home

Politics As Usual

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:13:35 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In a mailed in column railing at Clinton supporters, Michael Kinsley proves how little he understands about politics and the Obama brand:

[O]ther Democrats are upset at Obama's recent moves toward the center. T[his] complaint is childish. Securing your base and then moving to the center is the fundamental move of politics, like the basic steps of the fox-trot.

(Emphasis supplied.) It is as if Kinsley did not watch the campaign. The one thing Obama ran on was CHANGING politics. Now I thought it was ridiculous - I want him to change the governing policies of the United States, not change politics - but I know what he was selling. He can not now blatantly pretend he did not run on "changing politics." Some of the stuff coming out of the national press is so ignorant it defies belief. And Kinsley says he is arguing FOR Obama here. With friends like these . . .

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Obama's "Flip Flop" On Hillary Clinton | The Dark Side....Jane Mayer on CIA Secret Prisons and Torture >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Politics As Usual | 204 comments (204 topical)
    We will NEVER get over it, Michael. (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Angel on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:20:53 AM EST
    All those telling us to "get over it" need to get over the fact that we never will.  God I can't stand all these phony pudints who think they are so smart and know what we should do and try to tell us how to do it.  They and the media are the largest part of the problems in the political process today.  

    Who Is Michael Kinsley? (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by talex26 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:53:27 AM EST
    OK, seriously, who cares what Michael Kinsley has to say? Is he important? Is he thought provoking or has he ever been?

    It really does not matter what he has to say. He was never 'somebody' and never will be.

    Isn't there other things going on in the world that are more important and more worthy of discussion? I think so.

    [ Parent ]

    He was opposite (none / 0) (#122)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:49:28 PM EST
    Buckley for years on Firing Line or the early precursor to the now defunct Cross-Fire.  A Rhodes Scholar, he was a liberal pundit for many years on television.

    [ Parent ]
    that may explain his pomposity (5.00 / 0) (#177)
    by fiver2 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:57:34 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I loved him on the Firing Line debates (5.00 / 0) (#181)
    by sj on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 03:11:28 PM EST
    He was always able to stick a pin in William Buckley's pomposity without being ugly.

    For that reason I read his columns and, for a long time, gave him a pass on some of his more clueless statements.  But with this diary, I just realized I haven't read him for a very long time.

    [ Parent ]

    I nearly had a heart attack (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 03:12:26 PM EST
    reading this, as I misread your statement to mean 'Buckley was a liberal pundit.'

    [ Parent ]
    racehorses or yachts? (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:44:57 AM EST
    According to Kinsley that is the only alternative decision for Hillary's well -off supporters who don't want to give to Obama because his campaign turned the Clintons into racists.

    Glad to see his insulting 'get over it' message is not just for middle class women like me.

    [ Parent ]

    As Jeralyn (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by pie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:21:07 AM EST
    so correctly stated below in taking about his fading glow:

    Personally, I don't think it's due to buyer's remorse or dropping support among liberals. I think it's that his recent changes of position on multiple positions have made people unsure of where he really stands -- and whether his new stands reflect his true beliefs or are caluclated to get votes.

    As many of us have said, he didn't have to move to the right.  People have had it with Bush, reflected in his pitiful poll numbers, and the vast majority think the country is going in the wrong direction.

    Since we never really know where he stood, based on his short term in the Senate, we're seriously concerned about his recent flip flops.  He promised change, but not this kind of change!!!!

    Sorry, Michael.  Your analysis is flawed.

    I love how they all think its..... (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:23:09 AM EST
    ...their job to argue for Obama. It reminds me of when they all thought it was their job to argue for Bush.

    They are in denial the supporters and the media (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Saul on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:35:21 AM EST
    They don't have the guts to say Yeah he is different now than what we saw him in the primaries.  The media darling has to be rationalized no matter how much he has changed since the media bent over backwards for this guy.

    i wondered if you'd read that. (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by cpinva on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:48:44 AM EST
    mr. kinsley has been out of the house for some time now (years, actually), this is merely another in his growing list of "if an animal were this stupid, it would be euthenized, for the good of the species as a whole" columns. this, boys and girls, is what passes for "liberal" journalism/punditry in america today.

    what irks me (and makes me envious simultaneously!) is that mr. kinsley gets paid big bucks to write this drivel. i want that job, dammit! i can pen drivel with the best, just read some of my posts on this blog!

    I know how ya feel brother (none / 0) (#158)
    by SoCalLiberal on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:39:34 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The only problem (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by david mizner on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:29:18 AM EST
    with the Kinsley quote is that Obama has never secured his base.

    "Other" problem is what I meant (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by david mizner on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:37:52 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The Carter-Hart-Tsongas-Bradley Base (5.00 / 9) (#13)
    by Petey on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:40:38 AM EST
    "Obama has never secured his base."

    Folks like Kinsley are Obama's base.

    Economically well-off social liberals who are uncomfortable with unions and social insurance programs have always been the core of Obama's support.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama's base (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:06:30 AM EST
    was frail alliance.  

    [ Parent ]
    yup long term i'd say the interests of (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:05:09 AM EST
    the aa community, the young, and the creative class will collide with no real good results. the fantasy of rock star usually implodes with really good lighting.

    [ Parent ]
    Petey nails it (5.00 / 7) (#33)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:14:18 AM EST
    Economically well-off social liberals who are uncomfortable with unions and social insurance programs have always been the core of Obama's support.

    The group Petey identifies is the bane of the Democratic Party, the group that would cast out those grimy bread and butter types and 'change' the party.  A few decades ago the people in this general demographic voted Republican.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, they ingested (5.00 / 5) (#91)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:08:22 PM EST
    Reagan's anti 'big government' rhetoric and his endless repudiations of FDR social programs.  But because they claim the social-liberal ground for themselves now, they've been able to hold the 'Progressive' umbrella over their heads throughout the campaign and no one called them on it.

    Which is also why one of their key and most strident challenges was 'what a real Democrat' thinks/feels/votes for.  Classic new identity insecurities -- the people who are 'real' anything don't feel the need to squawk about it every 10 minutes.  But the people to whom it is not native do.  Same with the endless claims that everyone else is racist -- the unstated tagline to every accusation is "You are a racist and I'm not.  I'm not I'm not I'm not!."  Also accounts for their poor understanding of what racism is, since it's really largely an intellectual issue for them, and, at times, a political tool, but never an internalized principle.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly (none / 0) (#130)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:56:40 PM EST
    Kinsely, Alter even Dionne seem to simply not get it at all when it comes to democratic women, or union democrats.

    [ Parent ]
    He secured A base (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:29:24 AM EST
    but not the base Kinsley is talking about. I believe Kinsley is talking about the wider Dem base that Clinton, Gore, and Kerry held. Obama never locked that up. (Neither did Hillary, but she came just as close) Paul Begala put it rather flippantly, but he was right, IMHO:

    We cannot win with egg heads and African-Americans. OK, that is the Dukakis Coalition, which carried ten states and gave us four years of the first George Bush.

    Obama's 'new politics' call for disregarding the old notion of what the bases were, and redrawing the map using the middle ground.   He would love to win without unifying the traditional base -  and he very much wants to do it without Clinton on the ticket.  That was always his strategy, and people kidded themselves into thinking that one anti-war speech made him some sort of a leftie.  It is hard to identify his 'base' because he has so many deluded lefties on his side, in addition to the centrists. The lefties are going to lose their enthusiasm, but they will still vote for him.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by ccpup on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:50:31 PM EST
    if the "deluded lefties" will necessarily vote for him, in the end.

    I'm finding more and more people in my fairly large circle seriously considering NOT voting top-of-the-ticket on Election Day.

    This will probably be more like McGovern in 1972 than we're willing to admit:  historically high turnout in the primaries, historically low turnout in the General with a Republican win at the end of it all.  

    [ Parent ]

    JC Superstar (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:36:00 PM EST
    Any Andrew Lloyd Webber fans out there?

    The folks who knew all along that Obama was 'just a pol' but supported him anyway during the primaries are not going anywhere.  There may be a slow leak toward nonvoting there, but it's unlikely to be significant imo.

    But the folks that became true believers are the ones at greatest risk for being lost.  I keep thinking of these lyrics from JCS (disclaimer: I'm not comparing BO to Jesus, it's the point that the lyrics are making that's important):

    Jesus!
    You've started to believe
    The things they say of you
    You really do believe
    This talk of God is true

    And all the good you've done
    Will soon be swept away
    You've begun to matter more
    Than the things you say

    <snip>
    You have set them all on fire
    They think they've found the new Messiah
    And they'll hurt you when they find they're wrong

    The only question is whether disallusionment comes in significant numbers before the GE or after.

    [ Parent ]

    Indeed (5.00 / 0) (#144)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:16:43 PM EST
    I've been singing and quoting JC Superstar for a few months now. It was written as commentary on hero worship and pop cult phenomenon, so it is apropos.

    We cynics:

    I'm dying to be shown that you are not just any man

    [ Parent ]

    Hmm, you're on to something here (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:44:49 PM EST
    I don't know how to love him . . .
    What to do, how to move him . . .
    He's a man, he's just a man,
    And I've had so many men before
    <in the White House>
    He's just one more.


    [ Parent ]
    It kind of reminded me of..... (none / 0) (#124)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:53:13 PM EST
    ...Tommy's Holiday Camp. Starring David Axelrod as Frank Hobbs.

    [ Parent ]
    One Newsweek poll (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:53:20 PM EST
    that still shows Obama ahead, and Obama is like McGovern?

    [ Parent ]
    One Newsweek poll (5.00 / 0) (#141)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:14:03 PM EST
    that is smack in the middle of every other daily poll for the last month.

    Ras has Obama and McCain tied today.  Obama up by 1 yesterday.  Gallup: Obama up by 4.  Up by 6 yesterday.

    [ Parent ]

    RCP average (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by ghost2 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:32:21 PM EST
    is now +4.2 for Obama, but if they discounted June's results (more realistic), his average lead is only +2.7.  

    [ Parent ]
    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:34:02 PM EST
    the Rasmussen poll today shows (with leaners) 47-46.

    And, if you look at Rasmussen in particular, the issue is not so much declining Obama support as increasing McCain support.....McCain is now up to 46%....

    But being ahead is like McGovern???  I know the knives are out for Obama here, and that every possible bit of bad news is cheered with sardonic resentment, but isn't this going a bit far?

    One or two days drop? Let's see what the polls are a week from now......

    [ Parent ]

    Kinsley' formulation... (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by lentinel on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:34:06 AM EST
    "Securing your base and then moving to the center is the fundamental move of politics..." So says Kinsley.

    This does accurately describe what Obama is doing.
    He is not securing his base. He is alienating it.

    And, in my opinion, he is not even "moving to the center". He is moving from some ill-defined place to the right.

    IMO this is yet another (5.00 / 10) (#10)
    by suisser on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:34:10 AM EST
    cinder block building up the foundation for the "blame HRC supporters" for Obama's weaknesses and possible loss in Nov. I also resent the reduction of my resentment of Obama's "nomination" to whinny complaints of sexism in the media. I personally an angry with the DNC and the RBC as well as the "media" and to be honest I just don't like/trust the nominee.

    My reasons for not supporting Obama are many and I reject Kinsley's almost infantilizing and encoding, for future use against me, my feelings about him and his candidacy.

    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:49:14 AM EST
    It was not only the media that was sexist, not by a long shot. The campaign was right there with them.  

    Unfortunately, in the name of unity, Clinton and her official spokespeople have only been willing to list the media transgressions, and not those of the Obama campaign, so the real truth remains to be spoken.

    [ Parent ]

    The Real Truth? (1.33 / 3) (#77)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:26:43 AM EST
    Hahahahaha   That is hilarious..  Considering that the 'real truth' is only the one you want to believe..

    [ Parent ]
    You deny the words and actions (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:29:07 AM EST
    of Obama -- "Dirt Off My Shoulder," etc. -- and his campaign?  Despite the videos, the written record, etc.?

    [ Parent ]
    Only if you grossly (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:55:16 PM EST
    overinterpret what he did and fill in the gaps to support that idea.

    [ Parent ]
    Right, so you're the arbiter of what is sexist? (5.00 / 0) (#193)
    by echinopsia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 03:52:14 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Heh, you made a mistake (none / 0) (#140)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:13:17 PM EST
    and gave me a three.

    [ Parent ]
    Ah, illiteracy explains it (5.00 / 0) (#168)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:49:14 PM EST
    as I didn't rate you.  But even inability to read the written record ought not preclude ability to comprehend videos.  So there is something else at work here, hmmmmmm.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, that was productive (none / 0) (#174)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:52:05 PM EST
    It was amusing that Psst rated every comment of mine as a 2, then gave me a 3 for this one....


    [ Parent ]
    how do you take (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:23:11 PM EST
    Jesse Jackson III's 'she only cries about her hair, not Katrina victims' statement? Double whammy there- using sexist language to call her a racist. All in a days work.

    [ Parent ]
    JJJr. is a Chicago politician, too (5.00 / 0) (#173)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:50:48 PM EST
    and that explains it all for me.  As you say, all in a day's work for the Daley machine for generations -- and for two generations of the Obamas now.

    [ Parent ]
    Unfortunate (none / 0) (#159)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:40:22 PM EST
    but surrogates do say the darndest things....I could quote from the Hillary side of things....

    And, the III?  Don't think that person has been born yet....

    JJJ is a staunch Obama supporter and even blasted his Dad over the "cutting" remark.....He needs to moderate his reactions.....

    [ Parent ]

    Obama himself is responsible (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by fiver2 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 03:12:23 PM EST
    for a variety of sexist remarks, which is what Kinsley ignores.  Just to name a few: analogizing HRC to a cat ("the claws come out"); his recent statement that he opposes "partial birth abortion" (his words) when women try to obtain them solely because they're "feeling blue"; stating that HRC attacked him "when she's feeling down"; the "sweetie" stuff; Michelle Obama's statement that "if you can't take care of your own house, you can't take care of the White House" (because I think it's fair to attribute Michelle's words to Barack), and others.  And then today, an article in the LA Times suggests that Obama is resistant to the idea of HRC as veep because her husband makes things "complicated," as once someone is a president, they're always a president.  I found that pretty laughable -- that he's so threatened by Bill -- and sexist in many ways.  http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-veep12-2008jul12,0,3540067.story

    [ Parent ]
    Change does not mean change everything (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by tben on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:38:47 AM EST
    Securing ones base and then moving to the center - or, to put it another way, energizing your present coalition and then seeking to expand it, is not, nor was it ever, something that Obama sought to change.

    Just because he promises change, does not mean that you get to chase after him, noting everything he does that is in any way similar to what a politician does, and accuse him of hypocrisy because he does so.

    It is the fundamental, unchangable truth of democracies, that you win power by building a majority, or at least a plurality coalition. You cant "change" this truth even if you wanted to, and if you beleive in democracy, why would he even think about wanting to?

    Persuading at least half the country to support your candidacy is simply impossible to do if you do not attempt to appeal to that number of people by expressing at least sympathy to their fundamental political concerns. Lord knows the Clinton supporters who you have been nurturing have no hesitancy to make very loud demands of the candidate in exchange for their supports. Well, so does every other group.

    There is certainly something deeply satsifying about the prospect of winning power without ever having to expand your platform beyond the concerns of the true believers. Maybe, in some contexts - like the reelection campaign of a popular president, something like that might be possible. But it would be absolute suicide for Obama (as it would have been for Hillary) to fail to make the effort required to make people in the center feel very comfortable with him - not necessarily that he would be their champion as a centrist president, but at least that he is listening to them, and has some basic sympathy with their concerns.

    So perhaps you can direct me (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:44:36 AM EST
    to what "change" really means. Or was it always meaningless?

    [ Parent ]
    excuse me? (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by tben on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:51:34 AM EST
    Are you trying to say that you were under the impression that by "change", Obama meant that he wanted to change the basic arithmatic of democracy - that it would no longer require a majority of electoral votes, or a plurality of popular votes, by state, in order to win power?

    That was, obviously, never his intent. All successful politicians, even in the Obama era, will need to reach out beyond their base and build winning coalitions.

    [ Parent ]

    He claimed he was going to (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:53:53 AM EST
    transform politics. It was one of the most ridiculous things he claimed, but he nevertheless claimed it. Pretending that he did not is silly.

    [ Parent ]
    huh? (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by tben on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:57:38 AM EST
    By "transform politics", you are claiming that he meant it would no longer require a plurality to achieve power? That there would no longer be any need to expand ones base and build a coalition?

    I really do not believe that you ever beleived that.

    [ Parent ]

    What I believed about what he claimed (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:02:06 AM EST
    is different from what he claimed.

    [ Parent ]
    yes, I accept that may be true (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by tben on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:10:57 AM EST
    I think many people around here have that problem, most likely because they seek out information about him with the motivation of denouncing him in some way, rather than to figure out who he actually is, and what he is actually saying.

    [ Parent ]
    What? (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:40:52 AM EST
    Seeking out information about him IS figuring out who he actually is.

    You're suggesting that people accept him without examination.

    Ridiculous.

    [ Parent ]

    What? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by tben on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:43:44 AM EST
    Seeking out information about a person or a subject that you already have committed to denounce is very different than seeking information for the purpose of actually learning something.

    Your claim about what I am suggesting is downright absurd. How can you possibly construe what I wrote in that manner? It is your charge that is ridiculous.

    [ Parent ]

    How so? (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by echinopsia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:13:51 AM EST
    Seeking out information about a person or a subject that you already have committed to denounce is very different than seeking information for the purpose of actually learning something.

    What if the information you find convinces you to change your mind? One would think, if such information actually existed, this would be the result. Or would you prefer that Obama's detractors, like Hillary's, simply denounce her based on NO or BAD information?

    Stranger things have happened; see David Brock's bio of Hillary that was intended to be a hit piece until he couldn't find anything to pin on her.

    [ Parent ]

    you, (none / 0) (#32)
    by shoulin4 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:13:30 AM EST
    and many others.

    [ Parent ]
    united states of china.......... (none / 0) (#84)
    by kelsweet on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:41:29 AM EST
    couldn't agree more, and I hope we're not alone in seeing this.

    [ Parent ]
    Expanding one's base (5.00 / 0) (#161)
    by lilburro on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:41:13 PM EST
    is not as difficult as Obama makes it seem.   There are 18 million voters who clearly have some disposition to vote Democrat.  

    Do these people want him to forfeit our rights for a horrible new version of FISA?
    Do these people need him to come out for the death penalty?
    To renounce public financing?

    If you want to expand your base, you come up with a strategy that shows how you meet the needs of different demographics.  You don't just cave as current events demand.

    He should pick up with the economy tour again.  And get ready to school McCain in debates.

    What he is doing right now literally has no rhyme or reason.

    [ Parent ]

    No, but if you mean what you say, (none / 0) (#76)
    by Radix on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:24:02 AM EST
    then you gain that plurality by demonstrating to people what you mean by "change" and why it's good for them.

    [ Parent ]
    That's a mighty nice strawman you built there. (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:16:34 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    excuse me back! when you dump the (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:59:55 AM EST
    democratic base while chasing repubs, i'd say you have a real problem. but let's wait till november and talk about it. i'll wait.

    [ Parent ]
    I stopped reading your post when.... (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:14:50 AM EST
    ...I got to this part:

    Just because he promises change, does not mean that you get to chase after him, noting everything he does that is in any way similar to what a politician does, and accuse him of hypocrisy because he does so.

    You go on to talk about what you consider to be the fundamentals of democracy and yet you feel that you can tell me what I can or cannot "get" to do. You may not like it, but in a democracy we "get" to do all that and more....including voting for whomever we choose.

    [ Parent ]

    yes, yes (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by tben on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:19:42 AM EST
    of course you get to do whatever you want in this free country. It is a rather common shorthand to say 'you dont get to do that..." when the complete sentence would be "you dont get to do that and expect to not be called out for it".

    -eyeroll-

    [ Parent ]

    You can certainly roll your eyes but.... (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:23:33 AM EST
    ...can you try to wrap your brain around the concept that how you phrase things has a significant impact on how your remarks are received? For the most part I think I recognize when I am being condescending. For example, like now.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly what does Obama plan on changing? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by leis on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:23:45 AM EST
    I'm confused because I thought it was the politics as usual.  Where does this specific change come in and show itself?

    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:25:11 AM EST
    you can define that 'center' for us.

    While you're at it you might want to consider what leadership means.

    [ Parent ]

    the center (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by tben on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:40:37 AM EST
    consists of many different people, one group of which would be those who are pragmatic rather than ideological, and who, for whatever reason, are willing to pick and choose policy positions from either side on an ad hoc basis.

    Effective political leadership includes the ability to connect with voters who may only agree partly, or occasionally with you, but to win their overall support by convincing them that their concerns are respected and will figure, to an appropriate extent, in the political calculations that you undertake.

    [ Parent ]

    The Obama is failing the test: (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by pie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:16:28 AM EST
    Effective political leadership includes the ability to connect with voters who may only agree partly, or occasionally with you,

    It has to be more than partly occasionally, btw.

    Partly and occasionally is costing him votes.

    [ Parent ]

    That's not (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:31:44 AM EST
    "the center"

    The center is a general consensus of what government will do or be.

    From the late thirties and well into the seventies the consensus was that government would take an activist role in providing for the general welfare, that government would practice rigorous regulatory functions, would provide a social safety net, etc.

    Republicans had moderates and liberals who more or less went along.  A common Republican election pitch was 'me too, but I'll do it better.'

    In the eighties conservatives gained power and sought to disassemble that consensus, to shrink government, to change what government would do.

    We're still at war over that center.  That's one of the reasons politics has been so contentious in recent decades, a deeply fundamental disagreement over the purpose and use of government.

    [ Parent ]

    Excellently put. n/t (none / 0) (#93)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:20:07 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    He isn't expanding his base, just his votes. (none / 0) (#83)
    by Radix on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:40:02 AM EST
    A person expands their base by having people move to their position, not the other way around.

    [ Parent ]
    in a sense that is true (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by tben on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:01:49 PM EST
    but not in the sense that you are presenting it.

    You are not going to convince many people who are centrists, or even liberal Republicans, of the brilliance of your progressive ideas, in the course of a year long campaign. What you do is convince those people that your positions were arrived at after thinking through their concerns. Convincing people that you respect them, you listen to what they are complaining about, and that they should give you a chance.

    That is, btw, how Reagan did it. There is no way that the US electorate, in Nov. 1980, was anywhere near as conservative as Reagan was. He did not convince people to become conservative in the course of his campaign. The prime thing that he was able to do in that campaign was to assure enough people that he was not a scary figure, that he had some different ideas from the Carter administration, and that the risk of letting him try them out was low - given the alternatives. It was only once he was in office, having had the chance to make 3000 political appointees to all the real policy making positions in the government, and dominating the news on a daily basis as presidents do - it was only then that he was able to actually convince some segment of the center that his ideas were good ones, and thus move the center rightward.

    Obama has every chance to follow that same model. Once in office, there will be thousands of progressive Democrats in charge of every federal office. Dems will control Congress. Everyone who counts will be a Dem. There will be a wonderful intellectual millieu for progressive ideas. And the point man for taking those progressive ideas, and packaging them into mainstream rhetoric, will be an extraordinarily eloquent leader - every bit the match for a Reagan.

    So yes, for the revolution to have legs, you need to convince people of the superiority of your ideas. You do that though, by governing effectivly, and framing your ideas in ways that inspire buy-in. You may make some progress along those lines in the campaign, but you cant really count on that. People are skeptical, as well they should be. They will be reluctant to stake their flag on your turf till they see you perform, but they can be persuaded to give you the chance.

    Its a back and forth. As we see with the Clinton supporters. Is it theoretically possible that some of the hard line ones will actually move to agree with Obama? Perhaps, but they sure make loud and incessant noises that before that could happen, he is going to have to reach out to them.
    Thats the way everyone thinks to some extent. We all want to feel that the candidate is speaking to us, at least listening to us, before we are even willing to consider moving toward them. That is what Obama is trying to do with the center these days.

    [ Parent ]

    Well since I'm obviously in denial, (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by shoulin4 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:45:12 AM EST
    I'll take the first step by admitting I have a problem: Yeah he is different now than what we saw him in the primaries.

    It's just as bad for some people to assume that Obama supporters think Obama is God, as it is for some people to assume that the HRC supporters are only bitter and angry because of sexism and they're just cutting off their noses to spite their face.

    Now, about the post at hand, since we're all playing the "assume" game instead actually asking someone's opinion about thee underlying issue at hand, I don't care if he's moving to the right. I'm a moderate anyway. I support Obama because I see him of having the best chance of doing what needs to be done to keep my signature from coming true. I've always supported him for this reason, and this reason alone.

    Okay, then as a longtime Obama backer (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:52:50 AM EST
    you must have more insight into other Obama backers.  Would you say the others were so wise and saw him as you did?

    [ Parent ]
    Don't assume (none / 0) (#24)
    by shoulin4 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:58:26 AM EST
    things like that. As McCain so aptly put it, "I speak for me." Not them, not Obama, not anybody. I speak for me. If you want "their" opinion, ask "them". All I'm saying is that is just not right to assume certain things about a group of people that one may not know too much about.

    [ Parent ]
    That is certainly a good point.... (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:19:09 AM EST
    ...and in that respect you seem different to me than many of the Obama supporters that post on blogs, but not that different from most of the Obama supporters I know in real life.

    [ Parent ]
    Ok. (none / 0) (#39)
    by shoulin4 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:23:28 AM EST
    I understand and respect what you are saying.

    [ Parent ]
    I asked for your insight (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:31:11 AM EST
    and I get a reply that I am assuming.  Where did I do so?  Really, you are acting quite out of culture on this blog.

    [ Parent ]
    I'll bite. (none / 0) (#82)
    by shoulin4 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:35:16 AM EST
    "you must have more insight into other Obama backers."

    How do you know that I have more insight into Obama supporters? Do tell. I did, however, answer your question. They don't speak for me, only I speak for me, so I don't have any insight into what other people think.

    What do you mean by out of culture?

    [ Parent ]

    He had a chance to vote for (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by zfran on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:36:18 AM EST
    for the U.S. Constitution and for the people the Constitution protects. He voted against it, imo and that is unforgivable. Someone else said that he voted to allow Bush to spy on him and his campaign. How true!!! Is this the pres. who's going to protect this country from becoming your signature? He isn't even voting to protect your rights. Just my take!

    [ Parent ]
    His vote on FISA has nothing (none / 0) (#52)
    by shoulin4 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:41:05 AM EST
    to do with how he's going to prevent my signature, so to answer your question, no.

    [ Parent ]
    Every instinct I have, (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by zfran on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:46:29 AM EST
    actions he has taken, words he has said, votes he has cast, tells me he is wrong for this country. Some people vote person, some vote party, and some, like me, this year are voting country first. I respect that your opinion is different from mine.

    [ Parent ]
    As Do I. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by shoulin4 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:51:43 AM EST
    It is everything that he has done, and I mean everything, good and bad, and how he's dealt with it, that has convinced me that he'll prevent my signature from coming true. The way I see it, I am voting country first, I just apparently see taking a different path towards getting to the same general conclusion.

    A toast: Here's to respecting other peoples' opinions!

    [ Parent ]

    One question. If keeping your (none / 0) (#67)
    by zfran on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:04:15 AM EST
    signature from happening, are you willing to give up whatever it takes and give a pres. Obama whatever power he wants? If this is so, should we re-write the constitution, the bill of rights and the rules of law to accomplish this? Shall we then call this country, the new, changed us of a?
    And, if this is so, how is a Pres. Obama any different than a Pres. McCain? (I have clinked your glass).

    [ Parent ]
    united states of china..........OOPS (none / 0) (#86)
    by kelsweet on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:48:37 AM EST
    I agreed with you by mistake up thread. My bad.

    [ Parent ]
    S'alright. (none / 0) (#88)
    by shoulin4 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:58:41 AM EST
    I'm glad, though, that someone else can see what's happening.

    [ Parent ]
    also tries to guilt Clinton supporters for (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Salt on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:51:28 AM EST
    a possible Obama loss as the reason little children will starve, women won't be able to abort and old people won't have heath care....also out of touch and simple, the guilt trip is a waste of time as a persuader of this empowered group wrong nose ring and insulting.

    It Gets Worse By the Day for Obama... (5.00 / 8) (#23)
    by bmc on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:57:58 AM EST
     
    Obama AWOL For Military Base Event?  

    07.12.2008 - 10:36 am  

    from: http://www.nytimes.com/

    A coalition of military groups is planning a nationally televised town-hall-style meeting with the presidential candidates near Fort Hood, Tex., the largest active-duty military installation in the country. But so far, only Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee, has agreed to attend.

    CBS has agreed to broadcast the meeting live from 9 to 11 p.m. Eastern time on Monday, Aug. 11. The candidates would face questions directly from an audience of 6,000 people, made up of veterans, service members and military families from the base.

    Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has not agreed to participate.

    "Senator Obama strongly supports America's veterans and military families and has worked hard on their behalf in the Senate," said Phillip Carter, director of Mr. Obama's veterans effort and an Iraq war veteran. "While we unfortunately had a previously scheduled commitment on the date proposed, Senator Obama looks forward to continuing the dialogue he's been having throughout the country with veterans on how we can better serve our men and women in uniform as they serve us."

    Carissa Picard, managing director of the Fort Hood Presidential Town Hall Consortium, said she had suggested Aug. 11 and asked the campaign to suggest other dates if that was not convenient, but after several conversations she had not been able to work anything out.

    "I'm having extreme difficulty getting the Obama campaign to commit to this event, and we do not understand why," said Ms. Picard, whose husband is deployed in Iraq. "We made it very clear to them that if they would commit to the event, we would work with them on dates."

    The organizers released details about the event in hopes that it would pressure the Obama campaign to agree to the event.

    "This was a decision that was made with tremendous difficulty, to publicize it," Ms. Picard said. "We were at a point where we had no other option. We got the impression that they could talk us to November."

    http://tinyurl.com/6zflsq

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

    Ouch.

    Hillary Clinton would not have hesitated to be there. She would have prevailed, too; I have no doubt.

    This is absolutely pathetic. The party leadership need to inform Sen. Obama that he doesn't have a choice here; if he wants to be president, he'd better grow up. We've had a poseur as CinC for the past 8 years, and look at what's happened to the military. Obama needs to step up, or he risks looking like a coward.

    And, yes, I've considered the possibility that this is a game of chicken with the GOP. But, that is largely irrelevant now. The fact is, Obama must do this.

    But the GOP had better be careful, because sometimes you get what you wish for, and in this case, they may be surprised if Obama shows up and the audience supports him.

    I'm Just Sayin'

    He has to do this. (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by pie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:05:10 AM EST
    He has to show up.

    Stuff like this is going to kill him.

    And it should.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:50:41 AM EST
    but not having a script to read will kill him too.

    Which death?  Slow death or death by town meeting?

    [ Parent ]

    Wow! (none / 0) (#29)
    by shoulin4 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:06:34 AM EST
    Tell me how you really feel.

    [ Parent ]
    Displaying cowardice (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by pie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:12:30 AM EST
    will not enable him to win the presidency.

    [ Parent ]
    Allowing McCain and (2.00 / 0) (#131)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:56:58 PM EST
    Ft. Hood to dictate his schedule and the forum shows weakness.....

    [ Parent ]
    What part of this don't you (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by nycstray on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:01:51 PM EST
    understand?

    "We made it very clear to them that if they would commit to the event, we would work with them on dates."


    [ Parent ]
    And also the forum, is what I said (1.00 / 1) (#136)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:07:36 PM EST
    Ft. Hood area very well.  It is not just military families but very, very consevartive military families.....6,000 cheering Texas voters for McCain?  When Obama would rather talk about the economy?

    Don' take the bait--there will be other debates and forums....This is a mugging designed to make Obama look bad....

    [ Parent ]

    Bwah! (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:16:14 PM EST
    Obama never talks about the economy.

    [ Parent ]
    "Never"? (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:20:31 PM EST
    You really believe that he "never" talks about the economy?

    [ Parent ]
    Mugging? (none / 0) (#205)
    by my opinion on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 04:34:50 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Why not? (none / 0) (#46)
    by leis on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:33:21 AM EST
    It has gotten him thisclose to being the Dem nominee.


    [ Parent ]
    Dem superdelegates (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:36:47 AM EST
    there's a real profile in courage for ya,

    [ Parent ]
    And, I have been told (none / 0) (#142)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:14:51 PM EST
    that Hillary suporters are not really trying to get the superdelegates to change their mind...

    [ Parent ]
    Now you have been told (5.00 / 0) (#151)
    by echinopsia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:28:40 PM EST
    that we are.

    One more person who agrees with me gives you two-to-one on hearsay evidence.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, this is reason (1.00 / 2) (#165)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:44:03 PM EST
    for no roll call vote--cutting of the oxygen to those who would burn down the convention.

    [ Parent ]
    Or, put another way (5.00 / 0) (#172)
    by echinopsia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:50:13 PM EST
    preventing a last-ditch effort to save this election and the Democratic Party by nominating the right person.

    If there is not roll-call vote, there will be consequences. And you will not like them.

    [ Parent ]

    Consequences (2.00 / 1) (#176)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:56:51 PM EST
    It is time to cut losses.....Some people will never vote for Obama with or without a roll call vote--the sooner the Hillary supporters know it is really over, the sooner that the Democrats can move forward.....

    A roll call vote just allows the venom to foment even further.....

    [ Parent ]

    No roll-call vote (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by echinopsia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 03:55:08 PM EST
    Is what you should fear.

    Trust me on this.

    [ Parent ]

    Do tell (none / 0) (#196)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 03:59:55 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    "Burn down the convention"? (none / 0) (#206)
    by my opinion on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 04:36:29 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I sure never told you that (5.00 / 0) (#155)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:33:19 PM EST
    I hope they are- I just don't think it will work. The Dem leadership has a pathological fear of success, I'm my view.

    [ Parent ]
    come back in november after the vote! (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:57:01 AM EST
    talk to us then.

    [ Parent ]
    Some voters (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by pie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:19:41 AM EST
    have lower standards than others.

    [ Parent ]
    but he (obama) is available for (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:28:02 AM EST
    big so called rock star events in germany. it appears he doesn't want a conversation but just photo opps where he doesn't answer any questions but just greets the masses. yup that sounds about right when you think about his upcoming dog and pony show at the convention.

    it all sounds pretty pathetic to me. say senator obama, why don't you get out with your fellow country folks and tell what you are going to do to make our lives better. personally senator i don't like big ralleys and devoted fans fainting out of the sheer joy of it all. sounds sorta rock star to me.

    [ Parent ]

    Military and their families don't swoon (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:01:02 AM EST
    and you pegged it right there.  They do like "straight talk."  It's not Obama's forte.

    We had a Dem candidate who could compete on the straight-talk stuff -- and could outwonk and win clearly over the "straight-talk express" guy.

    But Kinsley wants us to get over it.  See, what he doesn't see is that we are seeing ahead.  We can see that we just would have to get over it again in November when the Dems lose.

    [ Parent ]

    "Military families" (2.00 / 0) (#132)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:59:07 PM EST
    Well, it is Ft. Hood, perhaps the most conservative place in Texas....I know for good reason....

    It is a total set-up....It is not designed as a fair cross section or fair forum.

    [ Parent ]

    He should counter (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by waldenpond on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:10:46 PM EST
    with a military base town hall of his choosing.. what base would it be acceptable for him to present himself that would reflect well on him.... this is a critical issue, he can't just say his schedule doesn't allow for it.  If the media wants to, they can dog every fundraiser he goes to and compare it to the events he refuses to attend and make him look bad. The campaign needs to come with something quickly....

    [ Parent ]
    The idea to have a debate on (none / 0) (#146)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:18:37 PM EST
    military issues only is the root problem.  There will be debates perhaps as many as five later in the year.

    To have a two hour debate in front of 6,000 of the most conservative voters of Texas, would let McCain dominate the news cycle for a few days when he otherwise would get no coverage....It is is home field on his issues, and he wins the week it is held on that basis alone....

    [ Parent ]

    Of course, (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 03:10:27 PM EST
    How silly of me not to realize how much more important it is for Obama to secure that oh so important base of German voters. American military families come and go, unfortunately, but the all-important European voting block will always be there.

    Apparently, I just do not understand the nuances of modern American politics.

    [ Parent ]

    Okay, (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 04:17:52 PM EST
    so Obama is too afraid to stand up in front of 6,000 "conservative" service people then the meme becomes how can he protect our country? How can a guy who runs from the military be commander in chief. There's a bigger story here and Obama just looks like a chicken with the way he is playing it.