Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Dear Superdelgates: Two reasons to back Obama now
There are two issues super
delegates and other elected officials ought to be considering, and
suspect they are even in the midst of this incredible snow job Bill and
Hillary are staging for our stunned amazement and entertainment.
One is that, as the example in Denny Hastert's former district proves, Obama's coat-tails are
going to be a lot longer and wider than Hillary's ever can be. If you
all want to increase the Democratic margins in Congress, and even get
yourselves elected down-ticket, you probably ought not pick the wrong
horse to back now. The clock is ticking. Hillary's not going to pull this one out, but she may
make you wish you'd decided to back Obama sooner after she makes us all suffer through a few more weeks of crazytown stuff.
The second point is in reaction to that Ioway congressman's stupid little
publicity stunt... You know, Obama's name is gonna make the puritanical jihadis dance in the street and all that.
He's not to be taken seriously. But what is to be
taken seriously is the definite strategic advantage Obama as president
will represent. This is the second thing I wanted to point out to you.
Muslims aren't as stupid as our Congressmen tend to be, and they
know perfectly
well that an Arabic middle name doesn't mean squat. He's not one of
them. They know it. We don't, apparently, but they do. Some of them
would rather kill him than a Marine, because he is the apostate son of
an apostate father, and that's really bad, I guess.
But what IS important, were we to actually elect the man, is that this would send a tsunami around the Middle East, which has been fed a diet of propaganda that America is a hater of Muslims, is a nation of crusaders, is a nation that hates anyone who is not white.
What do you think Al-Qaida's best recruting argument has been, after all, if not this very argument? Abu Gharab was just gravy, a gift that keeps on giving.
If America elects a black man with his background and outlook, we will have given ourselves the greatest strategic advantage we've had since 9/11, when BushCo pissed away what sympathy we had.
We would suddenly no longer be quite the racist, bigoted, imperialstic nation of Crusaders. (OK, I realize Osama is not gonna listen, but a few million ordinary Jordanians, and Palestinians, and Iranians, and a bunch of others would feel like they just got smacked with a truth stick. At the very worst, the election would cause some serious rethinking overseas about us, and we sorely need the benefit of the doubt about now. Is that really such a bad thing, now. Really?
Of course it isn't.So to the superdelegates, even if you don't have much of a spine and only care about yourselves, you've got a reason to back Obama. And if you do still have a spark of patriotism, you have another good reason. Win-win.
What are you waiting for, an engraved invitation? Try to keep up
with us, the people, too, will you? We're getting kind of tired having
to drag you along to do the right things all the time.
Comments (6)
I agree. Regarding point #2, I would also argue that Obama is in a unique position to reach out to countries in the middle east, Asia and Africa to fight terrorism more effectively. People tend to forget that 90% of the victims of terrorism are muslims in places like Algeria, Iraq and Pakistan.Terrorism is a global problem that requires a global solution.
March 11, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Precisely. That's what's so annoying about the attitudes expressed by that dolt in Iowa. It's so parochial, and one of the (many) things that has been so frightening about the Bush era is the extent to which the jingoists and militarists and arrogant SOB's have been ignorant of the situation into which they've thrust us with this war.
I'm not blind; I know we're addicted to oil, and we need to have a policy that assures us of continued supply (while we figure out how to break that dependency and shift to other sources of energy and cut back on the logic of a consumer culture that is based on cheap oil). But the good old boys and the oil men who have been running things have been clumsy, blind and devious. It's time to go in a whole new direction, and a good place to start is with a new president who, by his very person, changes the subject and gives the Muslim world some reason to give us the benefit of the doubt again.
March 11, 2008 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Try to keep up with us, the people, too, will you?
---------------------------------------------------
Last poll I saw before march 4 said 67% think the contest should continue if Clinton and Obama split Texas and Ohio. That tells me the people aren't so upset about this competition as the netroots are. So maybe its the netroots that should relax and keep up with the people.
March 11, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except, paDem wasn't addressing voters, the argument was to the SDs. Call it a done deal for X & Y.
The first argument makes some sense now, but if you give HRC the benefit of the doubt, it's possible she'll end up marshaling the electorate behind her, thus equalizing the coattails effect. (I say equalizing, because I feel pretty strongly that if HRC were at the top of the ticket, the Repubs would be very energized and their turnout would help them in otherwise close Congressional elections, yielding reverse coattails for HRC.) So, it makes sense today to suggest the SDs move to Obama en masse and end the contest, but by letting the contest run its course we allow a few more months (an ostensibly open campaigning period, given that the race is only truly over when the convention vote has concluded) to let the chips fall where they may.
As for your second argument, it was just as valid a year ago as it is today. It didn't seem to stop a wide majority of the committed SDs from backing HRC early, and it's not likely to become a more or less valid argument over time. Sure, I think it's a great reason for SDs to back O, but it's no reason for the SDs to go public with their support now.
For better or worse, I think we need to let HRC run her campaign and see where it takes her. She continues to lose SDs day by day, so it keeps looking more and more sure that O will be the nominee in August.
March 11, 2008 3:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
His argument to the supers was, among other things, to, "Try to keep up with us, the people, too, will you? We're getting kind of tired having to drag you along to do the right things all the time." I think the supers are staying out because they are with the people. I think this angst for a quick end comes from the tiny fraction of the people who post on blogs.
March 11, 2008 4:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was a single poll, in Newsweek, I believe, and it's been beaten to death by the Clintons in this latest gamesmanship, trying to convince everyone that she's winning when... she's not.
My point is that we already know that politicians don't really have spines. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing (its what keeps them concerned about what we think, and to make sure they rush to the head of any parade to look like leaders, after all). But the political calculus of the coat-tail phenomenon is a very real issue for office-holders who want to continue to be office holders. I've talked to a few here who are running for re-election, or for the first time, and they're worried about Hillary being on the top of the ticket. They're not stupid people, generally, and they know Obama's bringing in thousands of new voters, energising a whole new layer of volunteers, and she's not. Her demographic is fixed and, while in some flux, is not the future of the party.
March 11, 2008 6:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment