Who are the Obamans?
2008 is closer than it appears, and Obama's position as the "exciting unknown quantity" of the race has been confirmed by this morning's poll numbers which show him whacking 10% out of Hillary's support, plus bits and pieces out of the third tier. He nicks Gore, but otherwise does not touch Kerry and Edwards - whose cores of support are much more solid.
The risk for Hillary is clear - as is the advantage. Obama sucks the oxygen out of any other unHillary - one that, say, has a ground organization and national campaigning experience. On the other hand, Obama exposes the center of Hurricane Hillary to increasing amounts of shear, and exposed storms can disintegrate. Hillary at 40% is a foregone conclusion. Hillary at 35% is a prohibitive front runner. Hillary at 28% is a large target rich with votes.
Hillary's position is similar to LBJ's position going in to 1960. Everyone thinks he is inevitable. Everyone is looking for an alternative. Is Obama the JFK of this race?
First let's clear aside the tectonic nature of Obama's entry. The quest in this presidential cycle has been for an unHillary that could credibly rip into her core of support. Gore did that for a while, taking Hillary down from over 40% to the 30's. But Gore's problems - namely high negatives among the electorate at large - made his presidential road cloudy and difficult. There were too many public moments which had created, fairly and unfairly, an image of Gore as someone who would not fight when the chips were down.
The second secondary effect is that it creates an oxygen problem - particularly for the third tier candidates. Whatever it is that attracts people to the third tier, it is almost always two things: a resume item, or a single charismatic media encounter which imprints a person on the candidate as someone who can play the game of "Quadrenniel Media Feeding Frenzy" best. Obama has resume items that trump most of the others, and has the ability to make even right wing outlets eat out of his hand.
In addition to effectively ending Gore's roll as "the person who will shake up the race", it also ends the hopes of most of the third tier. As noted by some - the right of Hillary is where a good chunk of Obama's support comes. The people who are Democrats because they aren't Republicans, but who, like Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian, would be Catholic if only the Pope weren't Catholic. They proesteth, but not too much. Joe Biden, Bill Richardson and Christopher Dodd should simply not run. In Dodd's case he has the additional problem of being Joe Lieberman's lap dog, which means that he is going to have to run the race getting pounded for being a quisling idiot Bushnick. And that's when people are feeling nice.
For Hillary, the strategy is to grin and bear it. Which, everyone should note, is exactly what she is doing. This is the central point about Hillary. Hillary is smart. Hillary generally does the smart thing to do. She attracts people who know that supporting Hillary is the smart thing to do. Smart people, however, are not always beloved in politics, because there are a variety of responses - fear, loathing, envy, suspicion - which are directed at people who are always busy being smart. Politicians who are all head and no heart do not attract the same kind of fierce support that politicians who tug at the heart strings.
In this sense, at least, Obama is the unHillary. Obama is a smart guy. He has parlayed an easy election and vague nostrums into instantaneous cachet for a Presidential run. Rarely has anyone run on so thin a list of accomplishments and been taken seriously. Obama however, has one very important difference between how he does things and how Hillary does things. That difference is that Obama panders. Shamelessly, continuously and with every single sentence.
This is no small thing. The best paid daily writers are seldom the best thinkers, or the best writers. Paul Krugman is the only first class intellect who is also a major opinion columnist in the United States. Many others aren't even fourth class intellects. Many of them have a long track record of being wrong, dead wrong, and continuously so. That's not important. What is important is that they make their readers feel good.
This is the difference between Obama and Hillary, and why Hillary has problems with as the most disliked front runner in 40 years. Namely, she does not make her audience feel smart for following her, she doesn't make most of them - other than the soccer mom and their daughters demographic - feel good about her candidacy or her accomplishments. Simply put, Obama makes people feel visionary and forward looking. Hillary supporters, most of them, do not run around congratulating themselves for being Hillary supporters. In part, because Hillary, despite her reputation for being all about her self, does not spend time talking herself up. Obama congratulates himself continuously. He is the most egotistical politician in the Democratic Party after Joe Lieberman. He's "audacious", his god is "awesome".
People feel good about Obama, though, not just because of his seemingly unlimited self-love, after all - self-loving politicians are not exactly a difficult commodity to find - but because he allows people to share in that self-love. His love for himself radiates as us. This is, paradoxically, the royal "we" in operation. It is the self-love of Ronald Reagan. It can get people elected President, and keep them there. Bush's self-love aura, by contrast, extends only to a smaller range of people, but there was enough of it to push him over the top. But they aren't going to rename Dulles for him.
For this same reason, Hillary is not panicking. This is because Hillary understands that the media first builds up those people who float in on a cloud, only to turn on them and test that ruthlessly. She saw, up close, how a self-loving politician could be turned on, and the depths of personal destruction he would take himself too once forced into the bunker. The ground game is not conducive for floating - as Reagan nearly lost the ground game in 1980, only to be saved by a moment of egotistical self-love: "I paid for this microphone" cleared Reagan's road to the Presidency. Think about that. Reagan's first key moment was telling people that he owned the right to shout at them.
Having seen how Obama deals with people who are straying from his line, I will say that Hillary's faith in Obama stumbling is well placed. Obama's self-love does not, yet, or perhaps ever, encompass people who don't do what he wants them to do. Instead, he turns vicious, he turns nasty. Hillary's image is tarnished, to some extent, because enough people have seen her have to narrow her eyes and take an edge on her voice. She knows that it is only a matter of time before Obama starts piling up people who have been on the receiving end of his nasty side, and that when they have been, the ones that started out as hers, will mostly return to her.
The people around Hillary see Obama as a Democratic George Bush - a man of pat answers, few specifics, no depth and who slathers his audience with banalities - and demands devotion in return. Or else. She sees the signs in the editorial cartoons that alternate between over the top slobbering praise, and a at what is, clearly, a budding cult of personality. The writing classes are more cautious ever wary of being on the wrong side of a big wave, one that they, themselves, will pander to for dollars.
In short, a perfect vice-president for her ticket. One who will give her a way of saying that she knows how to make people feel the love. This requires delicate handling. On one hand there is a deep offense of not having earned his stripes - Hillary has been a party to power for over 25 years now, and has had to drag herself up more than once - on the other hand, no other second tier would be as perfect a fit for a candidate that is seen as polarizing.
The people who do need to respond to Obama are John Kerry, Albert Gore and John Edwards. Obama caps their growth, Obama also makes anything they do to shake people loose from Hillary counter-productive. He coöpts Edwards' "hope" brand; he lives a charmed life, compared with John Kerry's face which is a media fist magnet, and he does not have the doubts around him that Gore has.
The problem with Obama isn't absence of experience, it isn't his personal style. It is only partially his egotism and surliness to his opponents. Instead it is his absolutely catastrophic diagnosis of what is wrong with the world. Every statesman, good or bad, has a theory about the world. A theory about what makes the world work, and what makes the world fall apart when it is not in place. Barak Obama has the world view that if all the little children play together in the sandbox, then everything will be fine, and if the don't it will be not fine. This isn't the world view of a successful president. On the contrary, it is the world view of someone morosely eager for affection, and, at the same time, addicted to control and a political life of ease.
Hillary's not panicking about Obama, because she can see that he is a more charismatic Joe Lieberman - a political naïf with a messiah complex. There's a big demand out there for messiahs. People who can be the equivalent of a political diet book "eat all you want of what you want and look great by the week end without exercising". The party of optimism is the party of government, but Obama is a sloptimist. Hillary recognizes the problem, because it was, once, her own. "Hillarycare" suffered from the pre-compromised "bipartisan" disease of something for everyone. And collapsed because, as a result, it had no room for compromise. It was a case of the Kindergarten teacher deciding who got which toys, only to have a fight break out.
Obama suffers from this disease, precisely because, as a junior senator, his record is one of nibbling away at a few "bi-partisan" edges. He's never had to get anything done that needed doing, and, as a result, never needed a theory of what needs to be done, or how to do it. Instead, he has a theory of what smoothes the way for Barak Obama. Hillary knows that phase of a politicians political life - she did it back in the 1970's with her husband. That was before having to governing one of the most economically challenged states in the country.
In the end, every politician must dole out self-love and self-loathing. The panderer doles out self-love, and then let's people sit on their laurels, or doles out paranoia at imagined enemies as the cause of all problems - the true demagogue doing both. The panderer either tells people there is nothing chasing them, or that that if they eat a serving of vegetable that will balance their diets. But Obama's source for ideas, his inspiration, is to average the insane with the indecisive to get the ineffective.
And it is the well spring of ideas that makes a politician work as a public figure. Consider, if you will, JFK. JFK had a simple political philosophy, one that was, essentially, in John Kenneth Galbraith's words: "politics consists of a choice between the unpalatable and the disastrous". In his speeches he is constantly giving people binary choices - from his inaugural which is loaded with them, to his press conferences. JFK's belief was that most choices, weren't. This shaped his rhetoric, and his priorities. Find what must be done or else, point to the anxiety which flows from this urgent need, persuade the public of that his course of action will confront the demons under the bed, and then do it. It both maximized and minimized government. It also allowed him to channel the self-loathing, the sense of not being good enough, not being ready enough, not being aware enough, that haunted a man whose signature moment was having his boat sunk from under him.
By contrast, Obama has no such mechanism in his political psyche. Instead he sees that we have enough resources to solve what he thinks the problems are, and therefore says "it's all going to be easy." No, it isn't easy, because the resources that look surplus to one person, are the resources that another person wants to use to line their own pockets, expand their house, or in some other way personally benefit, and they will not lightly give them up. More over, just because enough money or effort is spent, doesn't mean that it will get anywhere. The power from the engine has to reach the ground.
However, one of the great training grounds of politics is the campaign trail. Politicians who can listen, genuinely listen, will often hear what is wrong with the world. FDR learned government running for governor of New York, but equally from other polio survivors. JFK learned government, to no small extent, on the campaign trail, but equally as a junior skipper in the Navy. Obama will get the campaign trail experience, but he has yet to display that other part of his political persona, the part forged of self-loathing, self-doubt, self-deprecation, self-denial. Instead he offers us "my mommy and daddy were different and they worked it out" in his first book, and "things have gone great for me" in the second. Not a hopeful beginning, however full of hope it is.
Audacious? In the same sense that Bush was audacious not telling people what his plan for government was. But Obama is less a statesman that Bush was - Bush, at least, had a theory of the world. It has sustained his presidency through blunder and bungle, through Bushism and beating around the bush. But Obama is more of a politician that Bush is - in a better sense - since he does not intend to polarize people to his advantage, and betray those who have naively placed their trust in him. He will do so, simply because he has no well of ideas, and will, therefore, simply have to shaft people when the chips are down. But he doesn't mean to. Where as Bush, always, meant to.
Obama's rise is the rise of moral flabbiness and denial at the gravity of what we have just done in the last 6 years - blundered away both the hard work of the Clinton legacy, and the generational work that brought America to the pinnacle of the world. Obama tells us that we didn't just do all that, and that everything is going to be fine. The budget numbers disagree with him - we are on a collision course for fiscal disaster, one that Bush and his supporters will welcome, in that they hope that the result will be a federal government that will dump Social Security and Medicare, dump regulating business, dump everything but weapons systems and debt service. Obama blithely ignores these problems, or tells people that doing something about them is no harder than Walking for Breast Cancer.
A comfortable suburban candidate, for a comfortable fat suburban age.
It is a sign of these polarized times that both of the two media anointed front runners in this race are polarizing figures. Obama's supporters will refuse to recognize that he is as polarizing as Hillary is, and that he inspires loathing that is as intense as their adulation. In fact, it is proportional to their adulation. The more they worship a candidate about nothing, the more that nothing is what he will look like to those who are outside of his cult. The more they tell people about the steak and sundae political diet, the more others will look for the anabolic steroids in the steak, and the methamphetamines in the hot fudge sause.
What Obama needs then, is to enunciate - not policy papers and positions, because that would be lethal to his "all things to all people" appeal, but a theory of government. He has failed to do so in two books and several major speeches, which is the surest sign that he doesn't have one, other than "well if we all pitch in, it has got to be better." That helps on the margins, but it doesn't change the system. If Obama doesn't know it, then he is hopeless. On the other hand, it is a good holding pattern while he formulates a more profound political idea.
Absent this idea, he is merely a stalking horse for Hillary - tiring out the rest of the field chasing a candidate that can't be. With this idea he becomes a serious challenger to Hillary. Hillary is on the other side of pragmatic from Obama. Hillary began with the "we can all get along" theory, and had it pounded out of her. Instead, she is now the uberwonk of the Democratic field, even if she does not look like it. Hillary's theory of government is like a car manufacturer's theory of improving a sports car. Namely, that there is no big win to be had - instead, the only thing to be done is to go over every part of the sports car, in detail, and rethink it piece by piece. Out of each small win will come a total of advantages that will add up to a marked improvement. Perhaps now and again technology will allow some aspect to be radically improved, but most of the time it is reducing turbulence in the oil flow, improving the fuel-air mix, and shaving a few ounces off the weight of the break assembly.
