We're hearing cries (from the media and various alleged "pundits--well, the usual suspects, really) for "unity" and "an end to partisan bickering.""Bickering" can be defined as "pointless" arguments with no purpose behind them. The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as "A petty quarrel; a squabble."
Oh, we're not bickering. In fact, it's offensive that anyone would suggest such a thing. ("Mythsage" at democratic Underground)
It pains me to have to tell you this, Barack, but you are running in the Democratic primary. Iowa seemed to miss that. What passes for a Republican Party has become the party of fanatics, flat-earthers, and theocrats. You and Hillary are carving out what used to be the moderate wing of the GOP. Wake up, Barack. You are supposed to be a Democrat. That means you should be running on clear Democratic principles, not fuzzy and empty pleas for "unity." It's not necessary to be strident, and you most certainly are not that. If anything you do not even approach the strength of language appropriate for those who are serious about "change." I wonder if you can even muster outrage at what the GOP was wrought, the devastation of our nation's resources (what once was our our honor, reputation, civil liberties, economic health, and just society) as you make nice to them. Even now. Those of us who've been around a while know it doesn't get any better than this in the general election. And that is profoundly disturbing. I say this as one who at first planned to vote for you. And then...
Your calls for fake unity have become the catch-all empty vessels that they are. Let's all make nice and kiss-ee-poo. Let's do what Dems always do, kumbaya. Kumbaya won't do. No Harry Reid wimp-outs need apply.
Ironically, you also lost my vote when fired a shot across the generational bow with your attack on the generation of Clinton, Gore, Biden, and more. You wrapped yourself in "unity" while dissing a generation (or two). And you think you'll get our vote? Many of us would have (voted for you), but there's a reason why only about 18% of those over 65 voted for you. You dissed them.
I have no profound words to describe how utterly disappointed in you I am. And since you like to talk about hope so much, you were that for me. There's a reason why you seem to be the hope of those like conservative Andrew Sullivan. Is it that they know you care about "unity" more than you do principle? Is it because you've got sufficient PAC money to guarantee you won't stray into real Democratic territory? Why is it that right-wingers are fascinated by you and sing your praises? Why does the corporate media tra-la your personality? Democrats not wanting to think about that are missing the point. This campaign of personalities allows the media to make it whatever they wish. And when they are ready, they will take you down like so many other Dems.
At this critical juncture in American history, you've gotta have more than this.
The best column I have read on the subject of unity is over at Democratic Underground. Hereit is.
Says Mythsage:
We'll make peace with the Republicans. On OUR terms. As soon as they surrender their racist, sexist, homophobic, holier than thou certainty that THEY are right and WE are wrong. As soon as they apologize for calling us traitors, or allowing others who claim to represent them to do it. As soon as they apologize for branding people like Natalie Maines, Dick Durbin, Tom Dashle, and others as "traitors" or "terrorist sympathizers" for disagreeing with President George W. Bush on the way to handle the so-called "War On Terror."
Hear, Hear! I am so done with phony calls for "unity." Save it for when we have restored our country from GOP devastation. Save it until our freedoms have been restored. Save it until every last person in America sees the strength of our ideas, not how well we all hold hands and sing Kumbaya. This is not about who's our "friend;" it's who can and should lead us.
If you can't show us with the strength of your words and ideas, then don't talk to us, Barack. As for me, I've turned reluctantly to John Edwards. At least he gets what all of this is really about. The way we are headed, well, we'll have one party "unity" alright. But it won't be in the way you think.
A class warfare trail lawyer wouldn't be much better.
For me Obama is on target and set to create a "unity" movement we need and deserve in this country.
Long way to go .... but I'm for Obama all the way.
cheers,
TM
What is funny about this, of course, is that Obama is a year older than Bill Clinton was at the same point.
Also, I think everyone on the Democratic side is focused on critical issues, and Senator Obama is not unique in this regard.
As to wedge issues, they are only effective if the public is receptive to them. Rest assured that the opposition will continue to find them and use them as this has proven to be quite effective. The question is whether our candidate can effectively parry those issues when they come up. I don't think we can rely on building some transcendent, rhetorical bridge over these issues.
Here are the facts from the article:
In Obama's first years in the Senate, he showed little interest in the middle, where moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats coalesce, often to thwart their leadership.In 2006, he won a 95 percent rating from Americans for Democratic Action, a liberal rating group, and a 93 percent rating from the AFL-CIO. In 2005, both groups gave him ratings of 100 percent. In contrast, the American Conservative Union ranked him at 8 percent, the same figure awarded to Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), two unapologetic liberals.
Can you imagine a Republican wanting to compromise and "unite" with a liberal Democrat...no.
And even Trent Lott doesn't see this working:
Americans are tired of the bickering and want progress, Lott said. But he said Republicans are not about to concede to Obama's vision of progress, a vision they see as classically liberal: federally run health care, government-mandated energy changes and a rapid pullout from Iraq."Barack is tapping into a feeling that he has heard out on the trail, and it's very real," Lott said. "But if he's talking about bipartisan, sweeping big government, I don't think that's what people are talking about."
I'll support Obama if he's nominated, but I'm tired of the rhetoric ignoring what the Democratic party stands for and what it's history is. The Party is bigger than one candidate and until we openly talk about, brag about it no less, what we've accomplished for the American public, the "L" word will continue to be a dirty word.
You know, this is incredible. This is such a sad post..... it is so sad that someone would put out all this drivel.
Barack Obama is a true leader.
Look at what he did:
As an organizer on the streets of Chicago
As the President of the Harvard Law Review.
As an instructor in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago.
As a State Senator in Illinois.
As a US Senator.
Now, Jim Webb is a leader, and there have been many diaries and comments about things Webb has done regarding the war, and protecting the soldiers, and benefiting veterans. Seems to me maybe Webb is more qualified to be President based on his one year in the Senate. (Now, THERE's a thought, if the convention were ever to be deadlocked . . . :) )
Please, list Obama's specific Senate accomplishments. I'm all ready to be persuaded. Consider it as practice for late fall, when you'll be out campaigning and trying to persuade undecideds.
I wrote a heart-felt piece and you go after me. "Nice."
I am not laying into fellow Dems who support one candidate or the other. I'm not arguing against "unity" among Democrats (indeed I strongly favor it, when the time is right, after the primaries), or even between Dems and real independents (not those closet Republicans who think they're better than "partisans," so they call themselves "independent)."
I am begging Obama to not prematurely seek "unity" with hardened, ruinous theocratic, unitary executive and torture promoting pols, who are largely responsible for the mess we are in.
Republicans, before we have anything to show for the so-called change he claims to advocate. The scorched-earth tendencies of the GOP show clearly that, for now, unity with them is not not an option. I am not dissing unity among Dems, but rather begging Obama to not cave to those who have already done much to destroy us.
It's one thing for a president to serve as the leader of all Americans. It's quite another to abandon strong talk needed in these difficult times.
Keep it up Kathy. Now to immigration solutions that I would like to see in the Democratic Platform: I am 1st generation American born here and back in the 1930's, my grandfather worked in the Steel plant and had to wait 8 years before he could bring my father (12 at the time)and grandmother to join him.
I have a serious problem with the "path to citizenship" by those here illegally, regardless of who proposes alternatives.
I could live happily with a "path to permanent residence" (read green card) with no possibility of citizenship. I served 20 years in our Army as a democrat, but no way will I want to see those who came illegally when my father came legally have any chance to vote and help make laws as citizens. I forgive them their haste given our screwy immigration laws but I do not want them to have the most important right an American has which is the right to vote. Consider this a compromise if politics is the art of compromise and look at it like substituting life imprisonment without possibility of parole for the death penalty.
All I want is to make it "a path to permanent residence without the possibility of citizenship."
Here's Obama from a speech on Friday.
His message of change addresses every abuse of the Bush Admin without being negative, reaches the heights of political rhetoric that we haven't seen since Kennedy, and truly stakes a vision for leadership in the 21st century.
In 1865, after the Civil War, President Lincoln bravely stated that he would lead the future "With Malice Towards None". That is what Obama is doing.
Edwards rhetoric implies the Treaty of Versallies which ended WWI with so much pain towards the losers that Fascism was born, with all that followed. Obama is proposing a political Marshall Plan.
