got the capability, next October - say the 11th - would be a very opportune time for him to blow something up.
19: That was just a test to separate the good Americans from you u-less Islamofascists. I bet you can't tell me without looking it up who won the World Series.
I bet you can't tell me without looking it up who won the World Series.
I can't, and I'm rather proud of it.
I had a thought. If Hillary is really as right-wing of a Democrat as we think she is, and the other two are so similar in their appeal and desirability as president, shouldn't Edwards and Obama be teaming up against her right about now? And if they aren't, does that mean that she's not all that different from them?
Whoa, this article on LaRouche is intense. Also, my dad and that Kronberg guy must have known each other.
Obama and Clinton isn't far apart. Edwards is probably not too different from them "in his heart", but there's a goodchance he'll govern somewhat differently, at least in his first two years.
Obama might be different from Clinton when it comes to foreign policy, and maybe civil liberties.
I think the differences between Obama, Edwards and Clinton are often overstated. I may vote Kucinich.
For reasons too perverse to contemplate, this will play in favor of the Republicans (as it did with Bush last time).
In the event of another terrorist attack would Americans turn to the Republicans as their only hope or would they turn against them, believing, like Mayor Daley, that the police are here to preserve disorder? I don't know. Probably they'd turn to them. But I'm not as confident/afraid of that as I was in '04. It's hard to look like America's only hope when you've got nothing but a decade of fuck-ups behind you.
Obama or Clinton still looks like the only real choice in this election (I love Edwards but I don't think he has a chance) and despite his clumsiness, Obama still looks like the better end of that bargain.
shouldn't Edwards and Obama be teaming up against her right about now?
Collective action problem. For the time being, HRC is protected by the belief of both of her adversaries that they have a shot.
See Terence Samuel.
[S]omeone needs to go after the Clinton juggernaut, and if you're Barack Obama, you're hoping that John Edwards, very soon, decides to chuck whatever caution he has left and go after Hillary the way Gephardt went after Dean in November and December of 2003.
Few politicians have deep ideals. At game time it's personal ambition. Ideals are marketing points and branding, though some people become closely identified with their brand.
Another terrorist attack should discredit the Republicans, but I don't think that the Democrats are capable of capitalizing. Did I mention that I hate Democrats?
Wrong as she is, Hillary would probablt capitalize best. Just another sign that militarism and empire are unchallengeable.
32: Terence Samuel is stupid. Edwards has been going after Clinton every day for at least the past month; Obama has adopted a few softened versions of these slams for his own. But they aren't getting major press right now, and probably won't until someone runs a TV spot taking a shot at Clinton. But short of running up to Clinton and socking her in the jaw, Edwards is certainly doing everything he can to go after her; the DC media, however, has been treating this as a two-person race for the last six months, and hasn't been paying attention.
Did the Obama campaign actually not know that McClurkin was going to talk about this?
Who could possibly have foreseen it?
I'm going to give Edwards some more money today. What the hell, right? It's not true that anything can happen in the early primaries, but it is true that something can happen.
a black performer who was "cured" of his homosexuality in an Obama event
So it was like a faith healing, or what?
Or did they do aversion therapy right there on the stump?
Wrong as she is, Hillary would probablt capitalize best.
Absolutely not. In order to capitalize on a terrorist attack, a Democrat would have to go on the offensive and make the case that such an attack is the GOP's fault. Clinton has shown every indication that she is unwilling to do this - she has stated before in Democratic debates that America is safer since the Iraq invasion, that a terrorist attack would redound to the GOP's benefit, etc. She's the last Democrat in the room who's going to push back on something like this.
Remember that the Clinton wing of the party is the wing that has been driven by cowardice and capitulation above all else - by the philosophy that conservatism is always more popular than liberalism and that in order to win Democrats have to tilt right. This has driven the Clintons' thinking on politics from before welfare reform up through Iraq and Iran. At a time when the survival of the party - to say nothing of the survival of liberalism and of democracy itself - depends on the reversal of any number of Republican narratives, the last thing we need is the return of a political clique who have always emphasized the importance of riding the wave over turning the tide.
39: I have no idea what they did to McClurkin, but every story I've read about "reparative prayer therapy" is a nightmare. Some of these people really are cultists.
41: 39 was meant to be a joke about the dangling modifier, but I bungled it, I suppose.
In order to capitalize on a terrorist attack, a Democrat would have to go on the offensive and make the case that such an attack is the GOP's fault.
In order to capitalize, this case would have to start being made in the media today. The connection between the Republicans and terrorism is not being made, however, in part because people like Edwards correctly deem this to be an unwise short-term choice. (This is the same mistake Edwards made in voting for the Iraq resolution.)
So yes, if anyone is going to be able to capitalize, it's going to be Hillary, because in the absence of a real change in the narrative, Hillary can always make use of the incompetence dodge, and argue that Republicans aren't sufficiently whatever to get the job done.
Stras, your antipathy to Hillary blinds you to her talents as a politician.