In short, Hillary is what Obama will look like with experience. Hillary knows that over time, absent some epiphanic moment from Obama, that he will eventually have to do "the straddle". That is, on some issue where there is a clear consensus for dramatic action, he will have to promise that he will average the entrenched interests and engage in an intensive campaign of doing nothing. It will be at this moment that Hillary, with a base of support and timing, will be able to hammer him for proposing doing nothing about something which everyone knows needs immediate action. It is on such moments that warehouses full of all things to all people candidates have collapsed.
For now however, Obama begins the holding cell of everyone who was going to vote for Hillary the queen, but didn't like Hillary the candidate. In that cell he is a very dangerous animal. First to those who would be the unHillary - because there is only room for one person at a time - and second to Hillary herself, because Obama could rip her support away with a single speech, one that states how he is going to do the long list of what that appears in his latest book.
Comments (85)
You couldn't possibly know what and how these people are thinking.
November 2, 2006 6:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is the basis of your assertion that Obama turns nasty and vicious and who are the people who have been on the receiving end of his 'nasty side'? Do you have any facts to support what appears to be a character slur?
What is this? Surliness, and playing nice in the sand bos? What is the basis for what you are saying. Is this your way of denouncing bipartisanship, diplomacy and negotiating to find a win-win? Are you so jaded and polarized after 8 years of inyourface politics, where folks think merely shouting at folks, calling names and hurling insults is a substitute for debate that you no longer can appreciate genuine discussion of issues to achieve common goals?
Just what evidence do you have to support your wholly unsubstantiated perspective. It is quite Presidential to engage in diplomacy, negotiate for peace and strive to be a neighbor in the world community vs. a bully that only knows how to start fights (pre-emptive strike) and never listen to reason due to their blind ignorance
Please provide specific examples of this 'messiah complex' and 'sloptimist' attributes.
Please. To believe this you have to totally ignore his diverse cultural upbringing, where Obama had to find a way to balance all the contrasting perspectives and find common ground amongst his own family. Perhaps, it is a deficit of those who grow up in totally homogeneous families, churches, schools and neighborhoods to be blind to the challenges of diversity. It requires courage and strength of character to acquire self-assurance that allows one to accept the differences others bring to the table and learn how to make the disparate parts function in harmony. These assertion's and comments reflect the thinking of a lack of heterogeneity in terms of the individuals you may have to engage with or have been exposed to.
Perhaps you need to read both his books. Those variables are offered up. He talks about the challenges he had in society, and the use of drugs due to self-doubt, self-loathing. It is clear that his character was forged by the incongruence of societal norms in terms of who and what he was.
No. His parents divorced when he was two, he saw his father once when he was ten and you describe this as 'worked it out'? This is simply shallow critical thinking generally reflective of on very myopic lifestyle and the inability to discern the challenges individuals face when they are different from maninstream society. Apparently, hope has no meaning to you. Whereas, it is a powerful motivator for those who must transcend the difficulties and obstacles that are not personally controllable. It simply sounds as if you are unable to relate to being different. That would be common for an individual who only faces challenges when they express an opinion.
Loathing? On what basis? Geez, your comments are borderline paranoia in that you provide nothing to substantiate them.
This is absurd! Bush does not have a theory about anything, he can't even speak correctly let alone form a coherent thought. He is woefully incompetent and a complete failure as a President. You think he has statesmanship? The only way he has ever exercised it, is the power of the state to kill citizens, while governor and President. And you have the audacity to call that statesmanship?
O really? Where are the theories of government and policy papers from Biden, Kerry, Edwards, McCain and Hiliary? You appear to demand more from Obama simply because he frightens you, unlike Bush, who pandered to you in order to deceive you. You claim that Bush's total ignorance was statesman, despite his lack of policies and 'position papers'...he simply spend money like there is no tomorrow, and yet you have the temerity to claim he has some 'superior position" to Obama?
What's this? NOOO...now you acknowledge he does have a plan and it is in his book! After this exhaustive diatribe that was nothing more than a specious character assault.. but first you have to add one last insulting demeaning slur by calling Obama an animal? A dangerous 'animal'? Not political opponent, but animal? This is sooooo subliminally racist. .
This is beneath contempt.
November 2, 2006 6:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perfect example of how Obamanation turns vicious fast when questioned.
"What is the basis of your assertion that Obama turns nasty and vicious and who are the people who have been on the receiving end of his 'nasty side'? Do you have any facts to support what appears to be a character slur?"
It isn't a slur, it is an observation. One backed by how he dealt with the netroots, twice, when carrying water for the DSCC. It was a thankless task, admittedly, but Obam dealt with it poorly.
Just as you have dealt with it poorly.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
November 2, 2006 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
You don't have any way of knowing what I do, and don't, know.
And this isn't the first time this has been obvious.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
November 2, 2006 7:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
"O really? Where are the theories of government and policy papers from Biden, Kerry, Edwards, McCain and Hiliary? "
Leaving a hanging curve out over the middle of the plate was your worst move.
Hillary's I explained. Her theory of government is to tighten all the loose screws. It is why she has enthusiastic support from many Clinton cabinet members, and why she pursues legislation on health care reporting. So this one was asked and answered. Read please, it will help.
Edwards' theory is that there is "a war on work" that has created "two Americas", and the solution is to reward work, and put everyone in the same boat. This is, in fact, a very sophisticated idea.
Kerry's theory of government is that there are hurdles that stop us from doing the right things, and that government's job is best accomplished by getting people to hold hands and jump.
McCain's theory of government is to "judge each thing on the merits and then get it done". The classic middle manager's theory of how to fix things.
Biden - you will have to ask him, because while I have followed his career for two decades, first meeting him in 1988 - I have never been able to see him articulate a theory of government. He's tried several, but in the end he comes off as a basic technocrat, with a faith in the system and presenting his Presidential ambitions as uber-ombudsman (if mixing German and Old Norse is acceptable).
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
November 2, 2006 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
So a simple query for you to substantiate your assertions is viscious. You sound like the GOP attacking folks for being unpatriotic when they are questioned to provide their rationale for the war. I expected better from a person who is supposedly a professional contributor here at TPM. How come you can't back up your assertions with facts?
Surely, you do not need a dictionary to understand this is a slur. Independent of whether it is your observation it remains a slur. Only your perspective 'slurs' what you observe.
Just how did Obama deal with the netroots, twice, when carrying water for the DSCC as you put it. Explain yourself. Right now you are doing a very poor job of substantiating your 'observations'.
Put some specific facts out here for real discussion, if you have any.
Name names...who did Obama behave nasty and viscious with? Start backing up your slurs. List the individuals.
Make your observations creditible.
November 2, 2006 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary, basically correct. Emphasis on tighten. Her Patriot Act, her willingness to use torture will be genuinely scary.
