Sounding Like A Republican

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 11:47:59 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

So Barack Obama is going to go after Hillary Clinton now. Umm, what took him so long? Anyway, this part bothered me:

[Obama] accused [Clinton] of “straddling between the Giuliani, Romney side of the foreign policy equation and the Barack Obama side of the equation.” He said that she was trying to “sound or vote” like a Republican on national security issues and that that was “bad for the country and ultimately bad for Democrats.”

Very true. But what about trying to sound like a Republican on social issues? What about all that appealing to "values voters" that Obama does? We all know about Obama's willingness to attack Democrats in front of "values voters" and this statement is ominous:

Mr. Obama suggested that she was too divisive to win a general election and that if she won, she would be unable to bring together competing factions in Washington to accomplish anything. “There is a legacy that is both an enormous advantage to her in a Democratic primary, but also a disadvantage to her in a general election,” he said. “I don’t think anybody would claim that Senator Clinton is going to inspire a horde of new voters,” he said. “I don’t think it’s realistic that she is going to get a whole bunch of Republicans to think differently about her.”

But they are going to like the way Obama panders to the "values voters?" Excuse me Senator Obama, it will be good to see you draw sharp distinctions with Senator Clinton on certain issues. But how about you drawing some distinctions with Republicans on other issues? Your Joe Lieberman imitation on "values" is a serious problem.

< Allegations Leaked in David Copperfield Alleged Rape Case | World Series: Game 4 and Observations >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Sounding Like A Republican | 45 comments (45 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Obama has nothing to sell (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by koshembos on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 01:38:09 PM EST

Obama is where he is because after all the smoke, he has nothing interesting to offer. When talking about sounding Republican we don't forget him supporting attacks on the mirage Al Qaida in Pakistan. He and Hillary have an identical plan for Iraq. Obama may be smart and a good public speaker, but this time around his main staple is bipartisanship. This is pure crap. How do you make friends with fascists? How do you make people the stole, robed, committed war crimes?

: work across the aisle with fascists ... WHY (none / 0) (#10)
by seabos84 on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 02:11:13 PM EST

work with people who ONLY represent 1/4 of 1% of the population?
wanna do NEW politics?
how about causign political extinction for the fascists and their dem enabler sell outs,
oh, and, by the way ...
represent the middle 70 or 80% of us who want a lot of the same things from government?
rmm.

Republican Soundbite (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by squeaky on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 02:24:56 PM EST

Mr. Obama suggested that she was too divisive to win a general election and that if she won, she would be unable to bring together competing factions in Washington to accomplish anything.

This is a Republican meme. Digby dissects it:

Hillary, by contrast, is polarizing not because she wants to be, but because the right-wing attack machine made her that way. She's "polarizing" only because a certain deranged slice of conservative nutjobs detest her.
And guess what? By this standard, Jimmy Carter is polarizing. Bill Clinton is polarizing. Al Gore is polarizing. John Kerry is polarizing. Do you see the trend here?
There are plenty of good reasons to oppose Hillary Clinton. But anyone who opposes her because she's polarizing is allowing the bottom feeders of modern movement conservativism to dictate who gets to run for president and who doesn't.

digby

Death, Taxes, and Swiftboating (none / 0) (#15)
by RedHead on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 02:37:53 PM EST

There are only three things certain in 2008, death, taxes, and the late-August Swiftboating.

We could nominate General Petraeus, and come August, Romney would be calling him General Betrayus.

Heck, when Obama was viable, Fox said he attended a madrassa and the lot of them attacked jugular vein and the sound of his last name.


B W Squeaky opines (none / 0) (#33)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 07:16:51 PM EST

She's "polarizing" only because a certain deranged slice of conservative nutjobs detest her.

Somewhere around 51% of the voters dislike her.

Didn't know there were that many conservative nutjobs.


Typical BS (1.00 / 0) (#34)
by squeaky on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 07:25:25 PM EST

One of ppj's innumerable facts: the ones he makes up or repeats from wingnuttia.


B W Squeaky opines (none / 0) (#36)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:22:55 PM EST

One of ppj's innumerable facts: the ones he makes up or repeats from wingnuttia.

Ah yes. From that well known Right Wing Blog, aka "The Huffington Post."

Gallup has been tracking Sen. Clinton's public perception and its findings are devastating. 58% had a favorable impression at the start of 2007, while 40% saw her unfavorably. Now, after five months of positioning, those numbers have flipped: 52% have an unfavorable view while only 45% see her positively.

tehe

Huffington Post


Another Phony Fact (1.00 / 0) (#37)
by squeaky on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:18:19 PM EST

From PPJ. Doing a lot of digging? The link is dated May 2007, just waking up?


That's 5 months (none / 0) (#38)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 07:17:03 AM EST

Prove it wrong, B W.

You can't.

hehe


: More Stale BS (1.00 / 0) (#43)
by squeaky on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 10:58:18 AM EST

You are the one who said that 51% of American voters are against Hillary, no one else. It is BS trolling, no one needs to disprove your false claim. Ball is in your court troll.

: Current Poll (1.00 / 0) (#46)
by squeaky on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 06:16:08 PM EST

Brings your stale BS up to date.

One year before voters go to the polls to select the next president, the Republican Party is as weak as it has been in a generation, a detailed new poll suggests.
Republicans are so down in the dumps that even their putative front-runner, Rudy Giuliani, would lose to Hillary Clinton by a wide margin, according to the poll. Bloc after bloc of traditionally Republican voters would back her over him:
She wins the South.

Dislike, but will still vote for her (none / 0) (#44)
by jondee on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:01:45 AM EST

over an in-bred, coked out, whackjob on an apocalyptic crusade for "regime change".


: hehe (none / 0) (#45)
by jondee on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:03:48 AM EST

Da Dodd Disaster (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by RedHead on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 02:29:41 PM EST

The transcript is now up --> (here)

It's worse than I thought. Russert did everything, he even stole Dodd's pants.

You have to wonder why Dodd thought Russert would go easy.

I still think Dodd could have slapped Russert around by saying "I'm here to lead on the issues facing us today. We can all sit behind a comfortable desk and play Monday morning quarterback, but that accomplishes nothing."

It's strange, very strange, considering Dodd is an attorney. Perhaps he's never seen the inside of a court room.

If Democrats want to win, they can't go in thinking the guy they had cocktails with two weeks ago is going to treat them fairly. They're not. The Broders and Russerts of the world are not your friends. They never will. At least not in the foreseeable future.

: Fixing broken link (none / 0) (#16)
by RedHead on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 02:39:08 PM EST

The transcript is now up --> (here)

Trying to have it (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by Warren Terrer on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 02:41:34 PM EST

both ways, isn't he?

On the one hand, Hillary sounds too Republican. On the other hand, she won't be able to get Republicans to think differently about her, i.e. she's too liberal.

And interestingly enough, it's social issues on which Obama finds her too liberal.

Does Obama honestly think he can thread the needle like this? I don't dislike Obama as a person, but his style of politics leaves me cold.

: Apparently (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 02:52:49 PM EST

he and his disciples do think they can thread that needle.
A disatrous campaign.

I wouldn't be so quick (3.00 / 1) (#4)
by Electa on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 01:40:29 PM EST

to write Obama off, there's a strong grassroots movement rising in support of him, especially among unlikely AA and young voters. The polls have a tendency to overlook some of us. Obama has made several mistakes in this race. Number one he's pandered to much to white America, still haven't figured out what he thought that would get him but do under the logic behind the approach. Once he secured a solid "white and money base" he should have headed back to the hood, reached out to Africans, Asians, Arabs, Hispanics and the other ethnic groups of color and began organizing the nontraditional voters. Second he made the mistake of trusting the old political machines probably thinking they've overcome...terrible move. Obama should have remained loyal to himself.

Hillary will carry the old civil rights establishment of black voters, esp. in the South, but she won't carry the nationalist or independent thinkers. As far as, Obama's appeal to value voters, most Blacks lean heavily in support of morals/values and many feel that embracing extreme liberalism has been detrimental to African Americans over the past 40 yrs...the "it's your thing do what you what to do thang." A large segment of us are pro-life and anti gay marriage and are moderately conservative thinkers. I'll vote for Ron Paul before voting for Hillary and Bill.

Well (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 01:43:56 PM EST

That's a theory.

In Iowa, the AA vote is practically nil.

And if Obama (or whomever) can not win Iowa, it is over.


Iowa, can go either (none / 0) (#6)
by Electa on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 01:55:55 PM EST

way. Hillary and Obama are running neck in neck in and Edwards ain't far behind. The MSM has designated Hillary the winner, the usual games they play. If he loses Iowa, he can stay afloat, he will lose donors...if he loses SC then he's finished.


Well (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 02:09:00 PM EST

If you say so.

Personally, I do not see Obama's support in Iowa translating into Caucus goers.

Here's the thing, he needs to be more partisan, not just against Hillary.

He needs to hit Republicans.


I agree, he's too soft (none / 0) (#14)
by Electa on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 02:34:51 PM EST

and comes across as straddling the fence by playing Mr. Goodie, goodie two shoes. He needs to get tough on Hillary in a serious way, stop trying to sugar coat his attacks and come out kicking butt on the Rethugs. Bottom line Clinton did very little while in office for Black folks, except filled the coffers of the ole black political machinery. It was the Black Caucus that helped push through the legislation that now has millions of our children in prison, under Billy boy. He sold us down the river with Newt's Contract with America and now you see Wild Bill Hickcock prosecutors hanging nooses around our younguns necks everyday. NAFTA is no friend to Black folks that's for sure. Obama blew it when he didn't stand firm against Hillary and Bill's history. When Clinton was elected the first time around, the people were so distraught and worn down from 12 yrs. of Reagan/Bush-ism that anyone talking a decent game took on the image of a messiah. Clinton threw out a few grants for weed & seed, community policing, HOPE VI and welfare to work and because some of our folk are crippled by the Lazarus mentality they settled for the crumbs. The economic boom flew over our communities...as always. Now the sorry Black Caucus is trying to undo the damage that was done after being duped by their Great White Hope.

I can't see myself voting for anyone in the Repub. camp, other than Ron Paul, who won't get the nomination. But I surely won't vote for the Clintons, so I'll be sitting at home for the first time in 25 yrs. on Nov. 7, 2008.


"he needs to be more partisan" (none / 0) (#19)
by RedHead on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 02:50:33 PM EST

BINGO!

Not only the GOP, but the media as well.

In the past week Giuliani started attacking the press (close your eyes and you would have thought it was Spiro Agnew). Now he was attacking the media the same way a prize fighter throws a jab at an opponent, but he was also throwing red-meat to the base.

Remember how fired up the base got when Clinton went after Chris Wallace and Fox News. Even Fox News complained that Clinton was "setting them up" as a foil to energize the base right before the mid-term election.

That's what Democrats like Dodd have to do. If Dodd had gone after Russert with righteous indignation, the blogoshere would be on fire and money would be pouring into his site.


I wonder whether (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by Warren Terrer on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 02:57:29 PM EST

he even has a single partisan bone in his body. He's attacking Hillary now, but his heart doesn't really seem to be in it, any more than when he tries to attack Republicans.

I think he is 100% committed in his heart to a politics of conciliation. He doesn't understand that the GOP is not interested in being talked in off the ledge.

He's a lover, not a fighter. Personally, I want a fighter right now.


: That's a good observation (none / 0) (#26)
by RedHead on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 03:16:26 PM EST

"I wonder whether he even has a single partisan bone in his body."
Back in Febrary, when he first announced, his classmates from Harvard and Columbia, in various, separate testimonies focused his innate conciliatory posture, how he always tried to incorporate disparate views and voices.

Hitting Hillary is hitting Republicans (none / 0) (#41)
by jondee on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 10:21:29 AM EST

It's over for Obama (none / 0) (#11)
by RedHead on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 02:11:29 PM EST

Just listen to his statements, Obama is flailing.

Desperately trying to land something.

He looks like some inexperienced club fighter in the ring with Muhammad Ali (ie Clinton).

Clinton is just bobbing and weaving, floating like a butterfly, and Obama is unable touch her.

It's a shame. He coulda been somebody. He coulda had class. He could have taken Hillary apart. He coulda been a contender - instead of a bum, which is what he is, let's face it. A bum with a one-way ticket to Palooka-ville!

If he only listened to the late, great Richard Hofstadter instead of Lakoff.


Obama may not be a seasoned (none / 0) (#18)
by Electa on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 02:42:49 PM EST

presidential candidate but he surely isn't a bum. He's clearly proven that he's somebody and a man of high class. He doesn't have the political machine as Hillary and Billy boy but one thing is for sure, he's given her a run for the house. I don't think a "bum" could raise as much money as Obama has. I think for his inexperience he's done pretty good. He'll be back, stronger and better.


No Question About That (1.00 / 0) (#23)
by squeaky on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 02:59:15 PM EST

I think for his inexperience he's done pretty good. He'll be back, stronger and better.

The guy definately has great potential, he is just a bit green.


Bum! (none / 0) (#21)
by RedHead on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 02:56:22 PM EST

That's parody. It's based on a famous scene in the film, "On The Waterfront"

But seriously, you only get one shot at the nomination. If you run and fail, it's nearly impossible to ever run again and win the nomination.

Don't believe me? Ask Edwards, Clark, Dean, Kerry, Bradley, Gore, Gephardt, etc.

In the last 40 years, the only exceptions are Dole and Reagan (Bush Sr. doesn't count, he was an incumbent office holder). Democrats are always held to a higher standard.


Yeah, well parody and (none / 0) (#27)
by Electa on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 03:26:06 PM EST

satire have become scapegoats for 21st Century acceptance of racist comments, not implying that your use of bum was racist.


: I didn't know the (none / 0) (#28)
by Wile ECoyote on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 03:34:17 PM EST

word bum could be construed as racist.

: I'm without a candidate (none / 0) (#29)
by RedHead on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 03:44:44 PM EST

I'm going to give Edwards another look.
s to Obama future, I only wish him success. I'm only looking at prior models. It's had to get people to sign on, when a bright, shinny, untouched new model is gleaming in their eye.

What about the MTP disaster? (none / 0) (#1)
by RedHead on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 12:06:57 PM EST

Obama is yesterday's news.

Hillary has the nomination locked up.

And putting Dodd aside, after all he's at Zero, diagramming how the compliant corporate-media launches swiftboats a Democrat would be instructive to future candidates, for the general election, and for others who are taking a stand.

One thing I didn't get was Russert saying MTP has invited all the candidates to the table.

Really? Gravel and Duncan Hunter have been invited and they've declined the free media?

Has Dennis appeared during this cycle?

Social Issues? (none / 0) (#2)
by Alegre on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 01:36:04 PM EST

I just can't get past that whole McClurking thing. Obama really needs to distance himself from that guy before he can move on to talk to us about social issues - or any other for that matter.

Obama 08 (none / 0) (#7)
by Aaron on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 02:07:40 PM EST

If you guys haven't seen Barack Obama speak in person, I urge you to do so before you make up your mind.

The positive energy coming from the crowd at the Obama rally here in St. Louis on Friday night was overwhelming. I haven't felt that kind of energy from a crowd since a Van Halen concert in the early 80s. And when Obama spoke, he spoke directly to all the most pressing issues that concern Americans today, Iraq, presidential power, health care, jobs.

I'm here to tell you that Obama is the real deal. No question about it.

Pics from the event

Barack Obama, St. Louis, MO, Union Station, 10-26-07

It's time for change in America, real change.

: Well if you are right (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 02:10:04 PM EST

Then it should work in Iowa.
It has not.

: I'm in St. Louis and wanted (none / 0) (#30)
by Electa on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 03:47:43 PM EST

to attend the event but am recovering from the flu. Happy to hear it was a success. Win or lose I'm excited to see how the numbers come in esp. in Iowa and NH where the populus are majority non-minority. If he can pull off 1 of the 2 then the AA electorate will see promise and take his candidacy serious. So far that hasn't happened.
I'm not giving up on Obama yet and I've not even decided if I'll vote for him. But the people in the realityshere are looking for leadership. In reality they're not interested in what's going in Iraq except for the fact much needed resources are going to this war and bleeding much needed domestic spending. When public dollars are invested in communities it creates jobs and stimulates economic growth and that's happening due to the war in Iraq.
The collasped housing industry is evidence that America ain't faring to well and this spook economy is starting to have a diminishing effect on those higher up the economic ladder...the middle/upper class.
As long as predatory lenders were stripping the inner cities, elderly and rural communities of their assets the voices were only being heard in the tunnels of socio-economic activistism and advocacy groups, such as John Taylor of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, who warned Congress for years that this tragedy was forth coming. Now that the plague has hit the upper middle class the global community now understands how corrupt America's treasured capitalistic system robs it's own people. The housing industry has held this economy up for the past 6 yrs. now she's crumbling to her knees.
Obama needs to capture the moment. No one wants nor needs a weak leader at this time. He must show more strength and take a real stand on the issues, foreign and domestic.
Sorry I missed the event and thanks for sharing the link.

: Well, this settles it for me. (none / 0) (#32)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 07:13:54 PM EST

I haven't felt that kind of energy from a crowd since a Van Halen concert in the early 80s.

;-)

I don't know the truth (none / 0) (#25)
by RedHead on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 03:12:11 PM EST

but if Dodd is really going to kill the "carried-interest" reforms, then that is very disappointing.

I'm surprised Marshall hasn't been all over this.

And its not above Dodd, he co-sponsored the bill hamstringing class-action suits on securities.

Big Tent start acting like a big tent dem (none / 0) (#31)
by allwrits on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 05:44:27 PM EST

I love seeing the secular left rip Obama for being part of the religious left. Big Tent for having such a great name you sure do seem to want to exclude those who believe in Jesus Christ and mirror the messaging of the Bible in their political language, much like the last two dem presidents did in their campaigns. While America is NOT a Christian nation, it is a nation that is overwhelmingly Christian.

And before you go there, I live in fly over country, am arguably way to the left of you, and I make my living putting both my religious & political beliefs daily in to action.

Religion boils down to one thing... (none / 0) (#35)
by Dadler on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 07:27:22 PM EST

...be a good person and do unto others. All the rest is commentary. As the old rabbi said. The notion that there's more to it, that "values voters" represent more than that, well, I don't get it. What on earth are these voters looking for besides a good person? Someone who strokes their preconceived notions? Someone who professes to believe an obvious metaphor literally?


What else?? (none / 0) (#39)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 07:21:05 AM EST

What on earth are these voters looking for besides a good person?

How about..

Smart, tough enough to withstand the pressure, know enough history to separate the wheat from the chaff, a patriot, understand that there is evil in the world... dedicated to serving US citizens

to name a few.


: In which case (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by jondee on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 10:19:20 AM EST

we may have to start looking overseas for candidates.

One question: (none / 0) (#42)
by jondee on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 10:49:49 AM EST

Why dosnt she tell Murdoch to go f*ck himself?

I forgot, that would require pricipals.

It's a choice between one of few pricipals, with a residual de3mocratic bias (Hillary), and those with fanatical, apocalyptic principals (neocons).

Still a no-brainer, though you want to hold your nose before you pull the lever.