I'm for Dodd, at this point. I still think Obama or Edwards would be better presidents than Clinton & if either of them makes a move I could be won over (at this point I'm more pro-Edwards than pro-Obama). But there's no point to me endlessly vacillating between them--in the meantime, unlike Edwards, Dodd has a Senate seat & the ability to actually do stuff in Congress, & unlike Obama, he actually seems willing to try to do so. The chances of him pulling the whole primary field left on issues that are crucial to me seem like a better bet than anything else right now.
If Obama wants the votes of "people like me" he's running a truly bad campaign. I start off leaning towards you & in nine months you can't close the deal & fall to third place in my book? Unimpressive. I don't know what he thinks he's doing. If I voted based on electability, this would worry me.
Obama might be different from Clinton when it comes to foreign policy, and maybe civil liberties.
But it's not like those areas are important or in the fore, so who cares, right?
Stras, your antipathy to Hillary blinds you to her talents as a politician.
Her talents as a politician are directly traceable to her last name and her husband's rolodex. Clinton herself has demonstrated some terrible political judgment, and continues to do so - her Iraq vote, her continued defense of that vote, and her recent Iran vote have all set her up for the only clear shot anyone has of derailing her nomination.
And I fail to see how Clinton would best capitalize on a terrorist attack when her camp already assumes that (1) the Iraq war has made America safer and (2) the political benefits of such an attack would go to the Republicans. Those are assumptions that lead a campaign in that scenario to go on the defensive, because it takes away the only available means of going on the attack (i.e., attacking Bush's foreign policy, as Edwards has been doing far more aggressively).
45: That reads angry rather than snarky. Sorry about that.
44: I miss the "I'm against dumb wars" Obama. This new one feels weaker.
48: seriously. Why are they hyping a 2002 speech as evidence of how great their candidate is? It is a great speech, but it's 5 years old!
He has made some good campaign speeches but nothing quite that forceful & not in a sustained way.
all set her up for the only clear shot anyone has of derailing her nomination.
And yet, each of her choices corresponds temporally to her increasing strength in the polls - including among Democrats - and her increased perceived credibility in the media. I don't think that's a coincidence.
Your narrative seems to be that she started out with nearly insurmountable advantages that she has been frittering away. This narrative doesn't seem to be supported by any of the facts.
40, etc.: Clinton would say "I'd do the same thing, but I'd do it right!" She's been setting that up all along. She does have the capacity and temperament to attack people, which Obama doesn't really have
I don't say this as an endorsement of Hillary. It's a glum admission that we'll be in a place where Democrats have to outhawk the Republicans, and that the Democratic message machine is absolutely worthless.,
I found some old articles about McClurkin, before he became an ex-gay. Apparently his "promising relationship with a good-looking woman" fell apart because "he was so consumed with ministry." (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
51 is right. Clinton undoubtably has political talent, but as a president? A watering down of republican policies isn't exactly compelling. 8 years of fuckups and the best that can be imagined is a repub-lite president and a house mostly full of the same ineffectual twats we have now. What joy.
46: Okay, we have gone over this exact same argument before. It seems to me that actually winning elections is a better sign of electoral skill than "being on the same side as the majority of people", for several obvious reasons.
51: This is what I think, also. Emerson does not let his antipathy to Hillary blind him to her talents as a politician.
Clinton would say "I'd do the same thing, but I'd do it right!"
How does this work as a response to a terrorist attack, especially when she's on record endorsing Bush's foreign policy ("the Iraq war has made America safer")?
50: You're misreading my argument. Clinton has made massive mistakes that have opened her up to potent attacks. This itself represents a political mistake, and a huge one. That her opponents haven't made those attacks - or haven't made them in prominent enough forums - only speaks of how early it is in cycle. As for her rising popularity among Democrats, you should also note that polls show that most Clinton-supporters are ignorant of Clinton's position on the war. A high-profile ad campaign attacking her Iraq position can and will change that.
And remember that Clinton is going into 2008 with the same position on Iraq that John Kerry had in 2004. "I voted for the war - but not really!" "I still support the war - but I would've handled it better, trust me!" How well did that go over?
46: I'll add that when Hillary declined to distance herself from her Iraq vote, I thought that was a political misjudgment. I was clearly wrong. Her refusal to repudiate that vote looks very smart politically in retrospect.
57: This is dumb. In 2008, Clinton will be facing some Republican who has wholeheartedly supported the war all along, and Clinton will be stuck with John Kerry's "yes, but" position, while the GOP takes every chance it gets to make GOP look preferable to GOP-lite. How many times in 2004 did you wish you had a candidate who would just draw a stark contrast with Bush instead of whittling around the edges? That's not just because a stark contrast would be ideologically preferable; it's because a stark contrast would've been politically smart.
And by the way: to go back to ogged's original post, Obama is right on the merits on the Social Security question. Obama is talking about raising the cap on payroll taxes, which would make them less regressive while bringing in more income and taking care of any shortfall Social Security might face in the future. What's not to like?
58: I don't know if it's dumb so much as a different strategy than you would follow. Kerry got 48+% of the vote. Is the recent collapse of support for Bush and the Republicans worth 2%? Probably. Might be even in the face of a terrorist attack.
She's not going to win big, but she's not going to lose big either. It's just a grind-it-out strategy for her. It doesn't seem crazy to me.
60: `HRC 2008 --- not as bad as Guiliani'
Has a nice ring, doesn't it? Warms the cockles of ones heart.