This is power politics beyond race, gender, creed, or age, and the future belongs to the generation of Americans that delivers. All Americans alive today, can become the "Joshua" generation which finally delivers on the promises and the covenants of the great generations who came before.
Could you please point out one policy that Edwards proposes that would be painful on the richest classes? Since I can survive having my salary taxed at 35%, I believe that Paris Hilton can afford to pay 26% in taxes on the money that she earns on investments, as Edwards proposes.
Or is Edwards' proposal to heavily regulate the lending industry to avoid another sub-prime abuse is going to bring a rise of fascist among the well=to-do?
What exactly is so painful that Edwards proposes? For corporations to pay taxes, just like the rest of us?
Corporations and rich conservatives changed the rules of our society in their advantage since the rise of Reagan to a point that would never be tolerated back in the 1960s.
Edwards is just asking to make those rules fair again for everyone.
I believe the only way to intelligently cast a vote, at this level (Presidential), is to look at how the candidate has voted in the past and the legislation that they have introduced and have attempted to pass. That is what counts, what is REAL and what can rationally be used to assume how the candidate will perform as President.
What's not important is how shrill someone might sound, how "calm" someone seems, how one combs his/hair, what pundits (who are trying to make a name/reputation and money for themselves and their corportate employers) are saying, who someone is married to, or what slick words they may use in their campaign like "unity" or "change" or any other useless bit of information that adds nothing to knowing what to expect that candidate will do/decide as President.
Now to the "unity" nonsense (i.e., it's applesauce, rinky-dink, and valueless). If Obama wants to make nice with these thugs then he's the same fool that Harry Reid and others of his ilk are.
And as to unity, give me Clinton's or Edward's anger and fight directed at the Republicans anytime!!!! They understand that the Republicans will take ANY opportunity to bury us. I want a fighter not an appeaser. The Republicans declared war on Democrats back in the 90s and we've not given them the fight they deserve!
May I quote you, because it's so well said Kathy and worth reading again:
I am so done with phony calls for "unity." Save it for when we have restored our country from GOP devastation. Save it until our freedoms have been restored. Save it until every last person in America sees the strength of our ideas, not how well we all hold hands and sing Kumbaya. This is not about who's our "friend;" it's who can and should lead us.
You said:
"And as to unity, give me Clinton's or Edward's anger and fight directed at the Republicans anytime!!!! "
Much as I do not like the prospect of Hillary for Pres., I think she at least gets that we've had enough of the abusive reign of Republican "oiligarchy." We are done with it And our candidate should be too.
It surprises the heck out of my to have moved Hillary up a notch on my list. I will vote for Edwards, but Obama is now running behind Hillary in my book. Again, I cannot believe I am saying that. I had hoped it was otherwise.
I know many good people who support Obama. Some good friends do. That's their right and I respect it. That doesn't mean I still respect what the candidate is saying/doing. The candidate is a likable person. He's a motivational speaker. But the halls of training and development seminars are filled with such voices.
It's not that Hillary is any more experienced than him. She isn't. I think, however, that he is unprepared to be president, not by virtue of his experience, but rather the depth and complexity of his treatment of the issues. He's a brilliant man, who could put forth better solutions (and more detailed ones). He could stand more strongly against GOP thuggery, but he won't. He could propose bold strategies for reform, but he doesn't. It's (his approach) just so damn "safe." I pray this changes, but I am not counting on it. To Lee and others, I remind, remember, from a Democrat's perspective, this is as good as it gets. Candidates will soon tack rightward. That is a pretty horrifying thought.
"No, I will not say that."
Now that I have established that, let me say that we should be fair to Obama. Obama is not an empty, hollow shell. He has a lot of experience in government and as a community activist. I have not found any fault in his platform:
Your anger is misplaced. You know very well that Obama isn't making deals with neocons and theocons. He's reaching out to ordinary Americans who have finally woken up to the fact that their votes for Bush in 2000 and 2004 were mistakes.
These people aren't evil: they were ignorant and misled. The fact that Obama is able to speak to some of these people and persuade them to change their views doesn't make Obama a Republican.
I think that this is just a lot of misplaced anger directed towards Obama for beating Edwards and/or Clinton.
Do you think Republicans and their corporate buddies are going to support a rapid pullout from Iraq, along with losing all the money they are raking in with this war.
Reality is rational and reality is what we should be concentrating on rather than "pie in the sky" rhetoric. History doesn't lie. And one who ignores it is foolish.
And right now, Obama seems to have hit on a way turn Republicans and Republican-leaning voters in to former Republicans and formerly Republican-leaning voters.
I'll grant there is the possibility we could win big in Senate elections. I'll grant that maybe Obama's rhetorical skills could move people in the home states of Republicans senators to write and call them. I don't know how reasonably possible those two things are. But I think it is near certain that the Republican Party is not about to give up their ideals or play nice.
Honestly, I don't have hope that some hero will come to Washington and rescue us from partisan politics, corporate influence, earmarks, pork, and the other ills that power attracts. If Obama had that power, why isn't he Senate Majority leader? Why hasn't the Senate dissolved into a love fest where partisanship is put aside to deal with the most important issues facing our nation? Is it because he is so adept at reaching across the aisle? In my perspective, it ebbs and it flows, but it never dies.
Our courts have decided that money is political speech. Yes, only a few can afford to make this kind of speech, but that is what they have decided. And as long money is part of the game, corporations and anyone with deep pockets will have a huge influence in our country.
What we need to fight corporate influence is an organized movement of people set on change.
Now that is hard work, but it has been done before.
Obama's run as the candidate of "change" -- a nebulous slogan with huge appeal given the depth of the hole that Bush has dug over the last seven years. According to his campaign's narrative, Obama would not only change Washington, but he'd do it by bridging the gap between the Right and Left, healing long-festering wounds, bringing a polarized electorate together and uniting the country. In New Hampshire on Friday, Obama made the pitch in what's become a stock applause line in his campaign, saying in commanding style that Americans "can come together and say, 'we are one nation, we are one people and it is time for us to bring about change!'" The crowd went crazy.Yet the message is as hopelessly naïve in the real world of American politics as it is appealing on the stump, and for a simple reason: it assumes that the GOP -- dominated as it is by "movement conservatives" in the Delay-Rove mold -- and it's corporate backers are interested in engaging in a thoughtful debate over how to make America a better country. If that were the case, then bridging the divide through calm words and negotiation would certainly be better by leaps and bounds than the ugly brand of politics we have today.
But that's not the case. John Edwards' own stock response to Obama's narrative seems quite accurate:
"I don't believe you can sit around a table with the drug companies, the insurance companies or the oil corporations, negotiate with them - and then hope they'll just voluntarily give their power away. You can't nice them to death - it doesn't work."
The Republican establishment is fully aware of the fact that they can't win on any substantial issue of public policy on the merits of their arguments alone. There is no broad constituency in America for showering the top 1 percent with tax breaks, handing huge subsidies to energy firms and giant agribusinesses and pharmaceutical firms, starting wars of choice, cutting social services or privatizing broad swaths of the public sector.
So they emphasize social issues and conjure up fear of foreign bogey-men in order to remain relevant. And they marginalize and demonize their opponents, which has been a central thrust of conservative messaging since the days of Spiro Agnew and Joe McCarthy. In logic, it's known as "poisoning the well" -- making one's interlocutor out to be such a heinous beast that anything he or she says will be perceived, without examination, as an assault on our core values.
If we go merrily along with the "idea" that the Republicans (Senators and Representatives and those with vested interests in making money off Americans for their corporate investors) will merrily come to the table to "reform" America, then I'm afraid like others have said, we just might have another Republican President in 2008. We have commented for as long as I've been reading RK, that we want our Democratic candidates and legislators to speak up, speak out, and speak forcefully and have been disappointed at their lack of backbone, which the voting American public always goes for.
Remember this: Republicans are not going to lay down and die, much less give up on the idea of privatizing this country. If they have to scare us to death about our safety....they will....and Obama will be their main target. Can he be tough? Can he respond to their accusations that he's a Muslim (which they will perpetrate), that he has no foreign policy experience, and all the other trash that they will lay on the American voter. I hope he's tough enough. We don't need yet another Democrat appeaser.
I won't be angry at all if he wins. But neither am I inspired to GOTV for him (or Hillary).