Edwards' theory is that it's 1933 and he's Huey Long. Not surprising that a trial lawyer feels this way, being in the business of sticking up the big guys for a very small number of little guys, but as a style of governance, it would basically turn America into Argentina, and so far, voters have mostly rejected it.
Kerry's theory is, well, it's obvious that I should be president! What could be more obvious? Who the hell are you to doubt it?
McCain's theory is, I will fight them on the beaches-- wait, this is my best side here, boys.
Biden-- hmmf. Wogga wogga wogga, blah blah nummanummanum, hmmf. Hmmf?
Obama-- Someone's crying, Lord, kumbaya...
Giuliani-- Laurence Olivier in Spartacus.
My prediction for '08: a subway series between Clinton and Giuliani, and it will turn out that the most brilliant and lucky thing he did was to move their title bout from a venue that favored her to one that favored him.
November 2, 2006 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your calling me a racist was vicious. That you are spending so much time smearing me is proof enough that my assertion about Obamanation is credible - you add to its credibility with each comment.
In fact, you are so over the top, that it is getting hard to believe you are defending him.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
November 2, 2006 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's why it is tempting not to have a theory - because they are open to attack, and even ridicule.
Which is why having the courage of ones convictions, starts by having convictions.
The Republicans have the reverse problem. They have a theory of government.
It just happens to be about as close to reality as the Discovery Institute's theory of speciation through divine intervention.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
November 2, 2006 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not having read his books or really had much exposure to him, I don't have a strong opinion on Obama. But strip away the vitriol, and whiterosebuddy's request for links is reasonable. I haven't seen Obama's "vicious side", and I'd just as soon see your examples.
November 2, 2006 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Based on this flimsy explanation as to what you believe is a 'theory of government' Obama has just as much theory that he has stated, and you already read it in his book. So to attempt to say he does not have any is false and lacking in credibility. You better go back and read your own commentary about what you stated was Obama's theory. Do you have a short-term memory defecit shaky from inhaling, too much?
I repeat where are the position papers and legislation that you set as the bar for Obama...where are they? List them for Hiliary.
Do you think 'it takes a village to raise a child" ...is to 'tighten all the loose screws'....is providing national healthcare ..'tightening all the loose screws'. It is not fiscally responsbily, for sure. I suppose fiscal responsiblity eludes you though since it flows like water from this administration...it couldn't possibly be a screw.
The only individuals who think this is sophisticated are the rich. Poor people have been poor since Reaganomics, which you trumphet. How rich of you to think this is somehow sophisticated and savvy. It is not. It is a re-do, if anything...or is your short-term memory still lapsing and you can't recall LBJ's 'war on poverty"...but hey...rhetoric only can pass for sophisticated theories if you are a white mainstream male, eh?
OIC...you are just making up crap,
More nonsense lacking in substance.
Why should I have to ask,? You seem to be unable, as well, to substantiate your nebulous assertions about Obama lacking a theory. Biden, let's see mr. bankruptcy creditcard bill. was one of the Keating Five, no...or is he Mr. plagiarism...is that why he is unable to articulate a theory..but yet instill you think Obama, who has an entire list in his books lacks a theory?.
Well it sounds to me that you are full of hotairandnosubstance and this entire commentary on your part, has no credibility is , racially biased, and just sheer worthless.
Can you at all back up with any facts all the negative character assaults on Obama?
November 2, 2006 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, since you didn't have a target, you just made up a strawman instead to spout off and disparage Obama, is that it? How pathetic and unprofessional.
Based on this commentary you lack both and have no idea where the starting line is, either.
November 2, 2006 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know that unless you're channeling these people, you couldn't know what they're thinking.
And of course I don't have any way of knowing what you think or know - that's the point. Unless you have personally spoken to these people who have told you what they're thinking, you're fictionalizing.
Stirling Newberry is self-loathing. He's thinking that the sheer weight of his essays is always more important than clarity and conciseness. Stirling thinks that typing is more fun than writing and because he is also self-loving, any thought he has, because he thought it, should be typed up and submitted for public adulation. Stirling thinks that by self-editing he may deprive the public of a gem that in his estimation needs no polishing - if he typed it, it's a jewel.
Now you may ask how I know what Stirling Newberry is thinking, but you have no way of knowing what I do, and don't, know. And obviously, it's impertinent of you to ask.
November 2, 2006 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are flat out lying. I stated your calling him an animal was subliminally racist. It seems you can't differentiate between your words and thoughts and who and what you actually are, is that it. Is that why this commentary was so pathetic and factless, as well?
O, so you finally are getting the point? Since you provide no facts or evidence it is you who are under assault for writing this piece of worthless, factless, biased character attack? I have no need to defend Obama.
It is you I take umbrage with. Your audacity and supercilious arrogance to write such trash and pass it off for some type of political analyis when it is so lacking in substance and totally uprofessionalism. That is what is over the top here.
You need to back up with some facts all your assertions and allegations....GET BUSY.
November 2, 2006 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Loathing? On what basis? Geez, your comments are borderline paranoia in that you provide nothing to substantiate them."
Ummm, I think that it comes down to Stirling's observation that "what is abundant to one person isn't to another."
Take health care as an example.
I've talked to doctors in the UK and every one of them talks about an "underfunded national health care system."
Thus, they're hoping that a "private insurance scheme" would boost their profits and require less work.
To achieve that "garden of eden," they work on "throwing the current politicians out."
In the US, it's rumored that medical schools limit the number of doctors, to achieve high quality, but that means either high cost access (which is a good problem for doctors to have) or no access.
I think that Stirling recently wrote about the broader problem of the US education system limiting the number of skilled workers. In the past, skilled workers liked that agreement but as the global economy grows, "our team" could have too few players.
To think Obama is Solomon, right now, is silly! He's playing with peoples' grace by saying "I overcame! Amen!" But that doesn't necessarily qualify him to be president. For that, he has to show that he can grow our culture in a way that keeps it cohesive and coherent-- and that's a very hard problem.
With regards to the current health system, it's hard to reform because, depending on who you are: doctor, patient, investor or administrator, you have a different economic stake and expectation.
I cringe when the newspapers report that "companies are profitable" when, in reality, they achieved that "profitability" by cutting health benefits, US jobs, environmental protection and taxes. The papers don't say: "the companies robbed peter to pay paul..."
There is no doubt: Obama will have to resolve the disputes between the rich and poor, assest holders and the middle class, corporations and labor, etc...
November 2, 2006 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
November 2, 2006 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
God, I hope not.
I say that because it's too soon. Maybe one day he can be a candidate. But right now, his only advantage is that he hasn't had enough time to do things his opponents can attack.
That's like asking someone to pitch in the world series who you've only seen toss a ball around at the park a couple of times. "Well, how do you know he CAN'T pitch?"