So, wait, strasmangelo, you like Obama but think he's a nelly?
Has a nice ring, doesn't it? Warms the cockles of ones heart.
A win is a win is a win.
61: It's weird that I keep finding myself defending Hillary, who I don't much like, but I will say this: Policy-wise, the distance between Hillary and Rudy is considerably larger than the distance between Hillary and Edwards.
61 looks like it's going to be what drives my choice next year. It's certainly reason enough to vote for her, but it's also why the Democratic party is not actually the entity I look towards for representation in Washington anymore.
63: only if your sole political goal is "have warm body occupying position of power who is not crazy Republican". Not a worthless goal, but entirely insufficient.
35:Wrong as she is, Hillary would probablt capitalize best. Just another sign that militarism and empire are unchallengeable.
(Keynesian) militarism and empire are unchallengable within the (classical) liberal framework, because Americans aren't so stupid as to not realize why they consume 26 percent of the world's resources, why Osama attacked the WTC, etc and which demographic segment(s) would pay the costs of ending Empire. When you connect Empire to Class War, so the hedge traders and Waltons will pay the price for peace, then you may get peace.
Bring the war home.
When you connect Empire to Class War, so the hedge traders and Waltons will pay the price for peace, then you may get peace.
Then it'll truly be good night for Johnboy.
63: Except when it isn't, really. Sometimes it's lose big vs. lose small. I'm just cynical, I guess, and disheartened. But from what I see now, I have trouble believing a dem adminstration will do (or be able to) a decent job of undoing damage, let along making progress. Maybe a bit of progress domestically (but they'll fuck up health care, and immigration if they touch it), and disaster-light on foreign policy seems like a best-case scenario now.
I completely agree with pf in 64 though. A Guiliani administratioin would likely be an unmitigated disaster. A HRC one? --- probably just drag out the current mess and attenuate it a bit. It's tempting to wonder which is actually better in the long run but I'm not going to, as the answer might freak me out.
It doesn't seem crazy to me.
But it's not smart. If you're going up against a party that's adamantly pro-war, that's all about terrifying people into voting for them, you don't say "Well, I'm for the war, but maybe I'd tweak some things around," and run on that difference. Republican-lite is never going to win over the real thing, especially on an issue they own (i.e., fearmongering and killing foreigners). You can't win against the right on their rules. You have to push back and make the game about something else. That's what I like about Edwards: rejecting the "war on terror" label, saying "it's time for Americans to be patriotic about something other than war" - this is stuff that the Clintons would never say because they're too scared to do anything but play by a watered-down version of the GOP rulebook.
So, wait, strasmangelo, you like Obama but think he's a nelly?
What? Where did I say anything like this? Obama's my second choice - it'd be Dodd, but Dodd isn't a realistic option - behind Edwards. Ideally I'd like to pick Obama, period, because he opposed the war from the beginning, which obviously speaks well for his judgment and draws a greater distinction between him and any Republican he'd be running against. But he's frustrated me as much as he's impressed me over the last couple months. There's also domestic policy, where Edwards is more progressive on stuff like labor and trade, but I'd support either of them if they got the nomination. They both represent a shift to the left, and, hopefully, a break from the clique that currently controls the Democratic Party.
Let me throw out a question for the commentariat in general: if it was Lieberman versus Giuliani, would you pull the lever for Holy Joe? Because as wretched as he may be on a host of levels, Joe Lieberman would certainly be better than Rudy Giuliani as president. But at the end of the day, you get President Lieberman.
Except when it isn't, really. Sometimes it's lose big vs. lose small. I'm just cynical, I guess, and disheartened.
Or not cynical enough. If the choices really are "lose big" and "lose small," then "lose small" is the winning option.
But at the end of the day, you get President Lieberman.
I think you've framed this in a way that puts our difference of opinion in sharp relief. Yes, if presented that choice, I'd vote for Holy Joe, for the reason that you describe: "Joe Lieberman would certainly be better than Rudy Giuliani as president."
72:No, you'll get Giuliani. And I give Giuliani 60/40 this time
"In this sense, to pretend that we can struggle for an improvement in our living conditions or for peace, without affecting the foundations of capitalist power, is a mystification, an impossibility. Without the perspective of a massive, revolutionary political confrontation, there is no real struggle against capitalist war. Pacifism is a reactionary ideology used to channel the proletariat's discontent and revolt, provoked by war, in order to reduce it to impotence"
Also Zimmerwald Archives at MIA. Link on request.
ROTFL in disgusted cynicism. Carry on, bourgeois parliamentarians. Bye.
74, see the last bit of 69. The problem is that if you really don't believe the dems can actually get properly turned around with the sort of mandate that is possible (not at all guaranteed) now, you have have to wonder well, when? And then you have to wonder if the only way to do that is to give the reins to some asshat line Guiliani and let him drive off a cliff.
74: Most of the time it's more like "lose big" versus "lose really big." Or "lose really big" versus "catastrophe of historic proportions." I would love to be presented with the "lose small" option.
"...give the reins to some asshat line Guiliani and let him drive off a cliff."
Leave the driving to the fascist and you will end in fascism. Drive your own socialist self off the cliff, like Thelma & Louise. At least you will die free.
