The Politics of Obama

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 11:29:34 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

At MYYD, Jerome Armstrong thinks Hillary has it in the bag. That may or may not be, but I am more interested in his discussion of the Obama campaign. Jerome writes:

I looked into Obama's candidacy, very interested, then began to be skeptical, and now completely dismiss the notion that there's a movement behind Obama. It's looks like a better-than-ordinary campaign for a candidate that's personally compelling, and not much more. It is not a movement, but a candidate. It's about Obama, and nothing more. . . . But this is partisan politics, and Obama will not survive the rightwing machine's onslaught without a strategy that includes internet partisanship.

I think Jerome mars his message a little by focusing on the Netroots component here. I see how Obama being more engaged with the netroots could help him but that is not the issue. It is the disengagement from partisan Democratic politics. Obama could totally ignore the Internet as far as I am concerned so long as he remembers to be a partisan Democrat. I have written as much for a year now. In particular, I wrote about the penchant of Obama to portray himself as an Other Dem:

Obama is not building a new Democratic identity. Indeed, he seems to be selling himself as an other-Dem, not like the rest of them. This disdain for party politics and Democratic Party branding is the essence of my complaint regarding Obama.
. . . The other bit of grandstanding, or naivete, that Obama has exhibited is his disdain for party politics. Obama's search for common ground and for civility is a wonderful idea. The Republicans won't play along. They never have. They never will. Ezra says:

I'm profoundly skeptical that the current, constant hagiographies of the senator will last long into a presidential campaign, and there's no history to suggest whether Obama can withstand and respond to the negative barrages the Republican smear machine is capable of unleashing.

What Obama would need to rely on is the very thing he is eschewing, the Democratic Party playing partisan politics. So this aspect of Obama is very troubling to me, either he is naive or more likely, disingenuous, playing a role for his personal benefit and to the detriment of the Democratic Party. That bothers me a great deal.

Jerome makes a similar point:

The issue is combating the rightwing machine in unison with Democratic candidates, but you can't partner with a candidate that not inclined to join the partisan progressive movement. In all those emails, Obama has never once even associated with the word Democrat or Democratic, not mentioning either word even once. Edwards and Clinton do. Whose nomination is Obama running for?

Finally, Jerome still hopes for a different Obama:

There is an Obama that could be the partisan leader that builds with the netroots-blogger movement, but it's not his current campaign . . .

No, there isn't. It is not who he is and not what he wants. He wants to "transform" politics. He can't. I think he will not win. We'll see.

< Lousiana Town to Criminalize Showing Underpants | Anonymity: Bloggers and Sources Merge >

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.

The Politics of Obama | 15 comments (15 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I agree to an extent. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Geekesque on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 03:29:07 PM EST

I have very little doubt that he'd make the best president and most effective advocate of progressive policies of the current field.

But a party's nominee is also the party's champion and standard-bearer.

I don't think he needs to go around bashing Republicans (though they richly deserve it) but rather he does need to point out how proud he is to be a Democrat and why he best represents the party's values.

Fair enough (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 05:39:25 PM EST

He does not have to be the Red meat guy but he does have to be partisan.


: What's odd is that he's perfectly willing (none / 0) (#8)
by Geekesque on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 06:02:09 PM EST

to mix it up with any number of individual GOP'ers--McCain, Romney, Gregg, Sununu, Grassley, Graham--but doesn't go for the generalized statements on Republicans and Democrats. It's not like he's afraid to throw a sharp elbow.
Hopefully he'll turn up the partisan factor after he's satisfied with his brand/build efforts. Hillary is doing a much better job of that.

He's playing to the inside-the-beltway (none / 0) (#1)
by fairleft on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 12:40:12 PM EST

punditocracy. As you say, it's who he is, a representative of the harmonious get-along apolitics of his famous law school and now D.C.

If you want partisan bickering and deadlock... (none / 0) (#2)
by Mystylplx on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 02:25:27 PM EST

... then vote for John Edwards. If you want a man who supports a progressive agenda, but without being obnoxious about it, then vote for Barack Obama. He's the one who's most likely to actually get things done.

: That's fair in determining who gets (none / 0) (#9)
by Geekesque on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 06:03:38 PM EST

elected president.
But, part of being the Democratic nominee is acting as the champion of the party.

right. (none / 0) (#4)
by cpinva on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 04:22:33 PM EST

and i'm going to win the mega lottery tomorrow.

sorry boys and girls, sen. obama's major problem, with regards to his current presidential aspirations, is that "there's no there, there."

what he does, or doesn't do with the netroots is irrelevant; no one cares about you, in the very grand scheme of things. hate to break the news, but you're a teensy weensy drop in a very large bucket. your choir is tiny, by comparison to the total voting-age population.

sen. obama's glaring weakness is his lack of depth, his "what've you done for me lately?" factor, if you will.

the gentleman is obviously well educated, very charismatic, and at this point, pretty much an empty suit. that will be his undoing, this time around.

if he's as good as claimed, give him some solid legislative seasoning, and then look for him in 2012 or 2016. he'll be a money candidate then.

One point (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 05:38:37 PM EST

I assume this is directed at Jerome:

Certainly not at me.


: That's rich. (none / 0) (#7)
by oculus on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 05:47:35 PM EST

I agree with this post (none / 0) (#14)
by HypeJersey on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 10:33:26 PM EST

I liked Obama initially, but I have yet to hear anything from him that is really "stepping out."

I think you're right - 2012 might be his time. He needs seasoning and substance. It is not enough to be an inspirational speaker.


I think a big part of it is (none / 0) (#10)
by okamichan13 on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 09:05:18 PM EST

He needs to be more direct on what he is for. He talks a lot about bipartisanship and that certianly can be a good thing. But so far he doesn't talk enough about what things he won't compromise on, what isn't on the table. I don't see a clear framework for the future that the party could unite behind on.

He had a real opportunity to do that with his health plan but its an opportunity lost now with the plan he presented.

If he does want to beat Hillary, he doesnt necessarily need to attack/ confront her. But he needs to make a clear alternative, to show why he is different, what he stands for, what he would do that Hillary wouldn't. He hasn't done that, yet. As the clear frontrunner, Hillary thrives on blurring differences and unless candidates can bring out clear distinctions with her, Jerome is probably right.

Obama Girl (none / 0) (#11)
by Aaron on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 12:35:14 PM EST

"I Got a Crush...On Obama"

Show me where (none / 0) (#12)
by Elise on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 04:03:03 PM EST

Obama hasn't been a partisan Democrat. He votes with Democrats 95.3% of the time-- and although he has done some bi-partisan work in the Senate it has always been work that was done in the interest of progressives- including the Coburn-Obama Transparency Act.

Obama is as progressive as they come- and his votes are partisan- it's his language that isn't...and frankly, that's what makes him the best candidate because he's a clear progressive but he's got appeal among independents and even some Republicans (as you can see by his high level of support in Illinois)- and that's what's going to get him elected and what will make him a good President.

Here's your link for that 95.3%

: Not responding exactly to your comment, (none / 0) (#13)
by oculus on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 04:35:05 PM EST

but Elise, don't you think Obama should do a better job of controlling his staff? Surely you don't condone his staff's disparagement of the Clintons dissolving a blind trust and disposing of its assets? Kind of looks like he condones this type of behavious.

: Hey Elise (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 02:26:51 PM EST

Please refer to my writings on Obama at this site.
I provide many examples.
You point to voting records as if I was challenging Obama views. I am challenging his political style.
I have said so many many times.