New National Obama Ad: "Inspiring"
In a sign of just how quickly the Dem primary is becoming a national contest, the Obama campaign is running this new ad nationally on the cable nets.
The ad is a pretty straightforward bio spot, recapping for a national audience his decision to eschew a lucrative law career in favor of community organizing and public service. It also returns to where the campaign began, unabashedly hitting his "uniter, not divider" theme again and again...
Comments (64)
Mike wrote on January 21, 2008 12:29 PM:Nice ad. It's a good mix of some old stuff with some new stuff like McCaskill.
grover_rover wrote on January 21, 2008 12:32 PM:Very nice, very nice.
Jorge wrote on January 21, 2008 12:34 PM:But but but there was a Republican in the ad.
This will make Bill Clinton very mad.
LiberalTarian wrote on January 21, 2008 12:42 PM:Yeah, too bad he is uniting progressives against him. I'll vote a straight Democratic ticket, but I am not sure I will hold my nose and vote for the man.
He loves Ronny Reagan so much--he should get Ronny to vote for him.
hisgirlfriday wrote on January 21, 2008 12:44 PM:Whoa that was quick. Just saw this on MSNBC.
DRinOH wrote on January 21, 2008 12:44 PM:That's a uniter. What follows is a small part of the enormous trail of evidence left behind by a divisive dynastic influence that's duping the American electorate as we speak.
"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president" -- Hillary Clinton commenting on the release of subpoenaed documents.
"This vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for President" -- Hillary Clinton
"I have to confess that it's crossed my mind that you could not be a Republican and a Christian." - Hillary Clinton in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, 1997
Folks, this kind of stuff is the red meat that will fire up deep-seeded Republican animosity and fuel the fires that continue to prevent us from coming together to and achieving what we're otherwise capable of. I liked the 90's as much as everyone else, but I don't want to move back, I want to move on.
DRinOH wrote on January 21, 2008 12:48 PM:LiberalTarian:
From Hillary's website: "Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, GEORGE H.W. BUSH and REAGAN - demonstrates how she thinks."
Oh, the hypocrisy.
HateTheGame wrote on January 21, 2008 12:53 PM:LiberalTarian,
Your comments make it immediately clear that you don't care about America as much as you care about petty party labels. Didn't you get the memo on Clinton? The Buch doctrine couldn't have come to its ugly fruition without the help of a lot of Democrats, HRC included. Having a D or an R next to your name does not a liberal or a conservative make.
Clinton could have the best vision and policy ideas in the history of mankind but her baggage will prevent her from getting any of her policies to her desk in the form of useful legislation.
There's a reson the fox news pundits were excited to have her back in the race, she's the only reason the democrats could lose come November...
DRinOH wrote on January 21, 2008 1:00 PM:Michelle Norris: "This is a conversation I've heard in South Carolina, talking to Republicans, how much they really want a Hillary Clinton victory. They'll talk openly about it and how they want to bring Barack Obama down a notch because they want to run against Hillary."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrAg-OPbPrY
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 1:03 PM:Unless Obama can effectively communicate "the beef" (i.e. policies) or answer effectively "Where is the beef" these types of feel good commercials will not win him primaries. He needs to get off this uniter bandwagon and start talking about specifics. What are his plans for economic crises, job creation, deficit, mortgage and housing crises. I am sure he has good plans and ideas but he needs to communicate that. These type of commercials inspire those that don't have to worry about daily struggles of life (i.e. college kids with well to do daddies and mommies and elite, yuppy liberals). If you look at who voted for him in NH and NV and who voted for Hillary you will get the picture.
Steve in CA wrote on January 21, 2008 1:05 PM:The production values on the ad are superb, but I am also a Democrat who is not thrilled with the message of the ad...
If the last seven years in general, and the last twelve months in particular, are indicative of anything, it is that The Republican Party has absolutely NO interest in a bipartisan America. They keep throwing punches, while our leadership seems curiously unwilling to fight.
Because of this, I look with a very jaundiced eye at a campaign who seems to think that the biggest problem is that Democrats are just too darned partisan. It seems all too Lieberman-esque for me, and we KNOW how that turned out.
I like Obama a great deal, and would gladly vote for him in November. But this ad does not do it for me.