I thought I was gone.
I remember a lot of people's dire warnings about the looming peril of Bush in 2000, but I don't recall any of them being on the mark (maybe something generic like "they'll run up the debt again"). Which is to say that no presidential candidate brings with them a guarantee of "catastrophe of historic proportions" though they may all be capable of bringing one about.
Also, as long as we're talking in game-theoretic terms, I believe it's trivial to see that a risk-averse strategy is not always optimal.
This is dumb. In 2008, Clinton will be facing some Republican who has wholeheartedly supported the war all along, and Clinton will be stuck with John Kerry's "yes, but" position...
I couldn't disagree more. You're assuming that the country is anti-Iraq war and that's not true. In the latest Post poll, Americans were asked about the current stated policy of reducing troops to the pre-surge level of 130K by next summer. 50% said that was the right pace or slower was better. They're saying we hate Bush for bringing us a war that we're now against (even though we thought it a pretty good at the time), but his policy right now is the right one.
As a woman, Clinton has absolutely no choice but to be pro-war. It's such an overriding factor in any comparison to Kerry. Otherwise, men would not trust her to run a war. If she were any less pro-war, she would be hopeless to win the general election.
I believe it's trivial to see that a risk-averse strategy is not always optimal.
exactly.
of course, this leaves you thinking of your future in game theoretic terms, which isn't always heartening.
re: Iraq war.
What you fail to include in you calculus is that Americans do not hate war, they hate losing. As far as the American public is concerned if you are the candidate that says time to admit defeat and come home, well it's time to kill the messenger.
You're assuming that the country is anti-Iraq war and that's not true.
This is correct, and also unfortunate. It's also the result of a carefully executed plan of misinformation. There really isn't any good reason to pander to this.
84- Definitely unfortunate. Makes me despondent.
While I think that terpbball's 81 is mostly right - it doesn't take much additional questioning to turn those 65-35 anti-war polls into 55-45 anti-withdrawal - it misses the howling error at the heart of stras' ahistorical equation of Kerry's position with Hillary's.
What's funny is that his big complaint with Hillary on Iraq is that she agrees with Bush's policy. But, when he wants to show her losing to an R, he claims that she holds Kerry's 2004 position, which was that the war was a mistake, as was his vote against it.
Here, I'll make it real simple:
Kerry, 2004: Wrong war, wrong time [and I was wrong to vote for it]
HRC, 2008: Right war, wrong people running it [and I was right to vote for it]
Those are not actually the same position. And this is why - from a political POV - Hillary has been right not to repudiate her vote. I might also add - from a political POV - Hillary's position doesn't require the 75% of Americans who thought the war was a good idea in May 2003 to pull a lever that is effectively labeled "I was stupid." Instead they get to pull a lever that says "Don Rumsfeld was stupid."
I will happily take the money of anyone who wants to lay a bet on the first lever winning.
I think TLL is wrong. Americans don't particularly like war, but they can be talked into one. Once nothing particularly wonderful happens because of it, they turn on it. Americans turn on wars we win (World War One, the Gulf War) as well as ones we lose. The only exceptions (as stated canonically by Bart Simpson) are the Revolutionary war and World War Two.
All this assumes that whoever wins will have an agenda of their own. Whereas in fact there is a pretty good chance that they are going to be preoccupied with with the imminent highly visible and catastrophic loss of an army in Iraq -- and of the dollar's value -- as a result of the war the Bush is going to start with Iran. I say "start" because, you know, that's what this government does with wars. It doesn't finish them.
Again with the Imaginary Americans. oy veh.
There really isn't any good reason to pander to this.
Unless, of course, it's the only way to win the election. I would call that a good reason (esp. given the truly disastrous GOP candidates - there's not a single one I would trust with the country).
The way to avoid pandering to this would be to have been right, for the right reasons, in 2002. Then you need to spend the next 5 years using your stupendous rhetorical skills building the case for why your prescience proves that, not only was it not the voters' fault that they thought the war was a good idea, but that the stain disqualifies all Republicans from ever saying another word about this war or any other.
Or you could use happy-hope rhetoric and hope that everyone just wants to get along.
Walt, I think there is a sizeable chunk of Americans who love the idea of war. Or actually, they love the idea of Kicking Ass, which they have confused with war. And so long as this confusion is maintained, they love it. There is a (much) larger group that can be talked into it, far too easily these days (see Iraq). I suspect the `far too easily' part comes with sufficent distance from careful lessons about the downside.
90: Where's the lever marked `those assholes lied to everybody, and thend completely fucked it up' ? That's not happy-hope rhetoric.
I don't for a moment believe it's the only way to win the election. I could be wrong, but if I am it implies some pretty unsavory things.
Certainly after a terrorist attack in the U.S., but possibly even without it, I don't think a true peace candidate can win. Looking strong and tough is essential, possibly the most important thing. I think that Hillary can pull the toughness off at least as well as any of the other candidates.
That's not an expression of my opinion about candidates and issues, It's an expression of my reading of the U.S. electorate. Hawk voters are passionate, and doves are wavery.
