Patrick Ruffini makes a lot of sense on the state of the Republican race, and Matt Stoller observes Barack Obama bleeding support among self-identified liberals. I doubt one can really attribute Obama's problems in this regard specifically to his remarks about Ronald Reagan, but the overall tendency has been for Obama to find himself positioned to HRC's right which isn't where you want to be in a primary.
« Regressions Needed | Main | Banal Football Predictions »
Recommended Primary Reading
20 Jan 2008 02:32 pm
Comments (28)
Out of curiosity, how is Obama to the right of Clinton on social security? I remember a debate in Vegas back in late fall/early winter where he very clearly advocated removing the income cap entirely, a move that Clinton derided as a huge tax hike on the middle class, with her favoring a blue-ribbon bipartisan panel to address the issue with no clear direction set. Not only was Obama's policy position to the left of Clinton's, her justification was based on one of the most commonplace right wing spin points. So how is Obama on the right of HRC on that issue?
Also out of curiosity, what do you define as "befriend the fascists"?
Yeah, why the heck is Obama moving rightward? Was he just thinking too far ahead, to the general election?
And why can't I escape the feeling that he'd actually enact more liberal policies than Hillary? I'm guessing a lot of other people still feel this too, despite what Obama's said about Reagan, etc.
Barack Obama bleeding support among self-identified liberals
I thought this easily predictable as the fan club of the Iowa acceptance speech tired and they learned more of his policy prescriptions and theories of governing etc.
I always thought the same thing would have happened to Saint RFK (to whom Obama was being compared after the speech) had he not been assassinated. That many were using that comparison just made it all the more clear.
From the beginning it was clear to me that Obama has set himself up policy-wise to win centrists and swings over time as they learn more about him, in order to win in the general election. At the same point in time, liberals getting disillusioned as they learn more about him won't matter, as they won't vote GOP.
"Obama to find himself positioned to HRC's right"? Nice use of the passive voice, maybe a closer look at the positions Obama has taken, rather than those that were thrust upon him, is in order.
I am firmly in Obama's camp! I am liberal, white, 43, female, south. I like his reference to Reagan because it proves he is not all talk about being red vs. blue etc... we are all americans.
Since there is no crisis in Social Security, kicking the issue into the long grass of a blue riband, bipartisan panel is probably the best combination of liberal thinking and political realism.
Pretending there is a Social Security crisis puts you to the political right of the issue, even if your remedy is superficially liberal. It dangerous in the system sense because any (unnecessary) tax rise for Social Security thus precludes and tax rises for the general pot and leaves government small and weak.
Finally of course, if we adopt the Ygleisas concept that we should look less at candidate rhetoric and more at candidate advisors and their position papers, then Obama has recruited a bunch of Social Security privatizers to his economic team. That ain't lookin pretty.
It seems like the race is dominated less by identity politics than by resentment politics. If you try to co-opt the other side's frame to support your policy, you just get stabbed in the back by your own side. Politics just becomes a narrow zero sum game in which the point isn't to implement better policies but to vindicate ancient grudges.
Which will ultimately put the conservatives back into power, even if we win this year--if democracy is nothing but two tribes of monkeys howling at each other, we might as well hand power back over the military industrial complex. If rational dialog between factions is just impossible, then liberalism, progressivism, social democracy and opposition to war are senseless doctrines.
Liberals like Obama, ergo, Obama is BFF with fascists. Its so obvious, only a fellow traveler could not see it!
You people should READ what he said about Reagan. Had nothing to do with left vs right policy positions. He spoke admiringly about Reagan because Reagan was able to convince people in the other party that he represented their interests. That is why we still use the term "Reagan Democrats." Reagan was a conservative Republican that got Democrats to vote for him. Obama wants to be a liberal Democrat that gets Republicans to vote for him. Any liberal Democrat who does not like this idea also does not like the idea of long term electoral and governing coalition. Realignment elections come along only a few times every century. Think FDR, Reagan....Obama.
Get it?
The liberal subsample is a small fraction of the overall sample, so we are talking about massive margins of error here. For Stoller to spin a big theory out of this without the smallest caveat is just dishonest posturing.
You people should READ what he said about Reagan. Had nothing to do with left vs right policy positions. He spoke admiringly about Reagan because Reagan was able to convince people in the other party that he represented their interests.
You don't get it. Notice who was in the MSNBC panel? Peggy fucking Noonan.
When you make comparisons to Reagan, not matter how much they distance themselves from Reagan's policies, you invite the substantial Village subcult of Reagan hagiography to pass judgement on you.
(When Noonan and her pals are as dead as FDR's advisors and speechwriters, then you can be a Democrat and make Reagan comparisons.)
the overall tendency has been for Obama to find himself positioned to HRC's right which isn't where you want to be in a primary.