What's Obama going to do, surround himself with professionals who know what they're doing? That worked out real well with Bush.
November 2, 2006 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
whiterosebuddy:
We have locked horns in the past, but you bodyslammed Stirling in this thread. Good job.
Where are all of these idealists who have been on the receiving end of Obama's nastiness and vicousness, Stirling? I am an IL resident and this is the first I heard of it. I've heard alot more pointless slamming of Obama from the netroots than the other way around.
And you can take your comment comparing Obama to Lieberman and shove it.
November 2, 2006 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uhm. Am I the only one that hears a subtle attempt to namecheck Dr. King here? And somehow imply that this dream of unity and cooperation is really self-serving?
I usually like your work, Sterling but this piece seems very short on facts, and high on particularly shallow assumptions.
November 2, 2006 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
While I agree with the general assertions, you could have said this in three paragraphs.
I refer to Sen. Obama as "Well Spoken", which is my way of damning with faint praise.
He is a good speaker, but I've yet to see any "there" there.
-- It could be worse. I could still be living in Texas
November 2, 2006 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to offer you help, Stirling, because I consider your long history of insulting readers in public to be thoroughly unprofessional and worthy of public censure. Were I your editor, you'd be fired (and deservedly so). Unfortunately, as is apparent from reading your submission, you have no editor. And that would be my first recommendation.
* find yourself a friend who is willing to proofread your work before you post. It would help readers tremendously.
My next suggestion is to conduct _research_ before writing a piece. Here, I'll help:
* Hilary Clinton gave a speech a few days ago at the Council on Foreign Relations. An audio podcast is available. She also gave a speech to the CFR three years ago. Both source material is online and thus available for comparison.
* Barak Obama was the subject of the Harper's December 06 cover story. Ken Silverstein wrote a feature article titled "Barak Obama INC. - The Birth of a Washington Machine." I think you'll find enough 'oppo' research of Ken's to help back up your smear job here. At least you could pass the smear off to someone else with an out of context quote.
See how easy it is? Show that Hilary has been consistent in her policies by quoting from those two CFR speeches separated by three years, while digging around to find anti-Barak quotes in the published press. There's plenty of 'em floating around.
Cheers,
--M
November 2, 2006 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Based on what I've read from Stirling in the past, I'd like to remind folks about Obama's "slurping up of ADM money" as a top reason...
I think Stirling once wrote: "Obama is bought and paid for."
I heard Clinton on KPFA this morning and he too was supporting ADM by getting people excited about ethanol-- something which midwest farmers produce with LOTS of oil, huge amounts of water, genetic enginered crops and big ag farms.
You can Read What Harper's Magazine Had To Say about Obama on his own website.
Obama, for example, says that he supports ethanol production because "it's a clean, efficient, and domestically produced fuel source"-- not because ADM makes a bundle off governmental supports. However, he also defends his "softened stance on Iraq" and I think that's because ADM needs lots of oil to produce and distribute ethanol!
The bible says: "though shall not have false gods" and, as far as I can tell, Stirling was right on when he said "Obama has been bought and paid for!" If Obama wasn't worried about that perception, he wouldn't have taken the time to dispute those claims.
Is this bad? The Clintons are obviously bought and paid for-- Clinton supported trade policies that sold out American workers like giving China "unregulated most favored nation trading status."
It's interesting to note that Hilliary was a member of Wal-Mart's board before Bill went to Washington and probably became a senator for being Wal-Mart's advocate. Today, Wal-Mart makes most of its goods in China and our dollars flow there for consumer goods like our dollars flow to the mideast for oil.
For Obama to become president, he has to get those kinds of economic interests on his side and I'm not sure that's good news for progressive!
In my eyes, I'd rather vote for someone like Dennis Kucinich who would, instead, focus on America's industrial manufacturing base and I won't have that opportunity because he won't be running in 2008.
November 2, 2006 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I like about Stirling is that he values "actions over words."
You can read about Obama's actions in Harper's magazine and I posted the link to Obama's response.
When I look at Obama's actions, he seems cut from a tacky cloth.
Stirling seems to be a philosopher and, unfortunately, people in America don't appreciate philosophers any more.
Personally, I find his deepness refreshing...
November 2, 2006 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the Harper's ref -- I'll be sure to give it a read, as I am in the market for some kind of anti-Hillary.
I wish Kucinich (intact) were a viable option, but like Al Sharpton, he can say the things he does largely because he doesn't have a chance of winning, and probably doesn't even try to hard. Of course, he's not an oddball performance artist like Sharpton. I suspect that if he decided he actually wanted to win, Kucinich would have to change quite a bit, backing away from many ideas you find appealing and selling out in ways you find distasteful. But I don't see him going that way, and I'm too much of a pragmatist to vote for someone who isn't playing to win.
November 2, 2006 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you look at how much the defense of Obama here refers to race and diversity, you can see where a lot of the support for Obama comes. It is not what he has done, which is very little, nor what he says he can do, which is highly dubious, but what he is. He is better than black; he is half-black, and therefore a personal embodiment of the possibility of an interracial society. He grew up partly in Africa, so his cultural upbringing was less specifically American than most Americans. He is a symbol of a cosmopolitan society that liberals want to bring about. The fact that he is charismatic, of course, helps him be effective as a symbol.
The problem is that symbols don't govern; people do. What would Obama's basic approach to governance be? From what I can tell, it would be Clintonian triangulation. He wants to make peace with the Republicans and find common ground. The problem with this is that the Republicans are at war with the Constitution of the United States and compromise with them is appeasement. They will tactically compromise, if they see it furthering their agenda long-term, but they are not interesting in maintaining the balance of powers on which our country rests. They insists their President can rewrite any law he wants. They recognize none of the basic legal protections that have defined Western Civilization for centuries. Therefore, the most important task of the Democratic Party at this time is to inflict maximal damage on the Republicans.
This is true even to the detriment of policy. Hilzoy recently defended Obama's record saying that, although the legislation he had worked on was not of major significance, he had put serious work into making it good, nuts-and-bolts legislation. A wonk's wet dream: Dukakis with charisma. Now here is something Democrats must realize and that wonks and centrists will mightily resist: given a choice between passing good legislation and hurting the Republicans, we must hurt the Republicans. I know that sounds divisive, vengeful, tribal, one-sided, and various other things that liberals tend not to like, but we are fighting for our Democracy here, which is a more important issue than most specific legislation.
For example, if the Democrats take Congress, and it becomes possible to pass a stem-cell bill, but at the cost of letting Republicans off the hook on the issue, we do not want that bill passed. Banning stem-cell research doesn't stop it; it just makes America late to the party. I don't like that idea, but it matters less than saving the basic nature of the country. It seems horrible to place politics before policy, but if the Republican power base is not broken, all policy fights will ultimately be lost. There are exceptions: ending Iraq is of such immediate consequence that we may choose to let Bush have a fig leaf if that is what it takes. And it may be that we can pass a stem cell bill that does not provide so much cover to the Republicans as to make it counterproductive. But that is how the decision should be made.
And Obama will never do this. He wants the Republicans to love him too. It is possible for Democrats to legitimately appeal to Republican voters, but only by finding the positions that turn those voters against their party. But one has to be willing to have the Republican party itself, and the bulk of the media, despise you.
And Obama will never get the love of the Republicans for the same reason he so freely gets that of the Democrats: because of what he represents as a person. This may not be so bad, except that, as a centrist riding on charisma he needs that love, and therefore will always be trying to earn it. We are right back to battered wife syndrome. A democrat continually trying to love the repubs strongly enough so they will stop beating him. We've really had enough of that.
I don't think Obama adds anything as a Veep either. Charisma cannot be borrowed. Edwards had much more than Kerry, but that didn't help Kerry. Likewise, Ferraro was pretty charismatic and, as a woman, had identity cachet like Obama. Made no difference, whatsoever. Presidents select Veeps to signal who they feel they need to appease, and therefore who they will cleave to in governing. Clinton choosing Gore meant that he intended to ignore the base, and so he did. Bush chose Quayle to appease the Christian right. Reagan chose Bush to bring the national security establishment and the moderate Republicans firmly behind him. Nixon chose Agnew to appease the Goldwaterites, and so on. Clinton choosing Obama will signal that she intends to govern entirely from the center and give the base nothing. The base will be mighty pissed and rightly so. It worked for Clinton the first, but this is a much, more polarized environment. Hillary needs to appease the base: probably Feingold.
Obama would be a brilliant choice, though, for UN ambassador or Secretary of State. The man's belief in comity and personal multi-cultural background will play very well for an America that needs to mend fences on the International stage. And it would be a good place for him to develop a more Presidential quality resume. But we do not need to mend fences domestically.
November 2, 2006 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's all a matter of personal taste. Mr. Newberry is by now well established in the tendency to attack and inflict condescension and sarcasm on those who disagree with him in any significant particular. His responses seem unable to distinguish legitimate criticism or comment from ideologically based responses from outright trolls or attackers. In particular, there appears to be no distinction made between Mr. Newberry himself and his writings, to challenge one is an attack on the other, and receives a response in kind. Unpleasant and unprofessional, but there you go.
However, at this point, anyone who responds to Mr. Newberry has a good idea of what they're in for. So I tend to take the whole thing with a grain of salt. Mr. Newberry is hardly the worst person in the world.
In his defense, I would acknowledge that Mr. Newberry occasionally says things that are genuinely insightful or are at least articulately presented on a regular enough basis that I'm prepared to tolerate the the occasion of an incoherent post or a childish overreaction.
It may well be that Mr. Newberry's only real problem is the lack of balance of youth. In which case, there is an inevitable cure.
November 2, 2006 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Uhm. Am I the only one that hears a subtle attempt to namecheck Dr. King here?"
Dr. King's theory of the world was that promises had been made to black Americans, from the Declaration of Independence forward, and not kept. He argued that those who had broken those promises had grown rich, while those who had accepted those promises had grown poor and would not stand for inequality any more.
If Senator Obama had some consciousness of the promises we have yet to keep, he might find me a supporter.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
November 2, 2006 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Enjoy! In my opinion, Stirling is one of the most "detail oriented bloggers out there" and does a brilliant job of "connecting the dots" in each post. However, you have to read him like a cartoon strip in order to understand his editorial development and viewpoint.
He often tells his readers about past posts but, like most people, I'm too lazy to read the old posts and, quite frankly, I'm not sure how to do it.
Anyway, who else but Stirling could talk about how music is composed and, additionally, have the same interest in how political and economic reality is composed?
November 2, 2006 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, I'm not picking another Galbraith quote just because Stirling uses it too. Secondly, that was an awful lot of nothing to say that Obama lacks experience. Third, despite her vast experience, Hillary doesn't stand for much of anything in particular, either.
Finally, Obama has a skill that more Democrats need. He can talk about what government should do without pretending that people never do anything dumb.
-- "Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable." (John Kenneth Galbraith)
November 2, 2006 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
"But I don't see him going that way, and I'm too much of a pragmatist to vote for someone who isn't playing to win."
If you like Kucinich, make sure that you Throw a Few Bucks Into His Coffers! I voted for the guy realizing that he wouldn't win.
The beauty of the campaign was to learn that a lot of Kucinich people now sit on local and state-wide DFL (the name for democrats in MN) boards and will surely have influence in the future.
If Dennis brings in cash from the grassroots, that also helps him in the money culture of Washington... by letting him help elect people and, thus, "buy support" for his politics.
November 2, 2006 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. I rate that a 4.
sPh
November 2, 2006 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uhhh, so Barak Obama has an unacceptably naive world view where 'everyone plays together in the sandbox' unlike hard-nosed Hilary Clinton. But, like 'those who had grown rich by breaking the promises of our founders,' for Obama to gain your support he has to repudiate his unworthy success by being 'conscious of those unkept promises' that Dr. King so eloquently elucidated.
Wait... are you implying that Barak Obama is an Uncle Tom here? That his success has been at the expense of other African Americans? Which is why you support Hilary Clinton? Because she makes tough choices and does not expect everyone to 'play fair in the sandbox'?
November 2, 2006 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong. King said that promises had been made to Americans. All American citizens, not just black Americans. Rather, only black Americans had been denied the inalienable rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence as well as the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. I guess when it comes to black folks you just have piss poor recall. Or is it just a color thing that colors your judgement?
Wrong. He argued for the rights set forth in the US Constitution, for ALL Americans. He did not argue on the basis of rich or poor, nor those who had accepted or been denied promises. He argued for justice for all, colorblind, such that all people would be able to enjoy their citizenship rights not just a select few.
I guess this is why you have difficulty understanding Obama as well. It is an inclusiveness premise. It finds discrimination and exclusion to be morally repugnant.
MLK spoke about character and justice for all..it is called human dignity and humaneness.
Soo, tell us please what promises has America failed to keep for you Sterling, that Obama has not addressed or is opposed to? Be specific and factual.
Surely, you are not trying to call a man who has a white mother and African father an Oreo, are you? hahahaha..
November 2, 2006 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, you are not and yes it is implied.
November 2, 2006 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Newberry:
I guess I am an "Obaman", but while I'm not a big fan of Hillary Clinton, I wouldn't mind Al Gore or John Edwards, and would support Hillary in the end.