My problem with Hillary is that beyond her toughness appeal, she sincerely supports a version of Bush's short-term and long-term Mideast strategy. I would hope that someone could be convincingly tough without endorsing the recent disasters (with a few quibbles).
I forget what the call it, the politics of elections vs. the politics of governance or something like that. When Democrats talk among themselves, electioneering seems to swallow up the substantial questions. This is one reason why the Democratic appeal is weak -- the appearance of opportunism and pandering. (Not that the Republicans don't pander and aren't opportunistic, but they've been pretty good about sticking to their guns on a few core issues (hawkishness and low taxes).
Back on the original topic:
Obama has pretty much lost me this week. The gay-baiting is bad enough - really, really bad - but the Social Security is even worse. We just won this war. For Obama to try to use SS as a cudgel against a fellow Dem is unconscionable - bad politics, bad policy, and benefits no one on the side of right.
To answer the "but he just wants to raise the ceiling on payroll taxes" argument: That's a perfectly respectable position. BUT it can only be stated after you've recited the catechism, which is as follows:
A. SS is not in crisis.
B. Anyone who says SS is in crisis wants to steal money from you and/or your grandmother.
C. SS is not in crisis.
D. Any conceivable shortfalls in SS can be resolved with painless adjustments, such as raising the ceiling on payroll taxes.
E. SS is not in crisis.
The Great SS Battle of Aught-Five is a perfect illustration of the Modern Democratic Party: They wanted to waffle and/or cave; the press told them they had to cave; grassroots progressives wouldn't let them; enough elected Dems came around to hold the line; they won a substantive policy battle on the merits, and were on the side of right. This is the most that we can hope for, but it's enough. We just need it to happen on more issues.
Where's the lever marked `those assholes lied to everybody, and thend completely fucked it up' ?
I'm of 2 minds on this. I think that peoples' aversion to admitting that they were dupes is awfully strong (think "face-saving"). But I also think that, with properly laid groundwork, this can be overcome.
Which really is just one mind - I don't think the former is unsuperable, but I think that, practically speaking, the train has left on the latter.
And, to be clear, I was contrasting Obama's happy-hope rhetoric with the strong rhetoric that I think was required - not just morally-justified and emotionally-satisfying, but actually necessary to make the non-pandering argument. Think about Merle Haggard's video that was linked here a few months back - that video could play above your lever; but what national pol could credibly claim it?
One thing I haven't seen mentioned here, but apparently Obama's anti-gay gospel singer has a strongly Republican past. You wonder whether Obama was set up. I hpe someone's tracking the guy; if he gets some grants or contracts, or a cushy job, under suspicious circumstances, we'll know why.
but what national pol could credibly claim it?
and theirin lies the (depressing) problem.
The only exceptions (as stated canonically by Bart Simpson) are the Revolutionary war and World War Two.
Don't forget the Star Wars Trilogy!
Strongly Republican past? Between being an ex-gay and a black gospel singer, he fit Karl's profile to lend his name to the 2004 RNC, but is there anything other than that?
And does anybody's leukemia really just disappear? He must have been misdiagnosed, right?
Isn't singing at the RNC "Strongly Republican"? What more would he have to do? He obviously has serious Republican connections, wouldn't you think? Or is it paranoid of me to think so?
Perhaps Republicans hire their entertainers blind, from a random, neutral pool, without actually talking to them face to face, or saving any contact information.
No, I think that the Republicans were trying to send a message of "black people love us / hating gays is good for them" in 2004 and so they were probably quite eager to associate a popular ex-gay gospel singer with their candidate. (Same rules apply to Obama's campaign this year, to be sure.) And that year, you didn't have to be a raving ideologue to accept an invitation to share a stage with the president. Quite the opposite, I think.
If Obama really is having trouble getting the black church leaders who hold power in some Democratic primary races to choose him over Hillary, sending a subtle note of gay-bashing might really help him.
94: But stras has this right in 59. It's a trivial issue, and it's a sideshow, but Obama is right on merit. Furthermore, he's staked out the position that Hillary will ultimately have to take (much as Edwards did with healthcare). So Obama gets to make the claim that he forced her to do it.
It's pretty trivial in all respects, but it has the virtue of being the right move, both politically and on merit.
102: Yep. I believe the technical phrase for this is "the politics of hope."
I'm not sure how effective stras's ideas on political strategy are, but I do wish that somebody had tried them.
103: But it's not trivial. The way that we (and by "we" I mean progressives, not Dems) won the SS battle - just a couple months after 11/02/04, one of the blackest days in US history - was by not conceding that there is a SS "crisis." Listen to Obama:
"If we have failed to have a real, honest conversation about Social Security, it will not get fixed."
Those exact words could have come out of the mouth of any anti-SS, anti-progressive demagogue over the past 10 years. It is, at heart, a lie. SS doesn't need to be "fixed" any more than any other long-term program - its funding may vary year-to-year, but this doesn't constitute a crisis, nor something that we need to have a "real, honest conversation" about.
Try this:
"If we have failed to have a real, honest conversation about the US Geological Survey, it will not get fixed." Why doesn't that make any sense? Because no one has tried to demagogue the issue. If, for some reason, there's a funding problem at USGS, it will get fixed (maybe not in the most timely or efficient fashion, but that's life in the Big Democracy). When Obama - or any Dem - uses right-wing frames and phrasing to attack a fellow liberal, I will object.