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 1:14 PM:Obama has the coolest logo ever. This is a great ad, but a better one would show Bill Clinton saying: "“The same old experience is not relevant...rooted in the real lives of real people...it will bring real results if we have the courage to change.”
Will Bill come out for Obama when he wins the Democratic nomination?
Nicholas Kristof made some good point in yesterday's NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/opinion/20kristof.html?ex=1201582800&en=276aade231797a11&ei=5070
The Caped Composer wrote on January 21, 2008 1:14 PM:That's the point, Steve-- the ad is not aimed at partisan Democrats like us. It is aimed at independents and liberal-leaning Republicans, those who could potentially vote for Obama in November (but who would have a hard time voting for Hillary, especially if McCain is the Republican nominee). Obama is our best bet to go up against McCain-- he's something of a mirror-image of McCain. Both can appear to be quite centrist and reasonable, which appeals to the majority of Americans, most of whom do not closely follow politics. The fact that Obama is a true progressive and McCain is very much a right-winger are obscured by the images that the public has of them.
DRinOH wrote on January 21, 2008 1:20 PM:I think the criticism that the ad doesn't contain specifics is fair. But I also think that those who point to Hillary's specific policy proposals should remember that they are just that; proposals.
In order to get them passed she is going to have to do one of two things. Either (1) she's going to have to ride the waive of a broad bipartisan coalition that brings in +7-9 Dem Senators and + 15-20 Dem House Reps through down-ticket influence (impossible against McCain, unlikely against the others), OR she'll have to get Republicans in Congress like Jeff Sessions, Orin Hatch, and Mitch McConnell to support her ideas (and that IS impossible). On the other hand, exit polls and other data indicate that Obama can do the former, and to a lesser extent as this ad attempts to demonstrate, may even do some of the latter. That's why he's gotten so many red-state Dem endorsements (McCaskill, Napolitano, Tim Johnson, Bill Nelson, etc...)
If you want specifics on policy proposals, go to the candidate websites. The bottom line is they offer the same thing, but only one can deliver.
LiberalTarian wrote on January 21, 2008 1:23 PM:Actually, HRC was my third choice. I started disliking BHO on his own merits.
Re buying into lies--you should probably check your projection at the door. You want to be "uplifted"? Watch a movie, get therapy, do volunteer work.
I've been a Democrat my whole life. I've had pro-Democratic values, including strong labor, strong education, national defense and strong dollar values. I am not interested in happy talk about reconciliation with Republicans. They MADE this mess. BHO has no interest in dialog with relatively educated people, he just wants us to trust him. Regardless of how he says he will change the system, how is that message any different from GWB's message the last 7 years?
I used to think BHO was the next thing since sliced bread. Thoughtful, careful, deliberate. If he had stayed with that message, I would still be liking him. But he is giving me more of what Republicans have given me--attacks on my values from the right. Unions as "special interests." Reagan as national hero. Bull. Nobody made him canonize Reagan--his speechwriter (26-year old white guy) thought it was a good idea, and BHO went with it. That does not jive with a thoughtful, careful, deliberate leader.
You attacking HRC doesn't make BHO more attractive. If you gave a crap about his candidacy, you would try to explain to me how his policies are better. You care about his cult of personality--and by God, after GWB I have no further use for cult followers of politicians.
Steve in CA wrote on January 21, 2008 1:27 PM:Caped Composer--
I understand who the ad is targetting, but that is part of my problem. I'd love to see a national Democratic campaign where the nominee says "vote for the Democrat because OUR IDEAS ARE BETTER, and here's how...".
I would prefer that to yet another campaign (one of which was led, ironically enough, by Bill Clinton) where the nominee says "vote for the Democrat because I am not as scary as you think."
The unspoken premise of this ad is that traditional Democrats are scary and partisan. But he (Obama) rises above all of that horrible partisanship. Given what has happened the last few years, I reject the premise.
I'd have LOOOVED to see an Obama ad where he talks about the variety of maladies visited upon us because of seven years of Bush-style Republicanism, and then prescribing his remedies to change it. That'd be inspiring, especially to a nation where 75% of us think we are on the wrong track.
