Obama's diss of the Democratic Party even as he stands on the verge of carrying its banner. A surrender of the idea that the Party had principles worth fighting for. Furthering the Naderesque illusions: oh, they're all culpable. It upsets Harrogate a great deal, as lies writ large are wont to do.
What is interesting about this is, Obama supporters on this blog and elsewhere rarely quibble with the following:
what exactly are the Democratic Party getting with Obama as their presumptive nominee? They will not be getting a nominee who can define differences between the parties. Obama seemingly only mentioned “Republicans” in the context of reaching out to them, while letting their leaders off the hook, as if the last seven years of graft, corruption, and circumvention of the Constitution were bipartisan in origin. Obama aimed his attack not against the party which controlled Washington for the better part of this decade and which controlled Congress for the better part of the 1990’s. Rather, he aimed his critique against both parties and Washington as a whole, as if Democrats are equally culpable for the country’s problems. If tonight is any guide, Democrats will be getting a nominee who runs just as often against them as Republicans. They will be getting a nominee who shows little stomach for holding the Republican Party in general and John McCain particularly accountable for what they have done to this country. His campaign seemingly has an easier time carving up a female Democratic opponent than they do a Republican standard-bearer who represents Bush’s third term, and who questions Obama’s fitness for office.
This nonpolitical message may be the message that Obama’s Millions want to hear, and we can all pray that they show up and vote for him and the Democratic Party in November to offset the wave of motivated far right forces aligned against him, as well as the Indies and Latinos that McCain will pull from him.
My main question Senator Obama is this: with the nomination almost in hand now, when does your message shift from being all about you and the movement towards a call for a Democratic government to right the wrongs from years of GOP harm?
The answer is, of course, the message does not shift. If it was going to, it would have during the Primary. But his strategy was always about getting Republicans to cross over and vote for him in the Primaries, and it worked beautifully. Even if he were interested, he could not become a fighter for Democratic principles now.
7 comments:
Technically, especially to Clinton supporters, the nomination has not been won. Therefore, you cannot have a united call to arms. If Clinton were to pull back or drop out by March 4th, you will have the Unity building address.
But, you want partisanship and not consensus, right? So, you will want him to change his entirely rhetorical approach to suit Clinton supporters? That will not happen. At the very least, you would still need to show how partisanship, especially by Senator Clinton is desirable, even though the voters have seen differently.
Further, at what point does he "diss" the Demcoratic Party? Look at his policies and examine them? Are the reflective of the party's goals or not?
You quote: "They will not be getting a nominee who can define the differences between the parties..."
What kind of nonsense is this? Just last night he discussed how McCain was wrong about Iraq (a difference). Pakistan (another difference).
Further, of course he is going to mention the 1990s as the Democratic nomination is still going on which is the difference between him and Clinton... And, since the primary is not over, he should be making this point because the Democrats failed to stand up for themselves during the Bush term. Iraq. Torture. etc. Or did Senator Clinton oppose those? Right...
It seems that you want to impose multiple standards here. If he were the nominee, then he could begin against Republicans. If you want this, ask Senator Clinton to drop out.
Finally, his message is beginning to shift as he is spending more time on McCain than Clinton. But if you want bloody partisan addresses, you will not find them right now.
Of course Harrogate would prefer Consensus. Take Health Care. In Imagination Land, for Democrats to do something to address this crisis, will not involve a very contentious battle along partisan lines. In Imagination Land, it will involve enthusiastic support from various interest groups and the GOP politicians in their pockets.
In Imagination Land, the Democrats are EQUALLY culpable with respect to Iraq, because in Imagination Land, it was not a GOP Agenda to invade from the moment they went in there in 2000. In Imagination Land, failure to stop something is the same as starting something and carrying it through.
You speak of what will happen if he locks up the nomination. Come now. Do you seriously believe his Rhetoric is going to be MORE partisan in the context of a General election, where Indepenents are coveted and GOP Crossovers are sublime.
And, please answer this, if you ignore all else. Obama himself claims that his supporters will only vote Demo if he is the nominee, whereas he can get the Clintonistas. This does not enact a hierarchal elision of partisan distinctions?
You woruself have said you will not vote for her. This does not affirm a lack of substantive difference between the parties?
Oh, the Clinton and Bush administrations were the same. Just different sides of the same sandbox. Time to think outside the bun.
A few points:
(1) The reasons why I would not vote for Clinton have nothing to do with my support of Senator Obama. I think Senator Clinton is an excellent Senator and her talents are best suited for the Senate. I further object to her political style and stances on certain issues important to me.
(1a) It seems apparent that come November, Senator Obama would be able to get what Senator Clinton could: the Blue States in the electoral college (unless you think New York or California will switch). However, Obama's argument is that Clinton cannot gain enough independents and, possibly Republicans, to turn the Swing States blue (Clinton may win Ohio but she has not won that yet).
Think for a second, if Wisconsin, the closest state in 2004, is to stay blue, then Wisconsin needs Obama since he won convincingly. Obama also won Virginia, convincingly, and Missouri, close. These may be important Swing States, enough to win the nomination. Don't think popular vote for this, think electoral college.
(2) Read Talk Left. There are many Clinton supporters who will not support Senator Obama. In every election, the majority who support one will support another; yet, some will not.
(3) If Obama wins the nomination, he will need to make arguments to stabilize the base. In every campaign, a candidate must do that for some audiences. As Senator Obama makes arguments to audiences, he will make those claims. I am sorry, since this is the presumption, the burden of proof rests on those to show why he would not do this. But you cannot do this until the nomination process is over. Last time I checked, Senator Clinton did not withdraw from the race and has no plans on doing so.
(3) Play up Imagination land all you want. But many of the Democrats lacked the political judgment to stand up to the Bush administration. The votes did not occur in imagination land, they were real. The Dems, who controlled the house in 2000, could not make a case to the American people as to why they should be reelected. When they lost, the Republicans took over. Though there may have been plans in 2001, those plays could not have worked until the Dems rolled over in 2002 and 2004.
Yet, after 2002, the Democrats lacked the conviction to stand up for their beliefs because they feared they would lose reelection to the Bush admin. Principles matter and the Democrat should voted against Bush's policies. It did not hurt Dennis Kucinich, who is still a member and voted against Iraq.
(4) And, to say that there may be similarities between Clinton and Bush, this develops though political style. Look at here campaign- the desire for loyalty instead of competence. With her previous Health Care campaign, the way in which she acted outside the Constitution, away from Congress, and behind closed doors. To say they have similar styles is not to say that the substance will be the same. Though I think Noam Chomsky would say that even with Obama, there would be few changes between Obama and Bush.
Harrogate-
I would like for you to develop a defense of supporting a party. Why is it good in American politics to do so?
Then, I would like a post on the Democratic principles (what they should be and why).
Serious posts, in good faith...
Harrogate will attempt to cobble together such a Manifesto, sincerely and in good faith, in the next day or so.
And Harrogate also hopes that, in the debates between Clinton and Obama to come, that there is a moderator among them who asks a question about the nature of Party affiliation, and what each of these candidates thinks appealing about the Party whose banner they wish to carry in the Fall.
That may be an excellent question....
World Of Warcraft gold for cheap
wow power leveling,
wow gold,
wow gold,
wow power leveling,
wow power leveling,
world of warcraft power leveling,
world of warcraft power leveling
wow power leveling,
cheap wow gold,
cheap wow gold,buy wow gold,
wow gold,
Cheap WoW Gold,
wow gold,
Cheap WoW Gold,
world of warcraft gold,
wow gold,
world of warcraft gold,
wow gold,
wow gold,
wow gold,
wow gold,
wow gold,
wow gold,
wow gold
buy cheap World Of Warcraft gold k3d6u7ek
Post a Comment