Okay, it's not entirely impossible to give a somewhat effective SOTU response:
I don't really think I believe a politics where we don't "demonize our opponents" is possible, but I liked the part about Iraq and al-Qaeda a great deal.
« Sebelius | Main | Suharto Dead »
Responding
28 Jan 2008 11:36 pm
Comments (33)
I hadn't seen the nifty Obama logo in animated form before, with its "O" that also doubles as a rising sun motif. Morning in America again? (Not to further overload the Obama / Reagan parallels...)
Obama
draft
Words of resolution, and hesitant
Words, and wary, air a wordless portent.
Tripling off design and walls, noise’s
Content discontent, his strength is voices.
Our attention. So complain complainers,
There’s a lovely silence to his answers.
‘Hope’ is policy; but impolitely
Ductile, as a sublet mirror’s copy
Of light’s talk, saying, in print-buttered glass
What pauses speech. He infuses us.
Obama's graphics are great. I really like his website -- it's like Apple packaging. Great design and attention to detail that reflects a remarkable candidate and message. His campaign is really impressing me.
Obama's ability to dominate the last 48 hours of the news cycle is, whatever else, a tribute to David Axelrod's ability.
It's not often you can make both a president and a former president look small in the space of two days.
Howard Fineman just made the point that the visuals today from the Obama camp were, in some respects, to set him up as a quasi-parliamentary leader of the opposition. Having a video response to the STFU speech fits into that.
Watch his eyes. This video is close enough that you can see he's not looking into the camera at all, but just reading. Don't see this often.
This video has a nice, cramped, youtube feel to it.
Still waiting for the Obama/Clinton bloggingheads debate.
C'mon, Matthew. I don't think a politics where we don't badmouth our opponents is possible (at least not in my lifetime), but surely there's no hope for us if we can't do better than demonizing.
This dude is good. Clear, direct, straightforward, and yet eloquent.
He also seems somehow less of a self-important gasbag than most politicians. Despite his rhetoric.
This may explain why Gov S was a little less than spectacular tonight--didn't want to overshadow the Obama campaigns positioning today.
All around good stuff.
Come on. I'm a huge Obama supporter here but I think you are giving him too much credit for the content here (of course content is what really matters, etc, etc, but...). Talking through the frame of Sebelius, she had decent content too, but both of them are really wooden in their delivery here. I think our man needs an audience -- his speeches are really unparalleled, but this felt kind of plodding and monotonous in a way I haven't seen before from him.
And hey, same problem as Sebelius with the background. Is he in the corner of a college dorm room or what? They couldn't sit him by a window for this or somewhere more dynamic (a room with supporters, why not?) -- at least he didn't have the crackling fireplace going.
This was a very good response. I agree that his vision of everyone standing and applauding his State of the Union is impossible, but it's a nice dream.
I also thought Feingold gave a good response, though it won't get much attention.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080129/cm_thenation/45276719
While I do like the "YouTube" feel of this, the angle in the room, a few of the edits, and the framing of the video are for the most part, crappy.
He was a bit wooden, and ran through a bunch of his stump, but more importantly is the fact that he did release a SOTU response, which did in fact make this seem like a much more underground uprising.
And yes, his graphics are the best of this race. The sun rise motif in the O over a field of red&white stripes has always impressed me.
Damn, I hope he makes it.
But was he intimating that he's somehow get rid of lobbyists? Not bloody likely.
"he'd"; not "he's".
Amazingly enough, Obama does indeed seem to have taken over de facto leadership of the Democratic Party, with Senator Kennedy today playing the role of kingmaker.
And yet Clinton may still win the most delegates, in part due to a time lag between Obama's coup and popular recognition of it. That raises the interesting possibility of the Democratic Party having a split between the de facto leader of the Party and its Presidential nominee.
But I suspect such a situation is too unstable to persist. And there may be mechanisms for resolving the situation at the convention (e.g., some combination of John Edwards' delegates and superdelegates).
I was so pleased to see Professor Obama on the Senate floor today speaking against FISA, and while he was so eloquent, he treated the Republicans with all the respect they deserve, and didn't demonize them at all.
Oh, wait. That didn't happen?
Obvious question: Did Hillary do something like this on YouTube as well? (Please don't make me look.) And if she did, was it any good?
Just. Wow:
Amazingly enough, Obama does indeed seem to have taken over de facto leadership of the Democratic Party, with Senator Kennedy today playing the role of kingmaker.
And yet Clinton may still win the most delegates, in part due to a time lag between Obama's coup and popular recognition of it.
Assuming the writer views this event as unproblematic:
Last I checked, there was a primary process in which people, you know, voted for their delegates--what the writer delicately calls "popular recognition."
But now, apparently, we have a sort of apostolic succession, where Teddy lays hands on his successor, and the Leader is then acclaimed by his adoring populace.
Good to know.
Maybe we should just cancel the rest of the primaries then?