The funny thing is that stras, who views Clinton centrism as the most evil force the world has ever known, has no problem with this right-wing, plutocratic claptrap coming out of the mouth of a perceived Good Guy.
105: Well yes, Obama buys into a bullshit frame, but he offers a sensible solution to a trivial problem. Contrast this with Hillary and Iran, where she buys into a bullshit frame (Revolutionary-guard-as-terrorism-sponsor) and endorses Bush's bullshit solution.
Of course, Obama would be in a better position to claim the high ground on Iran if he had actually bothered to vote.
Well yes, Obama buys into a bullshit frame, but he offers a sensible solution to a trivial problem.
But he's not just making a trivial error of judgment and then quickly correcting the mistake by offering a sensible solution. He's ceding ground to the glibertarian policy wonks and the anti-gubment demagogues...and it's ground that he need not, and should not, cede.
The more I see of him, the more I am persuaded that Obama is every bit as centrist as Clinton...and on some issues, perhaps even more so.
My impression is that a lot of Democrats do actually believe that Social Security is in trouble even if they aren't in the habit of falling for right-wing lies. My parents were like that, and they would always tell a young me that Social Security wasn't going to be around any more by the time they retired. Apparently I'm not too far out of the mainstream in this particular case; a poll from this month found that 27% of Democrats think Social Security is in "crisis" while another 38% think it's in "serious trouble." Only 5% say it's "not in trouble." So there is plenty of reason for Obama to speak to the majority of Democratic voters who think there really is a problem, particularly since he is offering a perfectly reasonable "solution."
The more I see of him, the more I am persuaded that Obama is every bit as centrist as Clinton...and on some issues, perhaps even more so.
Um, yeah. (I got news for you: so's Edwards.)
Oh SCMT, so knowing. Tell us idealists more.
Whoa, that came out about 400 times as sarcastic as it was supposed to be. I wish I could rephrase it as something completely objective.
106: Well yeah, it's a given that HRC is shitty from a progressive viewpoint. I meant to include that above - my defenses of her actions or statements are primarily from a "I may not like it, but I don't think it's dumb" position. If I reject Obama, it's for Edwards (or, at the moment, Dodd), not HRC.
This might be a good time to note that, in a thread a week or two ago, stras suggested that African-Americans and foreigners should hate WJC for his policies - a statement rather at odds with the reality that an actual African-American running for president is, at best, neck-and-neck with HRC among African-Americans, and that WJC is greeted by adoring throngs of foreigners whenever he goes outside the US. I suppose this is where the phrase "false consciousness" comes in....
104: Come on, Neil. If this nobody will do a job for Rove once, maybe he'll do another job for him later. I wasn't saying he had deep conservative beliefs, or any other beliefs, just that his phone number was in the RNC's file, he was eager to please, and they had a job for him.
So there is plenty of reason for Obama to speak to the majority of Democratic voters who think there really is a problem
But this is exactly wrong. That there is no SS crisis isn't some DCCC talking point - it's a fact, as Dean Baker has been telling us for 10 years. If a majority of Dem voters think there's a crisis, then Obama is the false prophet who should be drowned with a millstone around his neck for misleading the innocent (ignorant). The only message from Dems on SS should be "There IS NO CRISIS." It's the truth, and it's good for progressive politics. That's it.
I got news for you: so's Edwards.
Yeah, I got the memo. But on certain domestic issues, I do think Edwards is significantly to the left of Clinton and Obama. He's not afraid to say "union," for example.
On foreign policy, they're all the same. Not nearly as bad as the neocons, obviously, not actively dreaming of the guts and glory of destabilizing an entire region for the greater good of the republic....But bad enough, certainly. Not one of the three main Democratic candidates will commit to a withdrawal of troops from Iraq until at least 2013.
Of course, Obama would be in a better position to claim the high ground on Iran if he had actually bothered to vote.
I think Obama has lost me in the last week, but this particular one is unfair -- it was a scheduling fuckup on the part of Reid, who had told Obama that the vote wouldn't be held that day.
They would always tell a young me that Social Security wasn't going to be around any more by the time they retired.
I've been hearing repetitions of this line here and there all over the place, but always from people who repeated catchy stuff they heard without thinking much. Not necessarily wingers, just meme-vectors.
111: Totally fair. Looking at #109, it reads sort of jerky to me.
IA, for God's sake keep your quaint Canadian passport and get your kid one.
it was a scheduling fuckup on the part of Reid, who had told Obama that the vote wouldn't be held that day.
I don't believe that, and neither should you. He's a United States Senator, for god's sake. It's his job to know when the votes will be held. And given that he has billed himself as the anti-war candidate, it was all the more important that he be on top of this one.
I think he deliberately abstained, the better to give himself some wriggle room.
it was a scheduling fuckup on the part of Reid, who had told Obama that the vote wouldn't be held that day.
This shit pisses me off - not the initial error (shit happens) but that this becomes "an issue." Some sort of optics nonsense. I hadn't heard this before - that there was a good excuse for Obama - which only makes it worse. But, basically, this kind of crap happens all the itme. And even we tuned-in bloggy-types rarely hear the real story, even though we're certain that we know The Real Deal.