I didn't follow most of your lenghty cryptic argument, so I might not understand the whole thing. The clearest line I got from your post was, "Obama's source for ideas, his inspiration, is to average the insane with the indecisive to get the ineffective."
I don't know if you followed his books all that closely, but it suggests to me someone who has a strong if not someone bland belief in liberalism and collection action that he took from his family and work in grassroots politics. He exhibits respect for his friends and his opponents and gets it in return. Empathy is the core of his beliefs, something that I think reminds not a few people of Abraham Lincoln. That comings through pretty clearly in Dreams of My Father, as does his concern about poverty, the state of the black community, and discrimination, and family. The idea that he exhibits "self-love" is entirely mistaken. You would have to go back at least 40 years to find a politicians who mocks himself and anagonizes over his decisions in public in the same fair and honest way.
For my taste, the Audacity of Hope didn't reach the boldness such a title aspires to, but it's much clearer than Hillary's "fake left, move right" kind of politics. His vision is shown, if not stated in a stale slogan, repeatedly: to fix major problems with itself and society as a whole(similar to Hillary's tighten the screws) and for positive government to unite and enable citizens to go great things. It's the type of "common good" politics that Michael Tomasky promoted in the American Prospect. Obama's words seem pretty boilerplate on military matters and gay marriage, but he clearly has investigated major issues like energy, competitiveness, discrimination, and foreign relations thoroughly. This kinda of vanilla liberalism reminds us of JFK. Hillary matches him in her flexibility, but her governing philosophy is entirely vague, having equivocated on Iraq, welfare reform funding, and abortion.
Your point about experience suggests that Obama has none and that he will get thumped when he has to compromise. Maybe that's true. But his ability to work with conservatives like Tom Coburn and moderates like Richard Lugar and still survive in the Senate suggests strong political acumen. So he hasn't passed any major legislation. Neither has Hillary, whose 6 years in the Senate have gotten her the same experience that Obama got in 2: the GOP majority stonewalls everything. I also wouldn't count out his Senate and state legislative experience, which matches that of Lincoln's when he was election.
The best argument for Obama in 2008 (as opposed to VP) is that he is the new guy with new ideas, and America loves the new guy. He won't stick his foot in his mouth, but he seems likely to continued to be interested in the lives of ordinary people while still governing effectively. Moreover, Obama may be able to bring people together on older, unresolved issues because he's a new voice who still understands the game. Hillary seems to surprise people with her amiability, but I don't think she can speak as candidly and clearly to the public as Obama could.
But that's besides the point. Why throw invectives at Barak Obama now? Shouldn't we let him define himself at least? And wait until after the 2006 election? After all, he might not even run.
November 2, 2006 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the last six years have shown pretty conclusively that the Radicals have no respect for anyone one not of their inner circle, and that if they appear to show any amount of cooperation (much less respect) for any amount of time (e.g. Kennedy and NCLB) they do so only as part of a long-term payback scheme. You are going to have to work hard to convince me that any Democratic politician who thinks that we are just about to return to the days of Senatorial congeniality and mutual respect has even the smallest hint of understanding as to what has happened since 2000.
To put it another way, John McCain is not Barak Obama's friend, and if Mr. Obama does not understand that he is a serious liability.
sPh
November 2, 2006 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Newberry
Racism is not about how the individual looks rather it is about how people assign meaning to how people look.
That about sums up your commentary.
November 2, 2006 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
And without suggesting that people are dumb, which is also important.
November 2, 2006 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
That last sentence is lovely -- thanks, sPh. It nicely captures the problem that is described in the original article without condescending to its subject or its readers.
November 2, 2006 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
vast experience doing what?
November 2, 2006 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will someone just point out here that way too many people will vote against Hillary to risk putting her on the ticket? 40% to start with, currently.
See this
If you subdivide that undecided group again the same way the big group divides out (40% anti, 31% for, 23% undecided), she winds up with 39% of the electorate voting for her and 49% voting against her, with 6% worth of fuzz.
This is not a recipe for victory. And while those anti-Hillary numbers may fall in time, they're unlikely to fall very far.
She is a smart woman. She's evidently a good Senator from New York. But she is Just. Too. Polarizing. Period.
I suppose the Republicans could put up a chimp who doesn't debate or address policy issues ... nah, they already did that. No such luck.
November 2, 2006 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quoth whiterosebuddy:
The question more likely to be informative is, rather, on what do you base that view? The question is not whether someone's less than flattering opinion is a slur or not, the question is whether the basis for that opinion persuades anyone else, which is to say, whether it is "totally unjustified slur".
And indeed, it would appear to be that more useful question that Sirling Newberry addresses. Quoth Stirling Newberry:
So it is not a "totally unjustified slur". I believe that the issue of whether it has unsufficient justification, or is in the eyes of enough people fully justified, will be sorted out in the next few months.
However, quoth Stirling Newberry:
It is a famous rhetorical ploy to discipline a supporter with the claim that their behavior reflects on the character of the candidate that they support. In reality, however, there are enough people on the internet who behave in an unappealing way in support of just about every conceivable candidate that it does not really hold very much weight. If it was applied with full force, no candidate would be left standing.
November 2, 2006 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quoth Stirling Newberry:
Quoth whiterosebuddy:
How does the second statement dispute the first when there is no contradiction between the two? There is only a dispute if the first is read as "promises had been made to black Americans, and only to black Americans", and there is no reason to read it that way.
November 2, 2006 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quoting jalmari:
Adding: And he can talk, period. The man can do the motivational speech without sounding like a tool. He's an appealing personality, which (somewhat regrettably) ol' Hillary is not. This matters quite a lot if one likes winning elections. Do we really want to nominate another wooden speaker, old name, and someone with huge negatives (even before the election smears get going)?
November 2, 2006 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not that I entirely disagree with it, by any means, but if you want to descend from the clouds here to the gritty reality of Illinois politics where the bloom is rapidly coming off St. Barack of Obama, I highly recommend visiting the Chicago Tribune online (even if you have to register to read anything) and reading today's pair of columns by John Kass and Eric Zorn. Here's Kass:
"At best, it is a gamy story of a presidential hopeful displaying a lack of judgment by getting involved with Rezko in a real estate arrangement in which the Obamas benefited.
At worst, it could be a few steps along the Chicago way...
The fact is the Obamas and the Rezkos bought property in a fashionable South Side neighborhood next to each other on the same day, from the same lot, and the Obamas came out the winners.
Obama bought his home at a $300,000 discount. Rezko bought the adjoining lot from the same sellers at full price. One got a juicy bargain. The other overpaid. Legend has it that Rezko never paid full price for anything in his life, so he starts with Obama?"
Rezko is Tony Rezko, currently under indictment for his fundraising for Illinois Gov. Blagojevich.
Here's Zorn:
"Obama's staff released a profoundly disheartening letter to voters this week in which Obama, joined by Sen. Dick Durbin, endorsed Cook County Board presidential candidate Todd Stroger.
The letter, which puffs lots of hot air into the saggy balloon of Stroger's legislative resume, refers to him as "a good progressive Democrat" who will "lead us into a new era of Cook County government."
Todd Stroger was a "strong voice" in Springfield, the letter says. He has "worked assiduously" for the poor as an alderman. Yet, of course, the record reveals that Stroger is an unimaginative legislative drone whose reform credentials are wholly imaginary--an unlikely trailblazer to a new era...
The stench of same-old-same-old from John Stroger's years of cronyism and bloat hung over the process, and Obama had every excuse to distance himself from it.
Instead came this letter--a body blow to Claypool Democrats and the idealists whose fantasy about Obama is that he will transcend the grubby machinations and tawdry favor-swapping of party politics--followed by word from Obama's office that he will appear on stage at a pro-Stroger rally Monday night."
November 2, 2006 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
What DairyStateDad said.
November 2, 2006 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
This, of course, raises the question of a key premise of the above argument, which is that there is room for only one anti-Hillary. That is, of course, the present state of the media, since its much easier for them to follow a two person race as opposed to a three person race, and so they much prefer to address it as a two person raise.
However, the possibility raised by the "fake left, run right" talking point is that there may well be room for a DLC anti-Hillary and an anti-DLC anti-Hillary.
There are two possible changes in the dynamic that can come from Al Gore. One, if he decides that running is necessary to get real policy rather than empty talk about the climate crisis on the table. Two, if he decides to endorse a candidate who puts real climate change policy on the table, in opposition to a DLC "catastrophe but not quite as quick" approach.
As far as I can tell from watching the media cover primary races for a decade or two, they will run to get in front of any trend they see emerging, and it does not matter whether it requires throwing to one side everything they have been saying for a year. That makes the move of the New Jersey primary to the start of the "open window" in 2008 extremely critical for Hillary. If Obama is in the race, there is a very strong possibility that Hillary has not won anything before New Jersey. And if the storyline has become a three person race by the time of the New Jersey primary, the dynamics of a three person primary can be awfully hard to predict, especially if Obama is one of the three.
November 2, 2006 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, you have to know when to trim your sails.
sPh
November 2, 2006 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think if Gore announces he sucks the life out of Hillary and Obama is the running mate.
November 2, 2006 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, while folks keep ragging on Hilliary, conservatives and even Democrats here at TPM. Folks with bushel baskets of money are backing Hilliary like Rupert Murdoch and Haim Saban. Interestingly, these men are major media powerbrokers.
Saban when recently asked for ideas in Fortune magazine, what does the Democratic party need to do to win the White House in 2008..said, quote " I have 3 ideas:
1. Put Hillary on the ticket.
2. Put Hillary on the ticket.
3. Put Hillary on the ticket.
He said he thinks she will be a fantastic President. Quote, " She has the best vision for America"
So, I am beginning to wonder why folks are so negative about her chances, when corporate moguls are really high on Hillary.
BTW, Saban is looking to dominate the burgeoning $800billion Hispanic market. He recently purchased Univision for $13.7billion, which as many know is the largest spanish language broadcasting company in the USA.
One last thing DairyStateDad. What if Hiliary is running against McCain? Now your link to polls say 40% will vote against her. Well how many of those may stay home or wind up voting for Hillary because the media begins to treat McCain like a" Hanoi-crazed POW"
Hilliary recently made that comment about his 'maverick remarks' and what if the media backs her up...both Murdoch at Fox and Sabin with Univision and they depict McCain as a crazed blabberring tortured individual similiar to how they made the Dean Scream the death of Howard Dean?
I think this is possible. So, then, who would folks vote for, crazy Hanoimad McCain or Hillary?
November 2, 2006 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"So, I am beginning to wonder why folks are so negative about her chances"
3 reasons:
1: Wal-Mart
2: Wal-Mart
3: Wal-Mart
Hilliary helped destroy local economics and that put political control into the hands of economic elites.
November 2, 2006 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
My knee-jerk bet, absent any checking of the data, is that McCain narrowly beats Hillary. Although he's come down a few pegs in the last year in the public mind, he still is nowhere near the kind of polarizing figure she is. And I think media attempts to paint McCain as nutty will backfire.
As for Hillary's corporate backers... I'm really questioning how that plays out in the long run. I think it will turn some segment of the population, on both ends of the spectrum, off to her.
November 2, 2006 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
A lot depends on where the country sits in two years, which is one reason it is ridiculous to be choosing our horse now. When Carter was in the mid-20's approval, Reagan defeated a slew of Republican competitors all seen as more centrist and therefore more "electable" than he. The fact is any Republican could have beat Carter at that point, so the Repubs did not need to appease the middle, e.g., with Anderson. Even with Anderson in the race, Americans were mad and took the extremist over the centrist. If Bush and the Repubs generally have numbers like that in 2008, any Democrat to the right of Sharpton will be electable, and further left will be a virtue. In that situation, playing to the middle means losing an opportunity to move the middle, as Reagan and FDR did.
This does assume that the Dems undermine McCain's (assuming he's the nominee) aura of centrism and independence, which is job number one. It is not hard. They just have to stop letting McCain take the lead on what should be our issues. Push him to prove his centrism, and he undermines his support with the Repub base. When he appeases the base, attack his centrism. McCain's balancing act is not ultimately doable, but he will not fall without a push. But all that relies on how McCain is treated, not on who runs against him.
November 2, 2006 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sterling, I didn't find this diary to be convincing at all. Have you actually read Obama's books or listened to his podcasts? Maybe I missed the point because there was so much in your post.
November 2, 2006 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The media is in love with St. McCain. He can do no wrong. Chris Matthews very nearly gives him a hand job every time he comes on his show. The thought that the Washington DC media, who hated the Clintons with a capital Aitch, would favor Clinton over their darling, straight-talking Maverick (cue horse noises and Marlboro Man music), is laughable.
Hillary will get Gored. She'll fight back, but it won't stop them. On the other hand, St. McCain will receive the same fawning admiration that they lavished on Bush, only more so, because by 2008, the DC media will be in serious fawn withdrawals and will have bucketloads of drool saved up to spill at McCain's every utterance.
November 2, 2006 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, I don't take comfort from the fact that Hillary is on Murdoch's payroll. I'm hoping she'll take his money and give him a shiv, but I doubt it will work out that way.
November 2, 2006 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink