OBAMA: TO THE MIDDLE!
Let me start off by saying that I still love Obama. He should be President in a big way, and a few recent events aren't going to sway me! But, jeez, man ... could you be a little more subtle with your mad dash to the middle. I mean, I know this is what politicians have to do to get elected these days (I guess), but let's not forget what got you here and the passion that many of us have for your positive stance for the things we care about.
Let's be honest: this was not a good couple of weeks for Obama. First, he opted out of public financing, and I'm not even going to try to spin that one (on the other hand, I really can't blame him either). However, I'm genuinely angry about the FISA thing. He should not support that horrible bill ... period! And then came this recent gem from an article on MSN ...
Democrat Barack Obama struggled Thursday to explain how his upcoming trip to Iraq might refine, but not basically alter, his promise to quickly remove U.S. combat troops from the war.
Rut-Ro!
Democrats keep saying we want someone who will win in November. And I suppose it could be argued that Obama is just doing what it takes. Although, I think Arianna Huffington might have the right idea in her post titled Moving to the Middle is for Losers. Here's a portion of it ...
Running to the middle in an attempt to attract undecided swing voters didn't work for Al Gore in 2000. It didn't work for John Kerry in 2004. And it didn't work when Mark Penn (obsessed with his "microtrends" and missing the megatrend) convinced Hillary Clinton to do it in 2008.
Fixating on -- and pandering to -- this fickle crowd is all about messaging tailored to avoid offending rather than to inspire and galvanize. And isn't galvanizing the electorate to demand fundamental change the raison d'etre of the Obama campaign in the first place? This is how David Axelrod put it at the end of February, contrasting the tired Washington model of "I'll do these things for you" with Obama's "Let's do these things together"
In a previous post, I also argued that Obama would be better than Clinton due partly to the fact that he wouldn't run the same loser playbook as Gore and Kerry. Prove me right, Barack.
I'd like to end with a little more about Obama's position on FISA. But rather than listen to me, you should listen to this ...
Labels: barack obama, fisa, keith olbermann, middle
posted by Trekking Left @ 11:36 AM
8 comments
8 Comments:
We aren't leaving. We have no choice. Obama is the winner by false promises and rethug default. I plan to write in Bugs Bunny, if I vote at all.
Edgar - You said, right after the primary, that Obama was just like every other politican. The signs seem to be pointing towards your point of view recently, but I still hold out hope that Obama might prove you wrong.
We shall see.
The eloquence of Huffington, Olberman, and the Average Man notwithstanding, it's still too much electoral electoral politics, the drama of the horse race. As a Senator, Obama is voting the progressive way on FISA; the rest is a boring debate about spin.
Let's check back after Obama is elected and debate the policy and politics of governance, including how to hold the neo-cons responsible for their crimes and more generally how to advance a progressive agenda. This latter may involve doing what the neo-cons refused to do, moving toward the middle--i.e. compromising--which in democratic governance is a good thing.
t.l.,
I have that 1% sliver of hope in the back of my mind that Obama will pleasantly surprise me.
Patrick wrote: politics of governance, including how to hold the neo-cons responsible for their crimes...
One word comes to mind: "kneecaps". I don't know why, or what it might mean. :\
TL, I think Tom Hilton over at If I Ran the Zoo nailed this:
if we're going to spend the next four months with lefties kvetching endlessly about every single little thing they disagree with Obama about, then just fucking shoot me now because I do not want to live through that shit again. You want to know why Democrats are fucking weak? Because we can't help getting worked up over niggling little disagreements.
With all due respect to Patrick, George, and Tom; I think the FISA thing is much more than a "niggling little disagreement" ... it's a chipping away of the fourth amendment!
And what if Obama gets into office and "refines" his position on Iraq to be "we're staying?" That's more than a mere disagreement as well.
Like I said, I'm fully behind Obama 100%; I'm not one of these people who says that one comment is a deal breaker. But his "many" recent positions concern me.
I'm not totally happy about it, but Obama's doing what he needs to do. He and McCain are both pandering, but I'd rather have Obama picking the next three Supremes than McCain.
This election remains a referendum on Bush (and Cheney). If the Democrats can make that case (I don't think they have the backbone), then Obama's election should be, to steal a phrase, a slam dunk.
I expect Obama to "refine" his positions a bit back to the left once he's in. I would like to remind him that the center has moved to the right in the last decade. To me, "change" means adjusting the center to its previous position.
Obama has nothing to lose by charging toward the center. The lefties won't vote for McSame in any event. Politics as usual.
Post a Comment
<< Home