I was so pleased to see Professor Obama on the Senate floor today speaking against FISA, and while he was so eloquent, he treated the Republicans with all the respect they deserve, and didn't demonize them at all.
I don't know if he spoke against it, but he did vote against cloture. So... whatever.
Obama does indeed seem to have taken over de facto leadership of the Democratic Party
Leaders have to lead, and if the SotU hadn't been today, Obama wouldn't have even shown up for the FISA votes; even with it bringing him back to DC, he didn't lead, and neither did Clinton. 2008 isn't just abstract for these two, they are sitting federal officials in the legislative majority. If they want to actually lead, rather than just talk about it, the opportunity's there.
example--in lambert's world, all that is bad begins and ends with Obama. Did Obama speak or not? Was he respectful or not? In lambert's world it doesn't matter, Obama is simply wrong to have done it/not done it.
2008 isn't just abstract for these two, they are sitting federal officials in the legislative majority. If they want to actually lead, rather than just talk about it, the opportunity's there.
Oh, come on guys. Yes, they're not fully doing their job as senators right now. You can interpret that as a failing of leadership on both their parts, but they're running for the presidency. While it would be nice if they could just go about their jobs and everyone would watch C-SPAN and that would be so compelling that it'd make their candidacies for them, that's not how the world works and if you run for higher office, you need to run the race.
I was so pleased to see Professor Obama on the Senate floor today speaking against FISA, and while he was so eloquent, he treated the Republicans with all the respect they deserve, and didn't demonize them at all.
Your snipes seem to get more and more absurd by the day.
lambert strether,
I am not a particular fan of political parties (I'm a registered Independent), and that probably makes it easier for me to recognize that there is no real tradition of the selection of party leaders being a highly democratic process. Indeed, with respect to the selection of Presidential nominees in particular, the Democratic Party has explicitly chosen to make that process less democratic through the "superdelegate" mechanism.
That said, I wasn't trying to suggest the will of the members of the Democratic Party is or should be irrelevant to the process of selecting the Party's Presidential nominee. I just think a lot of Clinton's current support is predicated on the notion that the Clintons are the de facto leaders of the Democratic Party.
Accordingly, I believe that once there is widespread popular recognition of Obama's coup, it will provide the additional edge he needs to decisively win the remaining delegate battles. I'm just not sure that point will occur soon enough for him to amass the delegates he needs to win the nomination outright.
DTM:
It's just that after the Clinton impeachment and Bush v. Gore, I'm just a little sensitive about the word "coup." And apparently Tweety was all over this, talking about Obama as a “shadow President” and so forth. Fundamentally aristocratic values, I would say, this transition of power by the laying on of hands. Nonsense like that needs to be choked off before it spreads. And I don't think that it's necessary to be a fan of political parties to recognize that changing party leadership, from the top down, in the middle of a Presidential raise, is a less than ideal way to pick leadership in a Presidential run. It's changing the rules in the middle of the game. Didn't we have enought of that in the Bush administration?
jbryan:
Snipes? Last I checked, Obama's fan base was made much of the talking point that Obama was a professor of Constitutional law, and the FISA reform presents major Fourth Amendment issues, not to mention the complete collapse of the rule of law for large corporations with retroactive immunity for the telcos. So, it would have been nice to see the oratory deployed in a critical area where it really counted. As others have said, leaders lead, they don't go all meta about leading. Looking on the bright side, at least that one talking point will die a merciful death. Now, if only I could get some evidence on that filibuster-proof majority one...
calling all toasters:
No content that I can see to actually respond to, but I think that Obama speaking, and filibustering on FISA would not only have been the right thing to do, but the smart thing to do. Too bad.
And apparently Tweety was all over this, talking about Obama as a “shadow President” and so forth. Fundamentally aristocratic values, I would say, this transition of power by the laying on of hands.
There are so many metaphors being mixed here that it's a bit difficult to understand the point and formulate a response, but I'd note that the idea of "shadow presidencies" isn't an aristocratic tradition so much as a parliamentary one.
...changing party leadership, from the top down, in the middle of a Presidential raise, is a less than ideal way to pick leadership in a Presidential run. It's changing the rules in the middle of the game. Didn't we have enought of that in the Bush administration?
Again, not really sure what the point here is. There isn't any official changing of the party leadership. Ted Kennedy has endorsed Obama and will campaign for him; and by all appearances, the Speaker supports Obama and pulled some strings to set up a nice PR win for him tonight in the form of Sebelius's response. Aside from that... the party leadership hasn't changed. Clinton has the support of an ex-president and a former vice president. She had the implicit support of the Senate Majority Leader (in contrast to Obama's support by the Speaker of the House). All told I'd say far more of the establishment is backing Obama, and whatever symbolism may have been conveyed today, he's not the leader of the party and nothing "officially" has changed. So what rules are being altered in the midst of the game (aside from the Florida/Michigan shenanigans)?