Makes me want to stop commenting here, and go watch a DVD with my wife.
I'm with JRoth 100%.
I always knew that Emerson is the purest distillation of Truth that we can handle.
I don't think a gig at the RNC is like getting a favor from the Mafia.
115: He's not afraid to say "union," for example.
I am at risk of being sucked into Tim's world of bitterness and cynicism, but IA is right about this, and it's important.
120: You sound like the nice Canadian customs official at the Ottawa airport who scolded me for not having filled out the paperwork to get my kid his Canadian passport (to which he is entitled). "You want to get the lad his papers, eh?"
116: Is that true? I didn't know that. What's your source? Can you fetch a link?
127 - Here's Reid tabling it on 9/25, before calling a vote early the next afternoon, after Obama had left to give a stump speech in New Hampshire. Here's Obama's statement at the time. I don't know whether this was game-playing on Reid's part or what, but if it was, I wish he'd fucking pull his head out of his ass and use his kung fu to try getting the Webb Amendment passed.
If there's any time when we shouldn't expect our politicians to speak brave, unpopular truths it's in the heat of a primary campaign. I care more about what Obama says about Social Security than how he says it.
I've been hearing repetitions of this line [SS is doomed] here and there all over the place, but always from people who repeated catchy stuff they heard without thinking much. Not necessarily wingers, just meme-vectors.
Definitely. It's a very believable idea, made all the more believable by the existence of politicians who want to dismantle it. I mean, the liberal blogosphere not two years ago was generally very concerned about the future of Social Security, not because of demographic shifts, but still, concerned.
Look, Neil, the guy worked a Republican convention, and then a few years later shanked a Democratic candidate. After the guy had become an issue for Obama, he went on his anti-gay rant, making sure that the issue didn't dwindle away. (In what sense is the Republican unlike the Mafia, incidentally? Really, your incredulity on this point is ludicrous.)
The nice Canadian was right, IA.
Two years ago we (the leftwing blogosphere) were very concerned about wrongheaded high-level attacks on social security, but we fought them off. We were not concerned about Social Security's fiscal state; JRoth has explained that. Obama said things reminiscent of the wrong-headed attacks.
Good on Obama for announcing opposition to Mukasey, though. (I can only hope someone at hq is thinking: hmm....maybe one of these days we can actually try to be a day AHEAD of Dodd on one of these issues).
Shanked a Democratic candidate? I'm quite sure he said and did just what Obama's campaign expected him to. It certainly is a stretch to say that nobody could have imagined he would've said that stuff. It's pretty much his shtick.
In what sense is the Republican [National Committee] unlike the Mafia, incidentally?
I'm with Emerson on this point. Delay and Hastert were thuggish capos, Rove more like a consigliere, the rank and file clambering up the corpses to get the kiss and the initiation, the made men knowing they'll be taken care of if a deal gets too hot....
I see no reason for Obama to have wanted that during the primaries. How much has it helped him? My belief is that he expected the guy to play it cool.
Black Democratic voters generally don't like gay people much (an important factor in 2004, The Gay Election). It is these voters whose support Obama needs to win in the next couple of months if he's to get the nomination.
And of course, some votes from the 70% of Democrats who think Social Security is in trouble would help too.
Ogged, you've missed the mark on this one, and you may have slipped in my esteem.
Some of the people who slapped on the bumper stickers and began wearing the t-shirts months ago for Obama's campaign are upset. Some of the people currently contributing to Obama's campaign are upset. My personal beliefs on the subject are simply my own, and no matter how fervently I hold on to them, they may never shift another person to my way of thinking. It doesn't invalidate them. They are my personal beliefs.
I didn't like my preferred candidate going on a gospel tour to raise money for the campaign I support, but I'm pretty sure Barack doesn't think the world is only a few thousand years old like Governor Huckabee. I don't think the office of faith based initiatives is going to last under an Obama presidency, and I don't think I'll see the world in the same light as every single member of his cabinet, should he be so fortunate. Still, I believe in the audacity of hope beyond my own self-righteous indignation.
Neil, I'm starting to wonder about you. I sense mad-dog rationality -- or worse.
To wit, in July 2006, 74% of black Protestant voters were opposed to gay marriage, compared to 56% in the population at large and about 50% among Democrats. Also, 52% of black Protestants said homosexuality is a choice, more than any other subgroup.
Anyway, I thought you were the one going on about how Democrats should capitalize more. This is capitalizing, isn't it?
Neil, you're increasingly nuts. I've been saying that Democrats should capitalize more on the actual crimes and errors of the Republicans, not that they should use Republican talking points against one another. Are you literate? Who the fuck are you, anyway?
Obama's just doing what he needs to do to win the election. Isn't this exactly why you hate Democrats, Emerson? I know it's why I do. Someone who's as out of step with American public opinion as I am shouldn't be voting for any popular candidate.
Obama said things reminiscent of the wrong-headed attacks.
But this is merely a Pavlovian reading - Obama uses words that sound like Bush's words, and therefore he's a bad guy. The problem with this analysis is that it doesn't speak to Obama's actual motives, nor does it consider the effect of his statements.