I can't stress greatly enough the need for more Democrats to actually go back and read Clinton's terrifying "Village" book. There's no way to position one's self to the "left" of Clinton without calling for the abolition of property rights, the abandonment and redifinition of 'kinship,' and the centralization of all information under the banner of a ubiquitous, omnipotent, infallible state. Even then, you've only equalled her.
attack Pakistan, vouchers, etc. In addition he wants to befriend the fascists. I always thought that Obama is a Republican.
Clinton takes an active part in drumming up support for the purposeless tangent in Iraq, supported an invasion of Bosnia, supported an invasion of Kosovo, claims to have urged Bill to invade Rwanda, presently wants to invade Sudan, and voted to authorize the President to attack Iran, but Obama is the warmonger for saying Musharraf better start looking for Bin Laden or else?
What a silly thing to think, let alone say.
Obama has actually run a general election strategy from the get-go, so far as I can tell, which may not be brilliant strategically but sets him up awfully well were he to win the nomination. I think this has gone under-appreciated. He wouldn't need to pivot or drift at all after the nomination, which may not be true of Clinton and is almost certainly not true of Edwards.
Obama had "the benefit of the doubt" for the pre-primary season. Every time he seemed like he was trying to outflank his opponents from the right and every time he seemed like he was unwilling to do battle with the conservative Republicans, a lot of observers could say, "well, look at his background. Look at his statements carefully. He must be a rather progressive candidate."
However, as time went on, particularly into the primary season, when Obama's statements elide a pattern of flanking his opponents from the right and a pattern of acting as though he doesn't really realize what he's up against, then it's hard to make excuses any more. How many times have we had to make excuses for Obama's appearance of right-leaning statements? Plus, his supporters are no longer lending their support on the simple hope that he'll do well in the primaries. When he starts stumbling in primary races, supporters can't help but worry they're traveling on a sinking ship and start thinking about swimming for shore.
Consumatopia's point is well taken that eventually the vicious revenge-cycle in politics has to be broken. However, remember that Lincoln's famous call for a reconciliation "with malice towards none, and charity for all," was made after the Confederacy had been utterly defeated. The time for healing old wounds only happens from a position of unchallengeable strength. In a 50/50 race, you can't give ground.
Obama probably only has himself to blame for the loss of support among liberals. His campaign has snubbed the party base to a certain extent, and there's always a price to paid for such gambits during primary season. That said, I'm completely disgusted by the sheer mindlessness of the criticisms being leveled at Obama. "He said nice things about Reagan" and "He once said something about a social security crisis" are some of the lamest political attacks in the history of democracy.
Reagan was a successful and popular President who got moderates to vote for him while enacting a highly partisan agenda. Millions of Americans, even many Democrats, are concerned that social security is approaching a crisis. As Democrats, we should want a President who wants to shift the country's political ideology as successfully as Reagan did. We should want a President who can make the small adjustments Social Security needs without kicking the can down the road to the next Republican President, or using the issue as an excuse to tear down the system or make the tax code less progressive.
We should not want another President who will read from a script and tell us exactly what we want to hear during the primary, but then govern cautiously from the center. That's the type of leader Hillary Clinton has been from her very first day in Washington. Do you really expect anything else from her now?
Obama has actually run a general election strategy from the get-go, so far as I can tell, which may not be brilliant strategically but sets him up awfully well were he to win the nomination. I think this has gone under-appreciated. He wouldn't need to pivot or drift at all after the nomination, which may not be true of Clinton and is almost certainly not true of Edwards. Posted by PJ | January 20, 2008 5:47 PM
Yes! BUT these days that IS a primary strategy of a sort in that ever since the general elections got so razor close, the early primary contests like Iowa/NH have for many of the voters in them often been about "is this person electable in the general?" And "stop the partisanship, stop the red v. blue," is definitely what Obama made his main selling point early on (maybe as early as the beginning of his career. :-))
Matt, it seems like you might need to read that Pew Research report you posted about earlier this week once again. Where does the average Democratic Party voter place himself/herself and the two candidates? Does that say anything to you? Like perhaps his problem is not one of being perceived as right of Clinton but to the left of the average Democratic voter? Maybe in the "in crowd" of beltway pundits and wannabe pundits he's viewed that way, but not among the voters.
IIRC, the exit polls after the caususes and primary showed Clinton winning the "perceived electability" sweepstakes among Democratic voters in each and nationwide. Now what do you think is #2 on every loyal Democrat's list of qualities wanted in a candidate (after "agrees 100% with me"). I'd say "Electable." What say you?
As for his Reagan comment. You really must spend less time listening to people who obviously paid no attention to what Obama said and only heard that evil name, "Reagan." What he said was really smart politics in terms of electability, except for the fact those interested in snapping defeat from the jaws of victory are so vocal. This is the Democrat's election to lose, and some people seem intent on losing as big as possible.
Disagree that "the overall tendency has been for Obama to find himself positioned to HRC's right". They are not very far apart in general, and there are important areas where Clinton is decidedly to the right of Obama, like foreign policy and social security.
Obama's praise of Reagan is clearly NOT praise of Reagan's conservatism, but rather of his ability to deliver cross-over votes and achieve his agenda. Anyone who does not understand this has not read Obama's actual statements or is deliberately misinterpreting them.
Clinton has, however, consistently portrayed Obama as being to her right. Her success in doing so is only evidence that the people who believe her are not paying attention.
p.s. to my last, in response to PJ:
I saw his campaign as seeing that Hillary was going to be tarred as the infamous evil "It Takes a Village" liberal by the GOP in the general. He saw an opportunity to step in and offer an alternative to primary voters of someone that could not be tarred as an infamous liberal.
Things sure have changed, but I think that was initial scenario and the reason to jump in. So in that way, it was prmary based and let's be honest, it worked in Iowa! It worked shockingly well there. Who wasn't surprised?
Those defending Obama's Reagan comments by telling us, "what Obama really meant was...." are missing the point entirely. I, too, want a Democratic presidency who will create a historic political realignment akin to what happened in 1980. However, we should expect Obama to be able to dliver an unambiguous, polished campaign message day after day. The fact that everyone is, day after day, having to defend Obama by telling us, "what Obama really meant was..." is an indication that Obama can't control his message and loses control of it in a way that strengthens right-wing narratives. And that, my friends, is not the way to create a Reagan-like political realignment that favors the Democrats.
"The fact that everyone is, day after day, having to defend Obama by telling us, "what Obama really meant was..." is an indication that Obama can't control his message and loses control of it in a way that strengthens right-wing narratives."
Maybe so. But I've never had any trouble grasping what Obama really means when he speaks. Part of the problem, I think, is that he tends to speak in complete sentences like a normal human being, instead of speaking in detachable sound bytes to be used in clips on cable news shows.
Stoller is wrong, and no, Obama supporters don't need to keep explaining Obama's statements. They speak for themselves, which is why he himself has never done it. There are two clear facts: first, in the aggregate of polls since Iowa, Hillary is trending down and Obama is trending up. Obama's "loss" in NV, just like in NH, amounts to a massive comeback from over 20 points down in a matter of weeks.
Second, Hillary started as a centrist, and made herself "presidential" by being "serious" on foreign policy -- which for her meant refusing to repudiate her Iraq vote. Now, she has run to the base. If she gets the nomination, she needs to run back to where she started. For someone whom many, many people in the country find untrustworthy, this merely proves the point, that the Clintons will say or do anything to win. I have a hard time believing she actually will.
Tyro: "The time for healing old wounds only happens from a position of unchallengeable strength. In a 50/50 race, you can't give ground."
It seems to be the ideal strategy for the Democrats in '08 is to nominate Hillary Clinton as president and Barack Obama as vice president. After 8 years of effective Clinton governance and incremental reforms, the country may finally be ready for Obama's 'new politics', and Obama himself may be ready to chart the way forward to the future.
If Democrats try the 'politics of hope' (a.k.a., play nicely, say good things about Republicans, downplay differences, hope for the best from human nature) now, what we're more likely to find, perhaps, is a politics of whining about losing. But given 8 years of a more conventional progressive politician (Clinton), maybe we'll be ready.
DemUnity08 - You neglect the fact that a lot of Obama supporters, myself included, will never vote for Hillary. This country isn't a banana republic yet. And considering the egregious lies that Hillary and Bill have been telling about Obama they are killing off the enthusiasm of half the party. I'll stay home in November if it comes to that.
It continues to amaze me how many Obama supporters, over the course of the last few weeks, have changed from "I'll vote for any Democrat" to "I'll vote for any Democrat other than Hillary." I count myself among them.
With that considered, and with Hillary looking more likely as the nominee, it seems that Obama would have as good a chance as anyone to run a successful independent campaign. He could pull a Lieberman, as it were. And maybe tap into Bloomberg's billions while he's at it.
Tyro: The fact that everyone is, day after day, having to defend Obama by telling us, "what Obama really meant was..." is an indication that Obama can't control his message and loses control of it in a way that strengthens right-wing narratives.
Uh, no. It's evidence that, day after day, the Clintons and their supporters are twisting Obama's words to say something he clearly didn't mean.
It could be that Obama is not positioning himself at all, but everyone around him seems to be trying to put him where ever they deem fit.
Obama has been saying the same thing for years...all his speeches, all his campaigns, every time the same thoughts.
Since every other campaign has picked up on his message, perhaps he's doing a fine job.
Jeez freakin' Louise, actually listen to the fella, read his position papers. You don't like what you hear, read then fine.
I know I want more than the same people in the same places doing the same things over and over and over.
I hope y'all find what you want in one of the candidates. Even if it's voting Rep or Ind to rid your party of the iron grip that holds it.
"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.
Comments closed February 03, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Right of HRC is where he positioned himself even without Reagan. See social security, attack Pakistan, vouchers, etc. In addition he wants to befriend the fascists. I always thought that Obama is a Republican.
The sad part is that us lefties are orphaned by Edwards huge disappointment.
Posted by Koshembos | January 20, 2008 2:50 PM