Barack Obama's MLK speech at Ebenezer Baptist Church is extremely good. It should remind Obama fans of what they like best about him. For campaign purposes, though, I think nobody's ever doubted that he's a great orator. The difficulty is that he hasn't established a policy argument on his behalf that people find compelling. With little differentiation between the candidates in terms of issues, things are breaking down on demographic lines and women outnumber men, old people outnumber young people, nonblacks outnumber blacks, and working-class people outnumber college graduates among the target audience on the primaries.
« Something Different | Main | Giants Win »
Obama's Speech
20 Jan 2008 09:51 pm
Comments (51)
I think the speech was about trying to break through those demographic lines, especially amongst Latinos. It's probably going to be his theme going into February 5th. That a making sure folks know that the Clintons are playing a little fast and loose with his record.
No differences? I see huge differences between the morals and temperament of Obama and the Clintons. Huge. I see huge differences for the future of our nation.
He's willing to make moral arguments to voters on behalf of liberal policies, & he's really really good at it. That's relevant to policy. The Clintons' & Democratic leadership's unwillingness or inability to do that has helped get us exactly where we are today.
things are breaking down on demographic lines and women outnumber men...nonblacks outnumber blacks
I feel certain that's not true. I read endless prattling after the Steinem NYT editorial telling me otherwise.
And for god's sake, what did YOU think of it? Liberal blogs cover the primaries too much like the mainstream press covers politics in general.
People don't vote based on policy.
Yeah, nobody really cares about policy. Obama's problem is with low-information voters and hispanics that, for cultural reasons, won't vote for a black candidate.
For a candidate who's been touting his "electability," he really needs to start winning some elections.
Great. And Republican-leaning independents outnumber Democratic-leaning independents.
Never underestimate the ability of Democrats to screw things up, even an election handed to them on a platter.
Why does Matt Yglesias hate the Unity Pony?
If you have a magical Unity Pony, you don't need policy!
* * *
Or to put the same argument in less derisive terms, Matt writes:
The difficulty is that he hasn't established a policy argument on his behalf that people find compelling.
No. Obama's problem is that enough people see that the true nature of the Republican party means that if Obama tries his unity schtick in real life, he's not going to achieve whatever policies he might, in fact, have.
The idea that you're going to be able to get universal health care by sitting down around "the table" to achieve "consensus" is absurd on its face. MLK would have called bullshit on it. Civil rights, universal health care: These are fought for, not magically granted because of a charm offensive, no matter how charming the gifted orator might be.
Well Obama admitted his campaign did not have, in his words, 'clean hands' when it came to the causing divisiveness over the racial issue.
He gets credit for that admission. Good for him. It was a good speach and but a game changer.
For campaign purposes, though, I think nobody's ever doubted that he's a great orator. The difficulty is that he hasn't established a policy argument on his behalf that people find compelling.
Are you on crack, Yglesias? Do you honestly, for one moment, believe that policy considerations are driving this race? This is a primary where anti-war Republicans have been breaking for McCain, and anti-war Democrats have been breaking for Clinton. Policy has precisely jack shit to do with any of this.
Obama's problem is that its hard to beat the establishment candidate. I don't think you need any further explanation.
In defense of Matt, he's pointing out that there isn't much policy daylight between BO and HRC. And thus, in the absence of clear policy differentiation, we get a politics of identity.
He's not claiming that people *are* voting on policy in this primary. He is implying that they might be more likely to do so, given a different set of arguments. Which is probably at least slightly true.
I'm afraid BO's bind is this: tacking right is never a shrewd move in a Dem primary. But unfortunately, if he tacks left on some issues, he can easily be framed as a "radical black man."
Nevertheless, I think the remarks about homophobia and anti-semitism in the sermon might signal a strategy to tack a little more to the left. He didn't have to mention homophobia. But he can foreground that issue now, because he feels that he's got the African-American community solidly behind him (finally), and can take a few risks to remind the rest of the Dem electorate that he *will* take risks.
Whether he wins or not, I think he's doing good things for the country.
Did anyone else notice that he included atheists as among the groups of people with something to contribute to American life? Barak Obama is the anti-Bush. He's too good for the American electorate, and as a result we'll get a Hillary contest in which the Republicans come out of the woodwork to stop her. Prepare for another depressing four years.
Well one thing's for certain. Hillary Clinton is as good at dividing the Democratic party as she is at dividing the country. She will be a worth heir to the Bush legacy.