Republicans were very shrewd awhile back in adopting anti-racist rhetoric. But the Republican denunciations of racism - adopting the frame of the liberals - allowed them to pursue racist policy goals.
Similarly, Obama adopts the dopey Republican/media frame on Social Security - but uses it in support of progressive taxation. Nothing wrong with that.
An amendment to 142. The phrase Nothing wrong with that is hyperbole on my part. There is something wrong with accepting bullshit Republican frames. Likewise, the Republicans were conceding something important when they decided that too-overt racism was bad politics.
But Obama here is conceding a minor point on an issue that the good guys have already won, and he's doing so in the service of a wise and reasonable goal - progressive taxation.
To jump back to JRoth's 94 for a second:
D. Any conceivable shortfalls in SS can be resolved with painless adjustments, such as raising the ceiling on payroll taxes.
Curiously enough, raising the ceiling on payroll taxes is exactly what Obama called for in regard to SS this week. As I said umpteen posts ago, this would both make payroll taxes less regressive and provide more income for Social Security. That's why "stras, who views Clinton centrism as the most evil force the world has ever known, has no problem with this right-wing, plutocratic claptrap coming out of the mouth of a perceived Good Guy" - because it isn't right-wing plutocratic claptrap at all. It's a standard left-liberal solution to a possible future SS shortfall, the same sort of solution, incidentally, which has been proposed by such crazed right-wing demagogues as Paul Krugman.
I didn't mean to give the impression that I don't think educating the American people about the truth when it comes to Social Security is an important goal. I just question whether Obama as candidate in a looming election is the right person to speak this truth. (And like stras says, it's more important that he endorse the correct conclusions than that he strike the correct tone in doing so.)
I would expect more out of newly-elected President Obama and certainly hope he wouldn't follow his predecessors' lead of staying in campaign mode throughout his entire term. I'm afraid that rational choice theory may suggest that he will, though.
and he's doing so in the service of a wise and reasonable goal - progressive taxation.'
Well, okay. But then, he needs to actually say that. He needs to point out that even a modest increase in the social security earnings cap would easily eliminate any real or perceived funding gap. Pay up! you latter-day robber-barons, and pay out just a laughably tiny fraction of your altogether all-too-extravagant incomes so that the poor pensioners don't starve or freeze to death in their miserable hovels (or maybe just in their apartment units, but well, you know).
I don't hear him saying that. I do hear him repeating and recycling some tired old GOP talking points, in the hope of hitting at Hillary.
146: And what will the effect of those talking points be? Bush's privatization plan has been dead since 2005, so it's not like there's an active GOP effort to gut Social Security that Obama's fueling. And if Obama or another Dem gets elected president and there's pressure to fix a possible future shortfall because of something Obama said in the primary, better that something be done about SS while a Democrat is in the White House, so it comes in the form of raising payroll tax caps instead of as a monstrous privatization scheme. If a Republican gets elected president, will something Obama said in the primaries really make that much of a difference in swaying support for destroying SS? I seriously doubt it.
It's good to pay attention when Dems seem to be mouthing Republican talking points (although in this case Obama's tone was more Broder than Bush), but context matters. When the top three Democrats all insist that "all options are on the table" with Iran, that's a lot more worrisome, because there actually is significant support within elite Democratic circles for military action against Iran, and it's hard to tell from that soundbite whether a candidate is pandering or being genuinely trigger-happy. With Social Security, though, we've seen a partywide unity that is absolutely astonishing (and that only underscores the moral bankruptcy of the party in its sheer failure to get anything close to unity on fundamental principles of democracy and civil liberties). No one from the New Republic or the DLC is pushing for a privatization plan; there's no real ambiguity about what a President Obama would do with Social Security. And in fact he clears up any ambiguity by endorsing lifting the payroll tax ceiling.
SS will get 'fixed' by a bipartisan agreement when there is divided government in 20 years. trying to do something now is such a pissing away of political captial.
139: how much of that is iran-like defition of 'gay' meaning 'out' as opposed to 'has sex with men'
Sometimes i think Obama's biggest problem is that he's used to being well-liked.
Hillary is the only person who can lose this'un. Realistically, going by the data, we're kicking off with a bigger voter base; so if the candidate does anything that mobilises both sides equally, we get a bigger payoff. (if you assume the baselines are 35 to 25, 10% greater mobilisation is a 3 to 2 gain for the good guys)
But she's the asymmetric demobilisation candidate; Hubert Humphrey 2.0. She'll probably reduce turnout on our side, but the 25 per centers really hate her and will be riled up, in which case the maths works in the opposite direction.
I don't like anybody buying into the "social security crisis" frame even rhetorically. Regardless of their solutions.
By getting into this race, Obama split the left opposition to Hilary and made her nomination significantly more likely. I think it was an ego move.
You should have seen him prevaricating about SS during the Republican push to change it, in the spring of '05.
I saw him and Durbin and Schakowsky up close and dealing with it. Confirmed the impression I was already forming then, that I liked Durbin a lot, and not Obama so much, that his non-partisan moments would come at the most exasperating times, that we couldn't depend on him.
Red State Update weighs in.
"LGBT, Jackie. Lesbians. Gays. Bears. Twinks."