State of Confusion
Apr 25th, 2008 at 7:04 am by Susie
According to many Obama supporters, it’s all Hillary’s fault. If she hadn’t launched all those vile, negative attacks on their hero — if she had just gone away — his aura would be intact, and his mission of unifying America still on track.
Let me offer an alternative suggestion: maybe his transformational campaign isn’t winning over working-class voters because transformation isn’t what they’re looking for.
[…] The question Democrats, both inside and outside the Obama campaign, should be asking themselves is this: now that the magic has dissipated, what is the campaign about? More generally, what are the Democrats for in this election?
That should be an easy question to answer. Democrats can justly portray themselves as the party of economic security, the party that created Social Security and Medicare and defended those programs against Republican attacks — and the party that can bring assured health coverage to all Americans.
They can also portray themselves as the party of prosperity: the contrast between the Clinton economy and the Bush economy is the best free advertisement that Democrats have had since Herbert Hoover.
But the message that Democrats are ready to continue and build on a grand tradition doesn’t mesh well with claims to be bringing a “new politics” and rhetoric that places blame for our current state equally on both parties.
And unless Democrats can get past this self-inflicted state of confusion, there’s a very good chance that they’ll snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this fall.
This is blatantly obvious to us folks on the ground. Are the candidates holding off till after the primaries? If they do successfully lose, will we start a third party? If the stakes weren’t so high for this election, I’d say that would be the best outcome.
It was only with the help of a complicit media eager to bury everyone named Clinton that allowed Obama to dismiss everyone who came before him and call his campaign one of hope. It was a campaign of hope…as in, I hope the media stays on my side.
Well guess what..The media jumped ship according to Tom Edsall at the Huffington Post
Shocking I tell you…positively shocking
Living in Michigan, I haven’t had the chance to hear either candidate. But I understand that Clinton consistently pays her supporters the complement of assuming they are interested in and can understand specifics of her policy proposals. That creates return respect from the voters (though not the bored media people).
I spent a year out of work in the Bush I years. Many in my family preached that I just needed to get my head together. (One actually paid for me to attend a Tony Robbins lecture.) It was when a new friend finally said, “Here’s the temp agency I’m working for, call her, she’ll give you an interview,” that I finally got work, which led to a permanent job at the law firm where I’ve now been for 15 years.
Sorry, that should be “compliment.” I really do know how to spell.
sister…
Firefox…integrated spell checking is great for typing on blogs
From the National Review Online, the Corner:
Krugman–Right On! [Rich Lowry]
I always know there’s some strange disturbance in the atmosphere when I find myself agreeing with Maureen Dowd’s columns. It happened, for instance, during the Harriet Miers controversy. But how weird do things have to be for me to be nodding along to much of a Paul Krugman column? I especially enjoyed the first half of this column shellacking Obama today.
But I understand that Clinton consistently pays her supporters the complement of assuming they are interested in and can understand specifics of her policy proposals.
actually, in my experience that seems to be more true about domestic policy than foreign policy. obama’s foreign policy speeches are much much more substantive than clinton’s.
my point is that they both have strengths and weaknesses as candidates. and that i think it’s weird when people accuse obama as being without substance or not talking about issues. this has got to be the most detailed-oriented campaign in modern history. politicians regularly make promises to do something about various issues, but how often do they set out their actual health plan months before the general election? in this race, both candidates have (plus edwards, before he dropped out). in 1992 bill clinton just ran on universal healthcare, he didn’t even try to come up with an actual plan until a year after he was in office. similarly, both candidates have given us detailed iraq withdrawal plans, economic proposals, tax policies, etc. there’s really no way to accuse either of them of being an empty vessel or not going into details.
we have a lot more details about what both of them will do than we do with any other candidate during my lifetime. just compare it with the candidates on the republican side, mccain has talked about various proposals, but he hasn’t come out with anything remotely as detailed as either candidate’s health care plan. both candidates on the democratic side have a lot of content to them. when i see people saying otherwise, it just makes me think they are not paying attention to one of the many things that makes this race so unique.
He also raises a point that I’d like to see addressed more often: What, exactly, has been so “negative” or “scorched-earth” about Clinton’s campaign?
Dear Susie,
the confusion seems to be yours. Obama’s tarnishing was due to character flaws and guilt by association and not because of his program which was hardly ever discussed. Democratic elders’ endorsing Obama based on his program (and despite the image doubts) kind of suggests that his thinking is in the line with the party’s traditions.
On the contrary, Hillary’s idea of hitting Obama the way Republicans would, her undermining both the activist (as with moveon.org) and afro-american (as in Bill’s comments) constituencies, as well as willing to override the party rules for the primaries (to which she fully agreed last fall) suggests lack of consideration for the Democratic party.
Wealthy elite liberal writer knows what is best for working stiffs? Give me a break. Krugman is so much on the Clinton Koolaid he will go cold turkey when this is all over.
The ultimate liberal establishment media whore.
Guilt by association - the main feature of McCarthyism - is now the crux of american politics.