It's kind of liberating to now be able to see the Clintons as they really are. America isn't about us -- it's about them. I'm not scared of the future with Hillary (she cannot possibly be worse than Bush) but I'm reasonably sure there will be no substantive changes with Hillary at the helm. I'm sure of one thing: she will not receive my vote. I don't care for the scorched-earth politics of the Clintons. I was too young to see it the first time (I voted in my first Presidential election in 2000), but now that I see what they're all about I really don't like them.
But hey, at least Hillary can play the Republican game. I guess so far most of the party thinks "if you can't beat them, join them." It stinks, and I'm pretty sure it'll turn off many of the new voters we've brought in. I guess it's the 51% strategy now. What do you think the odds are in 2010 we lose the Senate and the House? What about the (predictable) failure of HillaryCare 2.0?
I jammed my thumb pretty badly on the mountain this weekend and typing is almost agony, but Hillary and Bill have pissed me off enough I'll type through the pain. I had joked about moving to Canada after Bush got re-elected. I think I'll spend some more time looking into their immigration laws now. With the stink of empire and dynasty, America doesn't look so hot.
Obama's problem is that enough people see that the true nature of the Republican party means that if Obama tries his unity schtick in real life, he's not going to achieve whatever policies he might, in fact, have.
Good point. That's why he wasn't able to pass the (Obama-Coburn) Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, or the Lugar-Obama conventional weapons reduction initiative, or get the (Republican-controlled) Illinois Senate and police lobby to go along with a bill mandating videotaping of police interrogations...
Just because Harry Reid folds like a cheap lawnchair, don't assume Obama will. Just because George Bush thinks negotiation is a sign of weakness doesn't make it so. And just because Reagan was able to unite a whole lot of Americans around pernicious policies doesn't mean that's the only thing you can do with a solid mandate.
But I honestly believe a plurality of Democrats would rather lose with a candidate who will lead then in an anti-Republican two-minute hate than win with a candidate who speaks nicely to conservatives and achieves liberal goals in the process.
Buck up. It's not over yet. A lot can change in a week, and the talking point for tomorrow is "do we really want Bill C. back in the White House?" Which might make people think a bit.
In any case, though I prefer Obama, Hillary would be an infinite improvement over Bush (or any of the Republicans running). Our side has too many good candidates. Not a reason to be depressed.
Somebody explain to me why it is the 'netroots' have been fighting the DLC tooth and nail for many long years, yet when we're faced with the prospects of nominating the DLC founders to lead our party, our progress-o-sphere leaders suddenly adopt a zombie-like neutrality. ??
Maybe some people have gotten so accustomed to defending Clintons against right-wing attacks that we forgot we're fighting them for the future of the party. I mean, Markos wrote a book called "Crashing the Gate". What does he call it when the establishment candidate runs a nasty tricks campaign for three weeks and Markos doesn't have the guts to remind people who's on which side of the gate? "Coming to Terms with the Gate"? "The Gate is Sturdy: Oh Well"? "If the Gate Wins, That's Cool"?
Seriously. It's not like I have any faith in the netroots' ability to swing a nomination, but when we get stuck fighting another 50%+1 election between Madame DLC and Daddy Warballs McCain, some people are going to wish they had fought a little bit in the primary.
Ted: I'd like to believe that Obama is reaching out to the left now, but he's actually said similar things about homophobia in black churches before, so this may not be a real change in strategy.
Briefly, I agree with the first comment. Obama has been telling people all along that things will be hard, it won't be handed to you and you will have to change your behavior - tough times ahead. The fact is that no one wants to hear it. They want it changed for them, to make it all better, like Edwards promised.
Democrats are so shortsighted I am considering leaving them and their idiocy behind.
They will get what they deserve, someone who will change from left, to almost left, to almost right of that line - as the the tide turns.
robotButler, you got it! It has been shocking that the "netroots" have systematically taken the fifth in this primary -- at best, hoping against hope for Edwards, and at worst (as you already point out) forgetting that it was the DLC which gave the "netroots" its reason for being and turning a blind eye to Clinton Machine politics. Apparently, given the choice between their suspicions that Obama isn't left enough, and the actual fact that Hillary isn't, they have, by default, chosen Hillary, on the theory that, at best, she can deliver a very weak centrist democratic program but no more, and cannot spark any meaningful shift in the direction of this country.
