So, I voted for Obama. But since then I've started to worry about him a little.
He hasn't really been vetted, and he is the number 1 most liberal-voting senator. Rebublicans could get whole news cycles out of any one of those votes. How does he defend himself on his record of voting on things like gun control, death penalty, abortion, defense policy, etc.? He can't bob and weave forever.
Even I don't really know his positions on issues, and it bothers me that I haven't really cared so far. Rhetoric is important, and he's incredibly inspirational, but it only goes so far. I saw a clip on Youtube with a Frank Luntz focus group of some 15 Obama supporters watching his speech. Sean Hannity asked the group to name one thing Obama has accomplished in his life. Nobody could come up with one!
He can't seem to close the deal. Fighting to a draw is not comforting.
He's not getting the blue-collar voters in the big states, not getting old workhorse senior Dems, not getting the female vote, not getting the Latino vote.
I guess that's all. Clinton challenged him to a debate a week. I think he should accept the challenge, for all our sakes. If he has glaring faults, we need to know them now, not later, when it's too late.
He has a lot of great qualities, but I'm starting to notice the faint taste of Kool-Aid in my own mouth.
To continue... and sorry to hijack your thread, Vampiro, but apparently I'm not the only one who is feeling a little something strange about all this. These could well be a couple of Hillary plants in the media, but I found this article and this article interesting on the "cult" of Obama.
I agree with you that Obama should accept the offer of more debates. Not to do so is a bit sketchy.
Regarding Clinton, however, it makes me very nervous the rather large numbers of supposed Democrats I know who claim they'd vote for McCain over her because they hate her so much. I hope this is just posturing and that they'd think it through before actually doing so, since McCain is a real Republican, if one with moments of independent thinking. I mean, come on, people.
I think that if you're just an average person, going about town, doing your errands, etc., there's more racism than sexism in this country. But if you're in a position of power (like if you're a CEO or a President), there's WAY more sexism. I guess we can hope that McCain selects Huckles as his VP, in which case the above-referenced people will come to their senses, I hope.
I'm still an Obama supporter, however. No dynasties! I don't care if Hendrik Hertzberg likes them!
I saw that article saying that Obama is the number 1 most liberal-voting senator, too, but I think it's total bullshit. Is he more liberal than the Senators (like Feingold and Wyden and others) who support gay marriage? (I wish he was, but the fact is he isn't.) I can't help but think that that "most liberal Senator" title was created post facto by rightwingers and would have been awarded to any Democratic candidate that they were worried about. The media, of course, passed along the designation with no critical appraisal whatsoever.
Well, it was National Journal, a supposedly nonpartisan Washington insider publication. Contributors to NJ include Richard Cohen, Jonathan Rausch, and Charlie Cook.
"The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate."
Clinton ranked the 16th most liberal.
Does he support gay marriage? I don't know! Why don't I ever look at Obama's issues page on his Web site? Maybe I am afraid... I think I'll go there right now. No -- no I won't. I'm too tired.
I'd rather just go to bed and feel smug that he has won the most states, won the most delegates, won his own state by more than Hillary won hers, has more money, and seems much better set up for the coming month.
For one, we have seen Obama face the Rightwing Attack Machine. Remember that Madrassa bullshit? He won that round, hands down. He even shut out Fox News over it, for a very long time. It was impressive, and more importantly, a new strategy.
The trick, I think, is in the rhetoric-- on the level we're talking about, that's all politics is, dodging and weaving. He's better at it than Clinton, that's for sure. And that matters. I don't think this election will come down to "Too liberal." People are weary of the messenger carrying messages like that.
Look at the occasion for this thread: Coulter--who has been more or less irrelevant for awhile now with the shifting dynamics-- is trying a new tack. And hey- it worked. She got her little headline, didn't she? That's all she wanted. But the real point is what she had to say to get it.
And fuck Luntz. The change narrative goes pretty far in neutralizing the experience challenge- just look how it's played out with Clinton.
I'm not worried about the general. I'm worried about the superdelegates. The strong likelihood is that this is going to come down to them.
CJ is right. In 2004, John Kerry was the NJ's most liberal senator. The calculations they use are specious at best, using votes cast only in the last year. He appears to have "shifted left" because he's only showing up to vote on critical votes and toes the party line. It's a bullshit charge. Here's a pretty good explanation.
As for the debates issue, the 2nd place candidate always wants more debates and the front-runner always turns 'em down. Not saying it's a good idea, but it's pretty standard.
I'm with Pete. If the superdelegates don't follow the will of the primary voters and the caucusgoers (minus Michigan and Florida!), there's going to be a big problem.
Those SD's (20% of all delegates!) are just another in a long list of what's messed up about the way we choose our elected officials. From touch-screen hackable paperless voting to a primary calendar that deserves to be reshuffled every four years.
I will say this for a closely contested primary, it keeps Democratic issues on the front page (an argument for more debates) and it gives late-voting primary states a chance to participate and affect the outcome. Look for high turnouts to continue. Just keep it clean, folks.
Also, consider Digby's post on this stuff. It's short, so I'll just cut and paste.
Wingnut Triangulation
by digby
Somehow I don't think it actually hurts John McCain's chances of winning to have Chris Matthews' BFF Tom Delay on Hardball saying that McCain is too liberal because it's "arrogant to think man can affect the climate," and because he hasn't endorsed a right to "drive through Philly with a bazooka hanging out of the window of their Hummer." Not that he'll win anyway...
Matthews: Will you vote for John McCain if it keeps the Clintons out of the White House?
DeLay: I don't have to decide that right now.
Do you get the feeling that the conservatives are gaming this thing? I knew that you would.
They know they are going to lose. They will blame the loss on the fact that McCain wasn't a real conservative (just like Bush.) They know when to fall back and regroup. They're already playing for the next election.
Everybody sing: Conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed.
This is already the wildest election I've ever seen, and it's early February. Hugely influential conservatives have already said way too much about McCain to take it back and keep their integrity. McCain is dead in the water, his one leg of the Republican stool (security hawk) sinking slowly into the sand. His own party can't stand him, and he can't stand what his party has become. Meanwhile the Dems like their candidates so much they can't decide! They want both! And the confounded delegate math could well lead them all the way to Denver without knowing the answer yet -- leaving a 2 month general election. This thing is going strange places. Imagine: all summer you have BOTH Obama and Clinton slamming McCain in state after state after state -- McCain who not only doesn't know where to aim but is constantly looking over his shoulder dodging bullets from his own dwindling troops. I mean, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh have BOTH said they would not only vote for Hillary, they will campaign and raise money for her? How in the world has that become reality? And it's just getting warmed up. Meanwhile Obama is up 15 in Virginia and Tim Kaine is suggesting Jim Webb for VP, an idea either slightly less or more brilliant than VP Hillary would be, I can't decide.
But I'll bet that won't happen. There will be enormous pressure for whoever is substantially behind in pledged delegates the morning of March 5th -- if one or the other is substantially behind -- to concede the nomination. And if they won't, Dean will strong arm the superdelegates to pledge for the front-runner.
13 comments:
So, I voted for Obama. But since then I've started to worry about him a little.
He hasn't really been vetted, and he is the number 1 most liberal-voting senator. Rebublicans could get whole news cycles out of any one of those votes. How does he defend himself on his record of voting on things like gun control, death penalty, abortion, defense policy, etc.? He can't bob and weave forever.
Even I don't really know his positions on issues, and it bothers me that I haven't really cared so far. Rhetoric is important, and he's incredibly inspirational, but it only goes so far. I saw a clip on Youtube with a Frank Luntz focus group of some 15 Obama supporters watching his speech. Sean Hannity asked the group to name one thing Obama has accomplished in his life. Nobody could come up with one!
He can't seem to close the deal. Fighting to a draw is not comforting.
He's not getting the blue-collar voters in the big states, not getting old workhorse senior Dems, not getting the female vote, not getting the Latino vote.
I guess that's all. Clinton challenged him to a debate a week. I think he should accept the challenge, for all our sakes. If he has glaring faults, we need to know them now, not later, when it's too late.
He has a lot of great qualities, but I'm starting to notice the faint taste of Kool-Aid in my own mouth.
To continue... and sorry to hijack your thread, Vampiro, but apparently I'm not the only one who is feeling a little something strange about all this. These could well be a couple of Hillary plants in the media, but I found this article and this article interesting on the "cult" of Obama.
I agree with you that Obama should accept the offer of more debates. Not to do so is a bit sketchy.
Regarding Clinton, however, it makes me very nervous the rather large numbers of supposed Democrats I know who claim they'd vote for McCain over her because they hate her so much. I hope this is just posturing and that they'd think it through before actually doing so, since McCain is a real Republican, if one with moments of independent thinking. I mean, come on, people.
I think that if you're just an average person, going about town, doing your errands, etc., there's more racism than sexism in this country. But if you're in a position of power (like if you're a CEO or a President), there's WAY more sexism. I guess we can hope that McCain selects Huckles as his VP, in which case the above-referenced people will come to their senses, I hope.
I'm still an Obama supporter, however. No dynasties! I don't care if Hendrik Hertzberg likes them!
I saw that article saying that Obama is the number 1 most liberal-voting senator, too, but I think it's total bullshit. Is he more liberal than the Senators (like Feingold and Wyden and others) who support gay marriage? (I wish he was, but the fact is he isn't.) I can't help but think that that "most liberal Senator" title was created post facto by rightwingers and would have been awarded to any Democratic candidate that they were worried about. The media, of course, passed along the designation with no critical appraisal whatsoever.
Well, it was National Journal, a supposedly nonpartisan Washington insider publication. Contributors to NJ include Richard Cohen, Jonathan Rausch, and Charlie Cook.
"The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate."
Clinton ranked the 16th most liberal.
Does he support gay marriage? I don't know! Why don't I ever look at Obama's issues page on his Web site? Maybe I am afraid... I think I'll go there right now. No -- no I won't. I'm too tired.
I'd rather just go to bed and feel smug that he has won the most states, won the most delegates, won his own state by more than Hillary won hers, has more money, and seems much better set up for the coming month.
Hey- let's not lose what we've got.
For one, we have seen Obama face the Rightwing Attack Machine. Remember that Madrassa bullshit? He won that round, hands down. He even shut out Fox News over it, for a very long time. It was impressive, and more importantly, a new strategy.
The trick, I think, is in the rhetoric-- on the level we're talking about, that's all politics is, dodging and weaving. He's better at it than Clinton, that's for sure. And that matters. I don't think this election will come down to "Too liberal." People are weary of the messenger carrying messages like that.
Look at the occasion for this thread: Coulter--who has been more or less irrelevant for awhile now with the shifting dynamics-- is trying a new tack. And hey- it worked. She got her little headline, didn't she? That's all she wanted. But the real point is what she had to say to get it.
And fuck Luntz. The change narrative goes pretty far in neutralizing the experience challenge- just look how it's played out with Clinton.
I'm not worried about the general. I'm worried about the superdelegates. The strong likelihood is that this is going to come down to them.
CJ is right. In 2004, John Kerry was the NJ's most liberal senator. The calculations they use are specious at best, using votes cast only in the last year. He appears to have "shifted left" because he's only showing up to vote on critical votes and toes the party line. It's a bullshit charge. Here's a pretty good explanation.
As for the debates issue, the 2nd place candidate always wants more debates and the front-runner always turns 'em down. Not saying it's a good idea, but it's pretty standard.
That's a great link, Trev. Arrows for the quiver.
While I'm at it, don't miss this NYer article on Hillary and Obama.
I'm with Pete. If the superdelegates don't follow the will of the primary voters and the caucusgoers (minus Michigan and Florida!), there's going to be a big problem.
Those SD's (20% of all delegates!) are just another in a long list of what's messed up about the way we choose our elected officials. From touch-screen hackable paperless voting to a primary calendar that deserves to be reshuffled every four years.
I will say this for a closely contested primary, it keeps Democratic issues on the front page (an argument for more debates) and it gives late-voting primary states a chance to participate and affect the outcome. Look for high turnouts to continue. Just keep it clean, folks.
Also, consider Digby's post on this stuff. It's short, so I'll just cut and paste.
Wingnut Triangulation
by digby
Somehow I don't think it actually hurts John McCain's chances of winning to have Chris Matthews' BFF Tom Delay on Hardball saying that McCain is too liberal because it's "arrogant to think man can affect the climate," and because he hasn't endorsed a right to "drive through Philly with a bazooka hanging out of the window of their Hummer." Not that he'll win anyway...
Matthews: Will you vote for John McCain if it keeps the Clintons out of the White House?
DeLay: I don't have to decide that right now.
Do you get the feeling that the conservatives are gaming this thing? I knew that you would.
They know they are going to lose. They will blame the loss on the fact that McCain wasn't a real conservative (just like Bush.) They know when to fall back and regroup. They're already playing for the next election.
Everybody sing: Conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed.
This is already the wildest election I've ever seen, and it's early February. Hugely influential conservatives have already said way too much about McCain to take it back and keep their integrity. McCain is dead in the water, his one leg of the Republican stool (security hawk) sinking slowly into the sand. His own party can't stand him, and he can't stand what his party has become. Meanwhile the Dems like their candidates so much they can't decide! They want both! And the confounded delegate math could well lead them all the way to Denver without knowing the answer yet -- leaving a 2 month general election. This thing is going strange places. Imagine: all summer you have BOTH Obama and Clinton slamming McCain in state after state after state -- McCain who not only doesn't know where to aim but is constantly looking over his shoulder dodging bullets from his own dwindling troops. I mean, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh have BOTH said they would not only vote for Hillary, they will campaign and raise money for her? How in the world has that become reality? And it's just getting warmed up. Meanwhile Obama is up 15 in Virginia and Tim Kaine is suggesting Jim Webb for VP, an idea either slightly less or more brilliant than VP Hillary would be, I can't decide.
But I'll bet that won't happen. There will be enormous pressure for whoever is substantially behind in pledged delegates the morning of March 5th -- if one or the other is substantially behind -- to concede the nomination. And if they won't, Dean will strong arm the superdelegates to pledge for the front-runner.
Post a Comment