Don't know if you caught the DailyKos diary by RenaRF (who you may recall volunteered for the Webb Senate campaign). She lays out her reasoning well . . .
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
The substance of the diary centers around a diary posted by Obama on DailyKos about two years ago, which is also worth reading:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
In my own words, I would say that Obama doesn't focus on just how hateful the GOP is, because he doesn't see this approach as one that serves anyone's interests. You know, and I know that the GOP is filled with quite a few politicians who use fear and hatred to obscure the fact that they are screwing the American people over at every turn. Part of the reason that Americans are getting screwed is because they have become so cynical about the process and their political representatives that the overwhelming majority of folks in this country are not significantly engaged political. So how does that engagement come about? That's one aspect of Obama's appeal (and it is a reasonable one in my view).
If you have some time I would strongly recommend taking a chance to read Obama's DailyKos diary. If you look at his record too at the state level and at the national level, the bottom line is that this guy has been able to get things done. Even the very fact that the Iowa caucus turned out the way that he did, shows me that he has the ability to not only appeal to voters, but to actually motivate them to action at levels that haven't been seen in perhaps a couple generations.
The question as I see it, isn't so much appeasing phony friends, as it is finding a way to actually get things done constructively.
Part of the process involves getting a lot of voters politically engaged. To his credit, Obama has already succeeded very well at that first step. He has delivered.
You guys may think after a strong showing in Iowa this country is beyond race or religion. My prediction is that (if he wins the primary) Obama loses badly to the dumbest Republican they can find. Not only that, you are going to get a new lesson in hate in America.
I am a private pilot. I flew into a rural county airport this weekend and was ambushed by the bored employees at the FBO - they wanted to talk politics with us guys from the big city. Oh boy!
These Republicans were very clear about what they thought of Obama. They knew where he was born, about his Kenyan/Muslim father, everything. They said that he attended a muslim school all of his life. They said things I won't repeat here.
They are very quiet on this now, but Republicans are HOPING for an Obama win. If he does win, it will get ugly on many levels. You will find overt racism and constant reminders of his Muslim roots.
When you think of "American Voter" don't think educated upper middle class person who participates in blogs like this. Think GED.
Most of the people who vote in primaries are like us here. The majority of people who vote in elections - not very educated or informed. In short, a strong showing in the primary amongst Democrats is not a good indicator of how a person will poll nationwide. Race and religion will play a HUGE role in an Obama candidacy. I'm prepared to support him with everything I have if Edwards loses the nomination, but it is going to be one hell of a fight. Don't kid yourselves.
Am I too cynical about racism in America? I hope so.
There are rural areas with large black populations, large populations of people who've lost jobs to overseas competition, who've got unsupportable health care bills, who've gotten tired of the status quo. They're angry. That's what Edwards taps into and that's why he's showing so much pop at this time. Some of those folks will never go for Obama no matter what he'll do for them, but the rest may just decide it's time to vote for someone who's offering something new. Maybe a lot of the dissatisfied will simply stay home. The thing is, in the urban and better populated areas the racial thing is not as much of a big deal. Older folks may vote that way, but their kids tend to be a lot less racist in their outlook. We'll just have to see.
I think he will face real challenges in the rural southeast -- this seems like a given.
While I would hope that it isn't the case, I think he might face some challenges in rural Virginia -- where candidates like Kaine, Webb, and Warner have at least been able to keep their margins competitive so as to pick up the victory margin in population centers. Still, I actually think Obama stands a fighting chance in Virginia. He will need massive support from young voters and from minority voters in the state, but as was the case of Doug Wilder's election race alone won't determine the outcome. It won't hurt if he's paired up against a white candidate who has tepid support from either the base or the Republican business wing.
The challenges here are real enough, but I don't think the challenges, resentments, and outright racisms towards Obama are likely to be any more damaging towards those directed at a Northeastern liberal like John Kerry. In the very early going, Obama has also shown substantial advantages over Kerry in attracting independents and the youth vote.
I think Edwards populism would give him a better chance in rural Virginia. And it might even put some southeastern states in play for the first time. But Edwards will face his own challenges in terms of financing and grass roots support (Obama is beating Edwards substantially amongst small donor contributors and volunteers. As far as Iowa and New Hampshire go he is also doing even better in drawing independent support. Edwards is also not having nearly the same impact with the youth vote -- which could be put into play with an Obama candidacy).