So, it would have been nice to see the oratory deployed in a critical area where it really counted. As others have said, leaders lead, they don't go all meta about leading.
He's led on many issues. He's employed his oratory on many issues. He didn't lead on FISA because, in case you haven't noticed, he's in the midst of running a presidential campaign which is, as far as I can see, pretty involving and requiring a lot of campaigning.
Clinton and Obama have both led before and both would serve as strong leaders as president. It's ridiculous to act like Obama is a failure as a leader for not taking the forefront of every issue while trying to run for president. So yes, the word "snipes" was accurately chosen.
Well, he once again demonstrated that he knows nothing about Afghanistan or Pakistan.
"Listening to our military commanders" and sending more troops to Afghanistan will simply accelerate the loss of the war there. And "taking it to Al Qaeda" in Pakistan will mire us in a country many times the size of Iraq with a population that is already eight percent unhappy with the US "War on Terror".
Not to mention his intent - not mentioned in his speech - to continue to consider Iran a "threat" in some unspecified, nebulous way and to engage in equally dubious "diplomacy" over the crystal clear issue of Iran's legal right to have a nuclear energy program with uranium enrichment.
His foreign policy is crap. Whatever else he has going for him, he's going to take steps that will screw up US foreign policy - and since foreign policy is critical to the issue of economy, if he screws up foreign policy, he's going to screw the US economy as well - and thus, the rest of his appeal is at risk.
Of course, just for the record, Clinton is equally bad, and possibly worse. And the Republicans are a disaster.
Aaarggg! Eighty percent, not eight percent!
Here's my impression of Keith Olbermann:
Look how smart I am, I talk with complicated words, BLAH BLAH BLAH, i'm so damn smart, BLAH BLAH BLAH....
I'm keith Olbermann, I went to an Ivy league school, BLAH BLAH BLAH.
BLAH BLAH BLAH, guess what, I went to Cornell.
BLAH BLAH BLAH, I like to overcompensate for my own POWER with all the big words i try to say...
BLAH BLAH BLAH. I'm smart.......I'm an intelectual.....BLAH BLAH BLAH.
lambert strether,
The fundamental problem with your analysis is that you are confusing two different things. The Clinton impeachment and Bush v. Gore were about who would actually be President, a public official. The leaders of a political party, on the other hand, are not public officials in that capacity. Nor for that matter are nominees for President public officials in that capacity.
That said, I agree it is a problem if people try to change the rules of the nomination process while that process is working. But nothing I described implies that Obama is doing something like that. Rather, I suggested he is becoming the "de facto" leader of the Democratic Party, effectively replacing the Clintons in that role. But there is no rule to the effect that the Clintons should be the de facto leaders of the Democratic Party, and hence no rule is being changed or violated when Obama replaces them in that position.
RE "But there is no rule to the effect that the Clintons should be the de facto leaders of the Democratic Party, and hence no rule is being changed or violated when Obama replaces them in that position."
-------------
Actually, the "de facto leaders" of the Democratic Party are the major donors. Which is why Rahm Emanuel's DCCC and Chuckie Schumer's DSCC have more than twice as much money as Howard Dean's Democratic National Committee:
http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/index.asp
Which is why digging out the malign influence of the "Israel Lobby" within the Democratic Party is more futile than getting rid of crabgrass.
This article, for example, explains how Rahm Emanuel --former volunteer for the Israel Defense Force and son of an Irgun member (yes, THAT terrorist group) -- rigged Democratic support for continued war in Iraq by favoring pro-war candidates over anti-war candidates in the Congressional primaries months before the 2006 election:
http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh10142006.html
Read'em and weep, Rubes.
Obama's having been a conlaw prof. is not a "talking point," it's a goddamn fact. (I'm annoyed that he cancelled voting rights class when he won the senate primary . . . but not too annoyed.)
Where we'll see Obama's skills in Constitutional exegesis is as president, where he'll move away from the absolute unitary executive in favor of a vision of the presidency as moral leader.
If Obama (or Clinton) were to be front-and-center on FISA, it might could turn it into a political football. This may be a good or bad thing, tactically, but reasonable people can think that having Dodd and Feingold take the lead respects their relative seniority and takes away the potential charge that people are "playing politics." Even if I weren't an Obama supporter, I wouldn't read more into this than is there.
i love Obama--I would take a bullet for the guy--but next time, axelrose, how bout not having O so close to the camera. watching his eyes reading the teleprompter is distracting.
Comments closed February 11, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
You know what that has? Ambient noise. Not the noise-limiters of the funeral-home rooms that are usually set up for responses. It does make a bit of a difference. (And, y'know, YouTube is more forgiving than TV of slightly dodgy video.)
I read the text, and though the Shoehorned Campaign Theme Segments were grating to some extent, the bite was there.
Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 28, 2008 11:44 PM