HateTheGame wrote on January 21, 2008 1:30 PM:That's just it LiberalTarian, even if HRC and BO's policies were different(which they aren't, by the way) . HRC's better policies wouldn't matter because she'll never get a chance to enact them. She'll be too busy fighting with congress and the GOP to do anything, let alone lead an effective presidency. Let me help you out a bit: When both candidates policies are nearly identical, you vote for the one that would best represent what America is. America, by the numbers, is a largely centrist group. The problem is that most of the centrists don't vote, they leave that for the Rabid liberal-conservative labelmongers who listen to Rush, Bill O'Reilly, and Michael Moore.
If the last 8 years have taught us anything, it's that the psychological makeup, temperment, and overall attitude of a President truly matter.
Joel wrote on January 21, 2008 1:31 PM:Ad is playing on CNN and MSNBC, it's not aimed at voters, it's aimed at political insiders. More of faux, we're moving national, than a national move.
Coonsey wrote on January 21, 2008 1:38 PM:This ad is very good. I hope it begins to air across America soon.
I think Obama's ability to start from scatch with very low polling and end p neck and neck with the CLINTON MACHINE is just amazing. It definitely shows his ability to plan, organize, gather the right crew and execute his goal. I don't now of any other Democrat able to take on the TWO PERSON candidate of the Hillary established for YEAR campaign.
Coonsey's View
www.freewebs.com/coonsey/
DRinOH--
Could you please tell me WHERE on Hillary Clinton's website she cited both Reagan and GHW Bush as her heroes? I just scoured the biography section of her site for that reference, as well as the front page, and I did not see it. I did not check the entire website, however.
The only reference to Reagan I could find was a "fact-check" on their blog that straightened out an allegation earlier in the week that HRC had told the Salmon Papers Editorial Board that she was an admirer for Reagan.
Nigel Aimes wrote on January 21, 2008 1:44 PM:LiberalTarian - I think you're painting all Republicans with the same broad brush. When Obama says he wants to reach Republicans, of course he doesn't mean the red meat voters; those people are lost to the Democrats forever. He means Chuck Hagel-type Republicans, who are moderate on some social issues, and on foreign policy -- the kind who have been forced by Rove and Bush to toe the line.
Obama doesn't really want to sweep the nation; that's impossible. He just wants 60 seats in the Senate and a handy House majority. 60 seats is filibuster-proof.
Bupalos wrote on January 21, 2008 1:45 PM:>>>
That'd be inspiring, especially to a nation where 75% of us think we are on the wrong track.
>>>
Steve, if you stop and think about it, the 75% wrong track figure tells you almost nothing. If 25% of those people think the reason that we are on the wrong track is that our morals are not right-wing Christian enough, then you've probably got a majority that would be "negatively inspired" by what you are suggesting.
We are in a great position. But we aren't going to get our legislation through unless we change the electoral politics further in our favor. Now you may have some reservations about whether Obama can PRESERVE the numbers he is currently showing through a general, but you can't really argue that at this point he looks a lot MORE like the candidate that can change the map in a way that will get our platform through. Clinton, while she may be a win, is almost surely a win by points and by clinching. Obama may be a win and he may be a knockout. That's what the numbers say.
I know a lot of older democrats that feel just as you do, but if you stop and think about it, it's you are making rhetoric the issue and emptying out the content of the debate. If you look at the electoral realities, Obama's get-along rhetoric is contrasted to Clinton's get-along action.
She has to act that way because she's always under attack and inspires so much irrational opposition. And Obama as much as openly says, "look, I'm just talking this way so we can build a new majority and get our policies done. We want to steamroll like Reagan, but we might have to drop his name every now and then to do it."
No candidate is perfect, because they are all reflections of a divided electorate. But I think if you will concentrate on hard realities --the effect on downticket races, the potential margin and mandate -- complaining about the way you get to that point is just so much navel gazing.
Also consider that the Clinton brand is heavily weighted by a kind of mincing language that plays with the truth. Call it the "is is" thing. While that wouldn't hurt too much against Romney, it would be death against "straight talk" McCain, IMO. Compare, for instance, their relative stances on torture. If you can call Hillary's language a "stance" at all, I think you'll see what we'll be up against.
That is very powerfull, basic stuff, that over the course of a long campaign will be pretty hard to overcome.
Michael wrote on January 21, 2008 2:00 PM:Steve-
While I appreciate your partisan bent, I think such a campaign would be, in effect, self-defeating. Running as the champion of Democrats might win Obama (or Hillary) the nomination, but it will only serve to motivate moderate GOPers and right-leaning Indies to close ranks. You consolidate your base doing that, but you also consolidate your opponents' ranks. And that's not constructive in the least, for a couple obvious reasons:
1-In a polarized atmosphere, the election immediately becomes a "politics of the small", where a little slither of unaffiliated independents are targeted. Gathering a mandate for anything large like universal healthcare becomes near impossible.
2-The US gov't is designed to be biased in favor of the status quo. The only way to get major legislation passed is through gathering broad support, which requires either complete dominance of the Senate to such an extent that your party can beat any fillibuster (completely unlikely), or the ability to peel off a couple moderates from the opposite party to get on board with your bill. Since, as I noted, getting a fillibuster-proof margin in the Senate is most-likely not gonna happen, we need to create an environment favorable to peeling GOPers off from their ranks. Using strong partisan rhetoric to heighten the partisan atmosphere in Washington, as such, is counter-productive.
Instead of having a debate over policy, you turn it into a political battle. One can argue that the establishment GOP will try to do that anyway, and they will, but the way to combat that is to work to tamper that down...so that the electorate reacts negatively to the GOP obstructionism, which puts pressure on GOP senators in states trending blue (like an Arlen Specter or Olympia Snowe) to break ranks and get on board.
Turning this all into a battle of the political parties plays right into the GOPs hands. Partisanship enhances the status quo bias of our gov't, and if we want to significantly alter the status quo, that means trying to reduce partisanship, even if we recognize that we cannot fully eradicate it.
GMFORD wrote on January 21, 2008 2:00 PM:Not enough 'meat' in the ad? How much meat do you expect in a 10-second commercial?
People who need specifics to make their choice can go to each candidate's website and compare their plans. Remember Ross Perot and his flipcharts? Most voters fell asleep when he started to talk. What did he say that was memorable? He said if we pass NAFTA all we will hear is a giant sucking sound as jobs go to mexico. Not a policy specific but a soundbite.
Bupalos wrote on January 21, 2008 2:15 PM:Excellent post Michael. I think dems would do well to consider that we are going to be in the majority, so a "spirit of cooperation" works 100% in our favor and a spirit of partisanship works 100% in theirs.
Michael wrote on January 21, 2008 2:35 PM:Thanks Bupalos.
I'd add that, to the extent that we want to go for a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate, that means working to court Independents and moderate Republicans in the general to amass huge electoral margins. It also means driving more voters to the polls, since they'll be more likely to vote party-line than a moderate GOP you got to switch for the President. You look at Obama's support amongst Indies and moderate GOPers, and his ability to get out first-time young voters (even though he lost NH and Nevada, young voter participation in both states was way up and very favorable to him), and I think it's plain that no matter which approach to getting legislation passed one wants to take, running as a "post partisan" is probably an easier path to get there than running as a strong partisan.
YoungBeerDrinkingInDebtDemWhoAgreesWithHisWineDrinkingFriends wrote on January 21, 2008 2:44 PM:The uniter ad is spot on. For those who say that he needs to get to substance, I agree with those who have suggested reading his website.
On the issue of reaching out to independents and republicans: He is not saying that he agrees with right-wing ideas, he is convincing independents and moderate republicans that they don't actually agree with right-wing ideas. He is not saying let's compromise. He is saying here are my progressive ideas and I think you actually agree with them. What's more, he gets people to agree with them.
I'm hearing a lot recently about how his support is coming from college kids and "young, elite, liberal yuppies." And that this is a bad thing. Interesting that this is the same set that supported Dean in the last election, while the older establishment Democrats went with Kerry. The older, establishment Democrats are sticking with the same game plan for the most part--just hoping that repeating the same plan with a different face on the ticket will work (because people are more fed up than they were four years ago, I guess). The young, elite, yuppie democrats actually learned their lesson. They are still going with a progressive candidate, just one that can win the general election. My sense is that they like Obama, and they like Clinton, but what they like more than either is a Democrat in the white house. It seems that what the other set likes more is sticking to the same old plan out of some need to prove that it can eventually work or that the third time will be a charm. You have a man who is winning the votes of Independents and Republicans in the Democratic primary. If he is running in the general election we are less likely to see an independent or third-party candidate who will take votes from the nominee. Clinton may be doing fine in head to head polls with Huckabee. If he is the Republican nominee, we should win...unless Clinton is the democratic nominee and Bloomberg (or someone else) decides there is room for a moderate, takes votes from Clinton, and makes Huckabee the next President of the United States. In which case, our next trip to the polls might be to vote down a "sanctity of life or marriage" amendment to the constitution.
DRinOH wrote on January 21, 2008 3:30 PM:Steve in CA;
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
Here's the link to the page on Hillary's site where she cites Reagan as one of her "favorite presidents."
Obama as "uniter". I think he'd make a superb vice president for Hillary Clinton. As president of the Senate, he could take on the task of attempting to secure Republican support for the Clinton-Obama agenda (since they agree on about 90% of the issues). Obama would make a great "ambassador" to GOP America.
DRinOH wrote on January 21, 2008 3:36 PM:To those who criticize the ad as being weak on substance, I hope you enjoy this post from Ben Smith:
"Obama's new ad, contrary to its title, seems aimed at answering the "Where's the beef?" question, with a focus on policy accomplishments delivered by Larry Tribe and Claire McCaskill."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/
The Salmon Press repudiated that part of the endorsement, DR....
"David Cutler, the co-owner of Salmon Press Newspapers, released the following statement:
The question posed was originally what portraits would you hang in the White House if you were President and as the dialogue progressed, who are the presidents you admire most?
She [Sen. Clinton] listed several presidents that she admired and mentioned she liked Reagan’s communication skills. She did not say Reagan was her favorite President. She didn’t say anything close to that."
That was clarified last week.
Thanks Steve in CA,
It being clarified last week sure didn't stop Russert and Noonan from giggling about it yesterday. It would be nice if they would at least be current with the facts.
Susan S wrote on January 21, 2008 4:04 PM:Is this the ad that's playing in Florida? If so, it's breaking the pledge. Does that mean that NOW the Democratic candidates can come to Florida???
Trumandem wrote on January 21, 2008 4:22 PM:Oh. My. God.
We've been down this road so many damn times the wagon wheel tracks are so deep the axil is dragging the ground. When will Obama partisans realize the GOP has no intention of E V E R coming together in a bipartisan effort, I don't give a damn how much of a minority they find themselves.
This has the potential to be a transitional election ala 1932. And we are going to waste it on extending a hand to those animals. There is only one way to deal with that snake, cut it's head off and kill it. Now that Edwards is more than likely gone I'm left with a Ronny Reagan lover and a Lieberman convert.
Will someone P L E A S E show me a real Democrat in this race.
Jeez.
TrumanDem
Truman's Conscience
"The Buck Stopped Here"
Steve in CA,
Ummm....yeah, but she has this posted ON HER OWN WEBSITE, so she obviously takes PRIDE in it:
"But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list."
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
Wil Burns wrote on January 21, 2008 4:39 PM:Remember what they did to Harold Ford?
Who thinks America has changed in the last 14 months?
Michael,
Thanks for your posts making the case for Obama. Very well done! I think the points you make are overlooked on most blogs.
Trumandem,
Let me clarify the post-partisan (I like that term better than bipartisan) reasoning:
We're talking about VOTERS, here--If Obama really succeeds in bringing in Indies, new voters, and disaffected Republicans, it will make ALL elected officials sit up and take notice. It'll work if he can coalesce, on a grassroots level, a message that we are tired of the hyper-partisan stalemates (They give cover to each party's officials--there's always the OTHER party to blame for not accomplishing anything, i.e., maintaining a status quo.)
If elected officials (especially Repubs in "purple" or "blue" states, and Dems in "red" or "purple" states) see that there are majorities of voters who will SUPPORT a change in the current partisan battles, it *should* give them the political courage to MOVE FORWARD on much needed policy changes.
IT'S ABOUT THE VOTERS, REALLY.
So it's important to keep in mind that the coalescing of political will HAS to be at the grassroots level to really force politicians to catch up. I think Obama is doing a good job of that.
ww wrote on January 21, 2008 4:50 PM:"HRC's better policies wouldn't matter because she'll never get a chance to enact them. She'll be too busy fighting with congress and the GOP to do anything, let alone lead an effective presidency"
I dunno were this started, and I'm certainly not picking on an individual, but this is pure fantasy BS. If anyone thinks for one minute that and Dem Prez will be spared a tough fight you have another thing comin'.
Obama's rhetoric as a 'uniter' says he doesn't understand what's gonna happen to him if he takes office. Hillary is under no such delusion. Barak will get run over and have his *ss handed to him. Hillary know ecaxtly what's in front of her, and suspect Edwards does too. That's one reason why he hasn't backed away from his fighting stance. He gets it. Barak doesn't.
ww wrote on January 21, 2008 4:52 PM:"post-partisan"
LOL! Now I've heard about all I can take.
DRinOH,
Do you know of any presidential candidate who served as VP who released their papers? No. It's never done for administrative reasons. This "secretive" myth has been debunked by factcheck.org. Check it out yourself.
I'm amazed people can't enjoy this ad without mentioning their hatred for Clinton. This is a great ad. Comment on that.
Davidson wrote on January 21, 2008 5:02 PM:DRinOH,
God, again with your lies: She did not say that, the paper misquoted her. She praised his communication skills.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/18/212510/306/152/439202
Before you shriek this is from Clinton's internet director who went straight to the owner of the paper:
David Cutler, the co-owner of Salmon Press Newspapers, released the following statement:
The question posed was originally what portraits would you hang in the White House if you were President and as the dialogue progressed, who are the presidents you admire most?
She [Sen. Clinton] listed several presidents that she admired and mentioned she liked Reagan’s communication skills. She did not say Reagan was her favorite President. She didn’t say anything close to that.
The campaign staffer didn't find the mistake before it was put up, understandable considering the level of work that goes into every sites. The most important thing is the fact that she didn't say that. Besides, no Obama supporter is helping their case by saying, "Hillary said it, too." He's supposed to be different remember?
I'm done talking to someone who's obviously rabid and likely mentally unwell. I hope your disability payments help you cope with your reality. I have to get back to work. No, it's not for the Clinton campaign. I've been a staunch Edwards supporter, but just to fuck with you, I'll tell you that I plan to vote for the GOP if Hillary doesn't get the nomination. Hell, I'll be campaigning for Huckabee while sending e-smears about Obama on my Blackberry and burning copies of "Audacity of Hope" and "Dreams From My Father!"
Laura in Austin wrote on January 21, 2008 5:02 PM:ww:
Tacky comment. My posts have been respectful and have not been condescending or insulting to other posters. I do not appreciate your tone.
lambert strether wrote on January 21, 2008 5:07 PM:Wow, A Republican in the ad? One of the pro-torture ones, or another kind? Oh, wait....
lambert strether wrote on January 21, 2008 5:09 PM:God, it's tiring. Obama that progressive uniting Reagan-lovin' blanks slate onto which people project all their hopes and dreams....
lambert strether wrote on January 21, 2008 5:28 PM:Laura:
Well, this is the internet, and snark is routine. He's not just writing a drive-by, he's making a substantive point: Conflict is inevitable.
It's a take what you like and leave the res thing. Shake off the snark and move forward.
tm wrote on January 21, 2008 6:23 PM:The chronology in this ad is wrong. The implication is that the community organizing was after Harvard Law (the Tribe segement reinforces this).
After Harvard, he wrote his first book, lectured at U of C and directed Project Vote! I'm not saying that Project Vote! wasn't a god thing, but it was much different than the type of community organizing depicted and the timing makes a difference. If Obama had done the street level, low paid work post Harvard, that would say a lot about him. That he wants us to believe he did and thinks he can pull the wool over our eyes also says a lot about him.
His bio is good, why distort (to make it great?)?
ww wrote on January 21, 2008 6:23 PM:Well, ok Laura. I didn't mean to offend your sensibilities.
But, post-partisan? I really was lol, sorry.
ww wrote on January 21, 2008 6:28 PM:Jim Henely explaining what we're up against, and for my money, why the whole 'uniter' hopefest is pie in the sky:
Democrats are the party of treason isn’t just something bloggers and barflies believe. It’s the firm conviction of very wealthy and powerful stalwarts of the American Right...
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 6:38 PM:I didn't coin the term "post-partisan." And there is, in fact, a lot skepticism about the potential success of a post-partisan candidacy. You may have legitimate points to argue against it. My point is that Obama, by going to the grassroots to push this message, has a chance of making it work.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/06/AR2008010602402.html
Gawd. Haven't we had enough of the "I'm a uniter, not a divider" rhetoric? It's cute, like a fuzzy bunny; but it's not really going to do anything for this country--unless you like what the last "uniter" did.
Case wrote on January 21, 2008 6:43 PM:Not to throw out such a vile suggestion about the nature of humans, but a lot of us supported Kerry in 2004 with the argument that getting sound new information and education on issues would force any reasonable human to reconsider their original beliefs on those issues. We are capable of change, and moreover we are arrogant and ignorant if we resist change for the sake of not being called a flip-flopper.
We are Americans. We are humans. We are capable of change. EVEN Republicans are capable of change, and to suggest that a substantial number of moderate Republican voters and Independents aren't PEOPLE capable of formulating new ideas when given good information from a Democrat in a way that inspires them to cross over to the Democratic Party is folly. They are not automatons any more than Democrats are, and after 8 years a lot of moderate Republicans are hurting and feeling betrayed and looking for hope for a better track. Would you like them to support your candidate, or would you like to spit on them for being wrong in the past? I would rather have them voting my candidate into office where the things that a solid majority of America want get the attention they deserve.
Case wrote on January 21, 2008 6:47 PM:anon--
The difference is the last guy talked about being a uniter. Obama actually has a track record of uniting opposing voices.
Yes, god forbid we fall for another phony claim of being a "uniter not a divider." But be fair--there are NO similarities between GWB and Obama.
You'll have to decide for yourself, but for me, a look at Obama's previous work and the consistency of his campaign message helps to assure that it's more than just talk. Of course, we take a gamble with ANY of the candidates, don't we? None of them are perfect. All the Democratic candidates stand for a change in policy. I'm just ready for a bigger, stronger Democratic Party to help ensure that the change really does happen. I think Obama's the one to make that happen.
Trumandem wrote on January 21, 2008 8:10 PM:Laura In Austin,
Well, perhaps you should keep this in mind. As long as Obama AND Clinton keep using Republican issue frames and talking points what you will get is the age old question: "Why vote for a luke-warm Republican when you can vote for the real thing?" You can't get anymore bipartisan than the Iraq war. You can't get any more bipartisan than the tax cuts Bush and the GOP have continuously pushed while the teasury gets emptied on the Iraq war. You can't get anymore bipartisan than the so called Patriot Act where we get to have everything from our library records to our phone records rifled through at will. You can't get any more bipartisan than actually having a freakin' debate on torture and whether or not its actually OK to use it. Didn't think that last one would be in my lifetime.
Yeah, I've had enough "bipartisanship" and "post partisanship" or any other new age name you want to attach to it. It's time for progressive ideals to be presented to he American people vs the "bipartisan" or "Post partisan" ways of the past and let them vote on it. Up or down and make it clear how different those ideas are.
Standing around and linking hands and singing Kumbaya around a campfire isn't going to cut it. I've been so damn mad at both Clinton and Obama today alone I've had to listen to MLK's last speech a couple of times just to keep me on an even keel. I've had it with this tactic. Look where it has gotten us - - a regional party whose idea's have been marginalized. Watching Obama wax rhapsodic over that dotering racist who slept through 8 years of office telling Americans that old liberals like myself are/were/still are the problem and to be feared makes me wonder what parallel universe I'm occupying.
I don't need Obama giving a wave to Reagan, the same guy who kick started his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi where 2 civil rights workers were slain as a message to people of color to "keep their place" all the while winking and nodding at the white supremacist telling them "I feel your rage guys."
I just want to wretch.
Show me the Democrat. The REAL one. I'll be glad to vote FOR that person. Right now I'm voting against the GOP - you know, the ones that keep telling America I'm piece of unpatriotic crap. So in the general election I'll be walking in the booth pulling a lever for a person I don't even believe in.
Your message to me seems to be just get used to disenfranchisement. Watching some orator who can blow the doors off any building with rosy oratory will make that castor oil go down real easy.
Either way it will still turn my stomach.
TrumanDem
Truman's Conscience
"The Buck Stopped Here"
It's interesting that those who degrade the Obama approach I outlined never make the case for how they imagine legislation getting past in a hyper-partisan atmosphere without 60 votes in the Senate.
I wonder why that it is?
Michael,
Perhaps you need to go back and examine that 6o vote rule in the Senate. I don't think that rule is what you think it is.
IOW, that arguement is spurious considering what the actual rules of the Senate are to vote legislation through.
TrumanDem
Truman's Conscience
"The Buck Stopped Here"
I'm deeply offended by this ad. Where's the beef?
I was willing to consider voting for Obama, but this ad is the last straw. I want him to run ads of screenshots of policy white papers with bipartisan Ben Stein reading them aloud. The fact that he doesn't just confirms that he's deeply lacking in substance and a political neophyte. That boy should leave big politics to master intellects like Clinton and LBJ.
Hillary 08!
Zephyrus wrote on January 21, 2008 9:08 PM:I was also deeply offended by Obama's hagiography to Reagan. With that he clearly showed himself to sympathize deeply with the murder of civil rights workers. Who wants a racist man in a white hood to be President?
Hillary '08!
Laura in Austin wrote on January 21, 2008 9:16 PM:Trumandem,
I don't want to minimize the anger people feel at the damage that Republican rule has caused. I'm asking that we ALL try to be a little less reflexively defensive, a little less ready to have a knee-jerk response (though this country's wounds are very real). A lot of Democrats are very emotionally invested in their anger at Republicans. Being angry and defensive is helpful when we are being attacked, but it can be a handicap when it prevents us from opening our minds to new ideas. I believe Obama is not trying to attack liberals or Democrats. I believe he is trying to grow the party.
That said, if you find it hard to take Obama's rhetoric because he doesn't sufficiently criticize Republicans and because the wounds are too deep, I can understand that. If that's the case, I respectfully ask of you, rather than focus on Obama's rhetoric, to try to spend some time really examining his resume, his work in the Illinois and US Senates, and well-reasoned (unbiased) analyses of his policy positions. You will find that he is quite consistently progressive---much more so than Hillary. And his voting record has often been braver and more true to progressive values than Hillary's and even Edwards' (though I like him very much too, btw.)
But he can't attract independents and moderate Republicans if his rhetoric is too partisan. He knows this. He is looking to expand the Democratic Party, build a new majority coalition to influence law makers and legislation.
Which brings me to my final point: the president's job is less about crafting the perfect policy and more about driving policy agendas and building coalitions to get those policies passed. I am asking that everyone give that some consideration when evaluating the candidates.
I'm sorry this post is so long-winded and I appreciate your respectful engagement with me and others on this topic, Trumandem.
sTiVo wrote on January 21, 2008 11:24 PM:Not to pick on you, Laura, because many others say the same, but you happen to be last so you get the question:
>> But he can't attract independents and moderate Republicans if his rhetoric is too partisan. He knows this.
Please explain how this differs from the triangulation we all dislike so much in the Clintons?
Laura in Austin wrote on January 22, 2008 12:09 AM:Hi, sTiVo.
Well, I guess you could say this is political calculation or triangulation on his part, but his ultimate goal is to be more *inclusive* and to cultivate the power to force change from the grassroots level. Personally, I don't find this offensive.
Also, I look at it this way: I support Obama, but I know I'll never persuade anyone to consider him if I approach the discussion from a "my candidate is great and your candidate sucks" frame. I try very hard to be respectful of others' views. I believe that's what Obama's campaign (though I sadly admit, not all his supporters or surrogates follow) *tries* to do with voters of all ideological stripes.
And I appreciate his campaign's encouragement to everyone to become more active participants in working for policy change. Again, it's a grassroots message of inclusiveness.
My view is the calculation and triangulation that people resent the kind we see when a politician's position on a particular issue moves back and forth, based on their perceived strategic "political safety." For instance, he points out (some say, ad nauseum) his position on the Iraq war vote, because he made his position known even though it was politically risky for him. Other elected officials were too afraid to because Republicans were (are) such good bullies. His point is that he is sure enough of moral clarity on CERTAIN issues to be able to exercise good judgement(and what's more important than the decision on whether or not we should go to war?).
I hope you will read all of my other comments on this thread and give your consideration to Obama.
Bogus wrote on January 22, 2008 10:18 AM:I don't want "inspiration." I want action.
Laura in Austin wrote on January 22, 2008 1:32 PM:Bogus,
Fair enough. But be fair about evaluating the kind of "action" Hillary takes. Her record doesn't "inspire" much confidence in me.