I think both Obama and Edwards would be more electable than someone like Hilary Clinton, but while the challenges for both Obama and Edwards are real enough, I don't think the challenges for either are insurmountable. I also think Obama is likely to enjoy greater advantages in terms of organization, financing, and, once again, the support of young voters. All wild cards, but once that were demonstrated at historical levels in Iowa.
My biggest concern for both Obama and Edwards would be based on the impact of a Bloomberg run. In a state like Virginia, I worry that Bloomberg might draw enough support in Northern Virginia away from the Democratic nominee and undercut the Democrats prospects for a pick-up. I have a hard time seeing Bloomberg pulling in significant levels of support outside of the Northeast. I think he could potentially win states like Connecticut and New Hampshire with their high percentage of independent voters; Minnesota, which doesn't seem to put too much value in political affiliation, might also lean his way. Bloomberg could play spoiler, but this is a reality that Edwards and Obama will have to face. Obama right now appears to have the best bet of neutralizing Bloomberg's appeal.
We'll have to see how things go. Iowa was pretty amazing in terms of the historical turnout. I'll be curious to see how things play out in New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. The only state that I see Clinton possibly picking up at this stage is Nevada. I think it's also worth noting that in a swing state like Iowa, the Democrats didn't just beat the GOP, each of the top three candidates crushed the GOP -- lead in large part by the new center-left voters that Obama brought into the fold.
If Edwards picks up South Carolina, I think he is still in the running. If he loses South Carolina, well I think at that point the writing is on the wall. He needs to do at least a strong second in Nevada. And he needs a strong third in New Hampshire - preferably second but I just don't think that is in the cards for him.
If Obama can carry South Carolina, especially amongst indepedents (not sure if they can vote in the Democratic primary there or not) - he proves me wrong. Maybe we are beyond race in this country, but my gut says we aren't. South Carolina will be the state I look at to make that decision.
"But Edwards will face his own challenges in terms of financing"
He did raise over $1,000,000 since the Iowa caucuses. If he has a big win (say South Carolina or Nevada) more will come. If he wins NH, which even I (a strong supporter) don't see happening, he is the come-back kid.
I just think it is way too early to call the Obama the winner of the primaries at this point.
I didn't catch onto this strategy until the Saturday debate. Clinton tried to get Edwards to pile on Obama and help with her dirty work, Edwards would have none of it, and went after "the status quo" candidate and talked about having "an unfiltered debate" between the two change candidates going forward -- this put Clinton off her game momentarily. He's a smart campaigner, because he knows that a third place does nothing for him. He's in it to win it, but he's got a very steep hill to climb. The $1 million definitely helps him, but he's probably going to burn through that $1 million and whatever he had left in his war chest buying media time in New Hampshire.
Either way, I think the media narrative becomes "it's a two person race" after tomorrow -- regardless of who the candidates are. Money and media coverage will follow accordingly.
On your other concerns, I agree, from my experiences working and talking to red-state people, that the undercurrent of antipathy toward blacks may well result in a hidden wave of anti-Obama voting. But what can you do? Many of those people are Democrats and who just may not vote if Obama wins the nomination. And considering that almost half the U.S. has a pathological dislike of Hillary, and Edwards just does not seem to have the gravitas needed to get the requisite votes, it may well be that Obama, seemingly unstoppable now, will have to take his (and our) chances with the American voter. After the primaries? We can only hope.
Also, while I'm not particularly concerned, as is Kathy, about Obama relegating me and a few other generations to the category of pre-historic goners, I would prefer that he not be so inclusive in his dealing with Republicans, if he wins the Oval Office. It seems that when the Right wins, the Dems are TOTALLY relegated to the trash heap, totally left out of everthing. Then when the Dems come back there is a call for unity, for inclusiveness. Screw that. Why should the Right always get the better of the deal? Like Kathy, I don't want that even if it's the way naive people believe the country will come together. Bill Clinton had the answers to coming together, and it wasn't by inviting the Right to any of his, ah, meetings---but I won't go further in this family-oriented venue.
I stand corrected.