It's a sad commentary that someone could watch that speech and come away with, "Well, that Barack is a good orator... but, meh, whatever..." I would feel pity for that, but for that the future of our nation is at stake. Knowing what the stakes are, what I feel instead is more along the lines of outrage (I would say shock, but I've come to expect this of Matt).
Watching the speech what I saw was the antidote for what has been wrong with our party and our nation for all of my 30 years on the planet. I watched that speech and what I saw was someone who understood that it was not enough to accept the frame of reference the conservative movement has built and that Ronald Reagan embodied, to seek to temper it as the Clintons have, or even to stand in defiance of it as Howard Dean did four years ago or John Edwards has done this past year. What I saw was a man who understands that progressive, liberal policy can be built and must be built upon a foundation of our shared moral values from the bottom up, that these values can prevail when we stand for something, not merely against. Viewing that speech, I cannot help but feel history shifting around us, I cannot help but see that we are being offered a unique opportunity of the sort that we may not see again for decades to come. This is about more than being a good orator.
This post embodies what holds Matt back in comparison to Andrew Sullivan. For all that I disagree with Andrew on many points, for all that I sometimes find his single-mindedness irritating, he understands that his role is not to be an impassive observer to events around him. He does not seek through aloof indifference and cynicism to demonstrate his superior sophistication. Sullivan gets down in the mud, he is a passionate participant in the events that are shaping our nation. Occasional sniping from the sideline just doesn't cut it.
These are, after all, events deserving of passion. While ardent followers of politics have seen much and always have reason to be jaded, we have not seen everything under the sun. We are not stuck in some meaningless post-modern state at the end of history. This nation has been rocked by momentous changes throughout its life, and will continue to be. Things do happen, big things, important things, and if we embrace the opportunities that come, we can be a part of that change and help to shape it. These things are worth taking chances for, they're worth taking risks, they're worth the possibility of being embarrassed or disappointed or having our hopes crushed. The alternative, to be blind to possibility, to give up on hope, is frankly not worth considering.
MY: With little differentiation between the candidates in terms of issues, things are breaking down on demographic lines
The studied neutrality of that sentence is great. We all know that campaigns send coded messages in order to swing voters to their candidate. Under the leadership of Mark Penn and Bill Clinton, the Clinton campaign has been dog-whistling for weeks (months?) in an attempt to pull women and non-blacks to their side. The polarization of the Democratic electorate by race, age, gender and religion is enormously destructive, and it's not happening in a vacuum. It's happening because a campaign is driving it.
cooper - Just so. It's pretty clear to me that Hillary is running like she's in a Dem Primary, and will no doubt pivot centrist for the general election, while Obama is running like it's already the general. Odd choice, but he obviously has some plan.
As for him telling people what they don't want to hear: you could count his words on Reagan in that. The liberal base of the party really did not like hearing that. With some people, it's all partisan battle. War. Good god. What is it good for?
"The idea that you're going to be able to get universal health care by sitting down around 'the table' to achieve 'consensus' is absurd on its face. MLK would have called bullshit on it. Civil rights, universal health care: These are fought for, not magically granted because of a charm offensive, no matter how charming the gifted orator might be."
I feel ridiculous even comparing Obama on universal health care with the heroism of MLK in the civil rights movement, but your version of MLK would not have engaged in nonviolent resistance. He would not have understood the potential effectiveness of showing the white majority the evils to which they had been turning a blind eye. He would not have believed that a white president from the South would put his career on the line to push through civil rights legislation. King fought. He took action. But he resisted the temptation to become part of the problem.
Sometimes we can achieve a lot by respectfully presenting our case to our opponents.
http://sfr-21.org/king-nonviolence.html
What J.B. said (so eloquently).
And furthermore, watching that speech and digesting its message, you can see the real profound difference between a deep political understanding of the possibilities offered by the historical moment we’re in versus the posturing of the “kewl kids” of the Krugman school with their radical chic about the need for “bitter confrontation” and political wonkery focusing on minutiae of policy differences.
Some very good posts here, but WOO HOO for Posted by J.B. | January 20, 2008 11:52 PM ...
If each of us who feel strongly in the urgency of now brings someone else with us...via doorbelling, phone banking, email, family dinners...then the swell will grow.
Think if each one we brought took it upon themselves to bring another...and they each brought another...
That is Obama's message. It is up to us for us but more for our children.
Get engaged folks.
"We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate." Barack Obama
Vote hope, not fear. Vote unite, not divide and conquer.
What J.B. said (so eloquently).
And furthermore, watching that speech and digesting its message, you can see the profound difference between a deep political understanding of the possibilities for real progressive change offered by the historical moment we’re in versus the posturing of the “kewl kids” of the Krugman school with their radical chic about the need for “bitter confrontation” and political wonkery focusing on minutiae of policy differences.
sorry for the double post
Justin X...great point.
What the hard left and Krugman kewl kids are advocating is more akin to Malcolm X than MLK...there are ways of fighting and there are ways of fighting.
Just because you sit down with your adversary does not mean you cede your goal.
"We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate." Barack Obama
Vote hope, not fear. Vote unite, not divide and conquer.
Glad you noticed. But, for some reason, you are doing the pundit trick - everything is "objectified".
What do YOU think, personally, of the speech? How did it make you FEEL?
Stop being analytic for a bit, and let something show.
Here's the link to the Ebenezer Church video. Make sure to open it in Internet Explorer. Download and install Realplayer before opening it. You can open it in Full screen mode or watch it in the CSPAN site. It's 45 minutes long.
Listen and be inspired and uplifted as I was.
In the CSPAN site,it has been listed as -Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Campaign Event in Atlanta, GA
Actually I think Matt's is a fair comment. Many people are asking: But what is Obama going to DO? All his many white papers notwithstanding. I do think however that Matt underestimates the implications, for policy, of Obama's message. It actually puts more policy options on the table by stripping them of their ideological baggage. Hillary and Bill have been very effective at treating each race discreetly, the appeal to women voters in NH, the faux indignation at the prospect of voter suppression by the union mobilized their base. Neither however improved the tenor of the political debate or helped to craft a positive identity/message for the party. Obama does this very well, and if he can say--hey we are the party of inclusion--he may provide a place for disaffected Republicans and Independents to come home to. Clinton had plenty of policies in the 90s but they couldnt get it done because they made too many enemies. Having enemies is not a good policy. Obama is laying a foundation. This is his message. That he makes this his a priority demonstrates his sincerity on this point. While the other candidates have had to really pander to their base (except maybe McCain), and while other candidates will have to tack toward the center in the general, Obama is already squarely where he wants to be for the general. That he has pushed on back through Clinton's attempts to make him the black candidate shows just how powerful his message is.
That is Obama's message. It is up to us for us but more for our children.
Get engaged folks."We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate." Barack Obama
Vote hope, not fear. Vote unite, not divide and conquer.
Posted by G Davis | January 21, 2008 12:43 AM
"Get engaged" where, how, and for what? "Hope" for what, exactly? Peace and prosperity? The elimination of political parties as we've known them? The end of hate? Nice work if you can get it.
And how does one "hope" and "engage" in good conscience as part of the corporate-financed Democratic Party being run (into the ground) by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, with the silent assent to date of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton?
Or in the Democratic Party that will emerge under a new Democratic president - under Clinton, as was under McAuliffe (buh-bye Dean), or under Obama, who's offering us soaring rhetoric that hopes to charm today's Republican Party into sitting down at a table to compromise with the Democrats on changing their ways? Are you really buying what they're selling?
I'm not, because I can't. I've been paying attention to actions in the Senate. Edwards may have followed the same morally-compromised route in his turn through there and may or may not sincerely regret many of his votes now, but that turn wasn't as recently as a month ago, as it was for Obama and Clinton, and in the meantime, John Edwards already managed to (apparently) win the Vice Presidency of this nation once, and has suffered obvious life-changing personal trauma since.
If we're all going to be forced to endure empty rhetoric from yet another president, I'll choose the potentially empty rhetoric of John Edwards, who is espousing the causes of the unpopular and most powerless among us, now, and paying the price for it by being ignored, over the pomposity of Barack Obama who's afraid of the shadows of "liberalism" never mind the 'disease' itself or those in the party who harbor it. Obviously he'll have no problem sitting down with his esteemed elders, the Republicans in Congress - it thrills Obama to meet with the "enemy" and consider them friends. After all, they know how to hunt, and how to make a buck - courtesy of the American treasury they've mortgaged to China.
It's time for Republicans to compromise their "principles," not time for Democrats to apologize for inconveniencing them while we clean up after the Republican reign of terror.
pow wow - Edwards and his supporters like to argue that you get more done with an aggressive position, but in my experience and in history the opposite is true. You get things done by attracting people to vote for your side so that you have a governing coalition, and you keep 41 senators from filibustering your policies by talking to them. Not agreeing with them, but talking to them. Respectfully. Edwards fails to understand this, and perhaps that's why he failed to pass any significant legislation as a senator.
Unlike you, I think that a presidential candidate's record actually matters. You don't have to look back to his days as a senator to see that John Edwards' positioning is completely made up for this election. You don't even have to go back to 2004. Just go back to his work for a hedge fund foreclosing on Katrina victims. The man has no moral authority to help him accomplish his goals.
JC is right, and I won't attempt to compete with his eloquence here. Barack Obama is that rarest of politicians who has actually walked the walk and sacrificed in his own life to help the people he says he cares about. He has a demonstrated ability to work within his own party and across the aisle to pass legislation. I honestly don't understand why any Democrat would vote for another candidate.
Pow-wow,
You fundamentally miss the point of Obama's campaign. It's not us versus them, it's about whether you believe there's a majority of decent, thoughtful Americans who are willing to compromise technical points in order to achive a broader progressive agenda.
You ask - Get engaged for what? Get engaged to vote, not only for him, but for a slate of democrats or moderate republicans - not to destroy the republican party, to humiliate it or to punish it for the excesses and depravity of the Bush years, but to provide a mandate to get the meat of Obama's progessive agenda done.
Hope for what? Hope for a better America that realizes that a majority formed from both Democrats and Republicans love this country, want to defend it and see it prosper, not to transform it into some ridiculous kumbaya fantasyland, but rather into a country that moves closer to working for the electorate rather than just pandering to it in election season.
One of my pet peeves is the assumption that Obama will meet and kow tow to "republicans", as if they're a senseless mob led by Dick Cheney & Co. Reagan sowed the seeds of the Republican movement that screwed this country up - not by co-opting "Democrats" as a whole, but by bringing just enough Democrats into the fold to advance a Republican agenda. In a more cynical political calculus, this is Obama's goal, not to embrace the Republican establishment, but to generate enough support from disaffected Republicans (and Independents) who are just as sick of the trajectory of the country as most Dems are to establish a working progessive majority.
If you've been too damaged by the past 8 years to see the potential in this - even if you don't think Obama is the one to get it done - and instead insist on reacting like a wounded animal to the Rove years by perpetuating their same 50.1% strategy on the other side of the aisle in electing Hillary, then be prepared for another 4-8 years of little to no policy movement, and a continued degradation of the moral standing of this country in the world's eye.
What Writersclog said. Stick-it-to-them-like-they-stuck-it-to-us is childish.
What's interesting about the Obama campaign is the effort to link a Presidential race to genuine community organizing -- it's not just about the President but about a larger process of getting folks elected.
Exactly. This speech was about a lot of things, but it was definitely an answer to "It takes a president".
I find it depressing that Obama could give such a beautiful speech -- I just read it, and I imagine it must have been even better spoken -- and the responses we come up here are bitter recriminations on all sides, talking about Obama the traingulating empty-suit appeaser, Clinton the CREEP-imitating evil warmonger bitch, Edwards the Hedge Fund-working hypocrite, Krugman the shrill vendetta-harboring polemicist, etc.
I know, I know, it would be really boring if all we had to say on this comments thread were "la, what a nice speech!" At the same time, it seems like this thread is pretty much all back-and-forth attacks among Democrats.
Okay, now I'm taking it to the meta-level, making personal, off-topic attacks on people for making personal, off-topic attacks. Back to the speech!
One part I liked is where he starts responding in explicit terms to why he emphasizes unity -- the "not because it sounds pleasant or it feels good" line. A lot of people aren't going to be entirely satisfied with that, and are going to claim that the idea that emnity between Republicans and Democrats might reduce the overall empathy we have for each other, and thus inhibit public programs like universal health coverage, isn't really comparable to the idea that emnity between, say, blacks and whites might reduce the overall empathy we have for each other as a society, and thus inhibit such programs. Still, while it's not an answer to the "what's unity good for?" question lobbed by the likes of Krugman that will satisfy everyone, it certainly does provide a real, thoughtful answer to why unity matters.
Given the recent unpleasantness, it was heartening to see the "our hands are not entirely clean" line, when applied to African-Americans and GLBT issues and anti-Semitism. And of course, I suppose only a black person could say that to a black audience and get away with it.
If you are going to "change", you need 3 things (at least). Vision, strategy, and implementation.
Vision: where do you want to end up (not much disagreement there, but Obama articulates it well)
Strategy: what do you need to do to get there (some disagreement--Obama still fairly clear, but getting fuzzier)
Implementation: how are you going to get your strategy done (much disagreement--and much contentiousness because some people believe that Obama's brand of implementation is flat out impossible--I'm not one)
Obama's speeches are written by Jon Favreau, 26, assisted by Adam Frankel, 26, and Ben Rhodes, 30.
Apparently without much editing by the boss:
“Barack trusts him,” said David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s chief campaign strategist. “And Barack doesn’t trust too many folks with that — the notion of surrendering that much authority over his own words.”
Favreau admits straight out who they are conjuring:
For his inspiration, Mr. Favreau said, “I actually read a lot of Bobby” Kennedy.“I see shades of J.F.K., R.F.K.,” he said, and then added, “King.”
In addition, assistant Frankel studied at the knee of JFK adviser and speechwriter Theodore C. Sorensen while assisting Sorenson on his memoirs.
Favreau had less than 3 hours to revise the NH primary speech from a victory speech to a concession speech.
From What Would Obama Say?"
By ASHLEY PARKER
January 20, 2008 New York Times Style Section
where there are more interesting tidbits.
What does the twenty-something blogger think about this? :-)
Dave writes, using irony:
Good point. That's why he wasn't able to pass the (Obama-Coburn) Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, or the Lugar-Obama conventional weapons reduction initiative, or get the (Republican-controlled) Illinois Senate and police lobby to go along with a bill mandating videotaping of police interrogations...
I think it's a big leap to take from one state law and two examples of low-hanging fruit, low impact laws in the Senate to the ability to pass universal health care by "consensus", and it's a leap I'm not yet willing to make -- especially since these are the best talking points that have evolved in the combat in the threads at DK.
Fixed link (I hope) for my comment above:
What Would Obama Say?"
By ASHLEY PARKER
January 20, 2008 New York Times Style Section
I think it's a big leap to take from one state law and two examples of low-hanging fruit, low impact laws in the Senate to the ability to pass universal health care by "consensus"
Negotiating from a position of weakness, as a freshman senator, he was able to find Republican senators he could work with without compromising liberal principles. Why do people assume that if elected President he wouldn't be able to do the same thing? Yeah, health care will be tough-- but I think it'll be easier than passing HillaryCare 2.0 because he's shown an ability to work with Republicans in the past, and his prescription of maximum openness in the process would make Republicans pay for obstructionism.
Apparently the accuracy of that NY Times piece on speeches is up for debate.
Just read the speech.
It reads like a frickin sermon.
I want a "commander in cheief", not a "preacher in chief".
If it comes down to this guy vs. Huckabee, I'm gonna drink heavily and vote for the Reform Party.
It's not us versus them, it's about whether you believe there's a majority of decent, thoughtful Americans who are willing to compromise technical points in order to achive a broader progressive agenda.
Posted by writersclog | January 21, 2008 2:07 AM
I believe this to be true, to my bones, outside of Washington, D.C. But, critically and realistically, inside Washington, where it counts when the bills are being passed, our voices are not heard, no matter how many decent, thoughtful Americans outside are screaming in unison (see the last year in Congress, see the ongoing occupation of Iraq despite 70% disapproval for that policy from decent, thoughful Americans, see the 2006 elections) for a broader progressive agenda, "technical points" notwithstanding.
Why? Because money (which allows candidates to get on the public airwaves and be heard) controls the Congress, and incumbents control the money. It hasn't been a matter of "will" or willingness among Democrats to speak and negotiate with Republicans - but rather that Republicans have been giving Democratic overtures the silent treatment unless and until those Democrats align with the Republican point of view. It's a structural, multi-partisan/non-partisan problem, it's longstanding, and that structure won't change if we don't force it to (via such things as incumbent-unfriendly publicly-financed campaigns), in the face of all the inertia working against such fundamental shifts in power.
I have zero interest in humiliating good faith Republicans. Likewise, I have zero interest in tolerating and excusing bad faith, hypocritical Republicans who have collectively acted to drive this country over the cliff, and given the Democrats the silent treatment for years now in response to every olive branch corporate Democrats like Harry Reid have meekly profferred to them, both as the minority and as the majority leader. Hillary Clinton has marched in lockstep with the corporate Reid agenda, as has Barack Obama (one of Reid's favorites), and we got the Senate we've seen over the last year as one absolutely pathetic result.
I am also so tired of the PR approach to the presidency - if we did nothing but listen to Bush's words from the pen (and minds) of speechwriters, and ignored his actions, as so many seem to be doing with Obama and Clinton and their recent votes on critical issues, maybe we'd all be able to suspend disbelief like 30% of the country still does regarding Bush and just continue to "hope." [See the Protect America Act, see the Kyl/Lieberman amendment, see the Military Commissions Act which one Senator could have successfully blocked with ease because of the timing; I've noted that the presidential candidates are the first to be alerted to the Senate agenda by Reid - he made that clear in speaking on the floor (he calls their campaigns), and the plan was clearly to get them out of town for the PAA, and Obama simply made a deliberate choice to skip the Kyl/Lieberman vote, despite Jim Webb's gutsy public denouncement of the measure in the face of Reid's effort to bring it to the floor. And neither of them, before running for president, could be bothered to meaningfully oppose the unspeakable MCA.]
I have to assume that those who think we can just forge ahead in unity and hope behind Obama, also believe that the Republicans in Congress (and their entrenched media allies) will suddenly 'get with the program' under a Democratic president, and announce a cease-fire. Because you may note that there's been a one-way assault in Washington by the Republican Party aimed at the Democrats, who have by and large refused to return fire. [See "impeachment is off the table" and the complete lack of any meaningful media strategy to get the Democratic message out.] Obama apparently plans to continue that approach, in addition to giving speeches to try to sway the media and thus the people to decry Republican opposition to his agenda - and somehow many think that will succeed in passing his progressive agenda (if his corporate backers allow one), modified only on "technical points" to appease Republicans. Despite the absolute failures of just such a technique behind the (admittedly-tongue-tied) Harry Reid in the Senate over the last year, under a criminal Republican president who still controls the agenda of his party in Congress.
Best of luck with that - I want nothing whatsoever to do with the kind of silent acquiescence or pleading supplication in response to vicious Republican unConstitutional rhetoric and name-calling obstructionism that I've witnessed from the Democrats in the United States Senate over the last year.
Vicious bullies don't walk away from fights because we ask them to, even when they're asked from the bully pulpit of the presidency. We wouldn't be in the dire straits we're in today, if they did. I simply don't understand where you think the Republican Senators and Representatives (and their powerful backers) will be disappearing to under a Democratic president. Obama won't fight, I'm confident from watching him shy away from those who rock the boat in the Senate, so his rhetorical pleas better work, or we'd be repeating the Clinton era flame wars under an Obama presidency all over again, courtesy of the Republican Party and Wall Street's media. The laugh will be on us, because what Republicans know full well is that our Constitution actually places most of the power in the Legislative Branch of government for those prepared to use it - so although the Democrats (just like the Republicans) have shown no willingness or appetite to use the powers of Congress to meaningfully check this president, the Republicans (and "non-partisan" Democrats siding with Republicans, of course, because partisanship is so "yesterday") will reawaken the slumbering legislature and use it to great effect against any Democratic president, even from the minority - and there's another election just two years away, with an horrific pile of trouble on any new president's plate to dig out from under from day one.
Unless, that is, Obama as president were simply to effectively adopt the Republican agenda and call it his own, in the tradition of Bill Clinton. Which seems quite likely to me.
Bottom line: if the corporate media's on board, the American people aren't, and Obama and Clinton couldn't ask for more free exposure from a media that actively sold this nation a war. Edwards, whatever his motives, is being ignored by that media and given almost no free exposure on the public airwaves, and has been so ignored since long before the first primary vote was cast.
Comments closed February 03, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
the speech was rich with policy -- he told the people who were their to tske responsibility for their own short comings -- and he does this in a non confrontational way and includes himself as part of the problem and the solution
It is a tremendous skill to compel people to listen and at the same time tell them something that may not want to hear
Obama's issue in Nevada was that he allowed the Clinton MAchine to knock him off his "game" - he was spending so much time defending himself against nonsense the message was lost
Very few in Nevada saw the Obama os Iowa or NH
I don't think this is a mistake the Obama campaign will make again
Posted by alison | January 20, 2008 10:00 PM