-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/01/barack-obama-for-president/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
I was thinking the exact same thing about George W. Bush too...He's placed more African-Americans and Latinos in high positions in our government than any other President (historically)...Ironically, he's going to be partly responsible for the election of our FIRST AFRICAN-American President too.
50 years from now, historians will not be talking about Iraq. They will be talking about the ascendancy of Obama/The Obama Era, etc.
America will have her First Woman President someday...and her name will be MICHELLE.
While Obama doesn't play the Angry Black Man with the electorate, he certainly plays it with his Democratic opponents. I understand that he needs to showcase his differences with his opponents and perhaps with the Democratic Party - but can't someone as articulate as Obama do so without resorting to Republican talking points?
Even his policy on social security picked up on the Republican spin that social security is in financial trouble. Social security is fine - our health care, especially Medicare, is what is in financial trouble.
That said, I will vote for whomever is the Democratic nominee in the general election.
I don't think you're being at all fair to Obama to criticize him for sharp responses to his democratic rivals. In Hillary's case, they have suggested he is a drug dealer and a jihadist. You're giving him grief because he argues that Social Security is in trouble(which it is, but reasonable minds can disagree)? And if you think that Edwards is really electable with his "corporations are evil" rhetoric, I don't think you are taking a hard look at the realities of politics. That line plays well with the folks, but he is not going to win the general election with that approach.
Do us all a favor...compare the records of Obama and Edwards rather than the rhetoric than tell us with any degree of credibility that Edwards is more progressive than Obama. Edwards 1.0 was as centrist as they come. He fashioned himself a more attractive Bill Clinton--straight down the middle. When that didn't work, he re-invented himself, in the tradition of all good entertainers, as dustbowl, Hughey Long type populist. However, his record doesn't match the rhetoric. On lobby reform, civil justice reform, health care reform, Senator Obama has a proven record. Show me Edwards'? Not rhetoric, but actually passed legislation.
I'm so nervous, girl, I can barely compose myself. I'll take a stab at challenging Edwards' electability. Generically, any White male candidate has an advantage over a candidate of color or woman. However, specific to Edwards, he has shown that this has NOT been an advantage for him in presidential politics.
He was put on the ticket in 2004 for one purpose and one purpose only: to win NC. He failed, miserably!
I would never discount his popularity in an almost majority white, semi-populist state like IA, but outside of the 'great white way' of IA (and NH) there is not one state that he could challenge Hillary Clinton for the nomination, not one. Yes, I know the argument is electability in the general, but you can't win the general without winning the nomination. Taking this out of the hypothetical and into the reality of identity politics of today, there is no way in hell that John Edwards could peel any measurable percentage of Black votes, specifically Black female votes, from Hillary Clinton aka Bill Clinton's wife. The same goes for Latino votes as well. Withot the minority vote, the Black vote specifically, you can't win the Dem nomination. Even if were able to sure up 100% of the White male vote in the Dem Party, it wouldn't be enough. The only thing an Edwards win in IA will mean is a smoother ride to the nomination for Hillary Clinton. He can be a spoiler, for Obama, but he can not be a winner.
T-Shirts, Hats, Stickers, Mugs, Buttons, Magnets, Bags, Mousepads, Postcards, Teddy Bears, Yard Signs, and more are available at:
http://Obama.ILoveThisShirt.net
Show your Support for Barack Obama!!!
I am still surprised when I read Democrats saying that Obama is not progressive. Based on votes he has made and positions he has supported compared to the other candidates, he is far more progressive. He hasn't had to re-invent himself to run for president. I think what many progressives don't like is that he is willing to listen to everyone. Beating the other side over the head is not going to work! Everyone with doubts about that should get a copy of Rules for Radicals and read what Saul Alinsky had to say about reformation and revolution. Obama can give us the reformation.
I'm not sure that I'll be able to express anything more clearly than you have here, but it'll come from the perspective of someone who in 2004 was an active Edwards supporter.
One thing you touch on that just doesn't get talked about nearly enough is the Imperial Presidency...or, as I've taken to calling it, the tin ear presidency. I don't need another president who is only willing to dialogue with those who agree with him...and simply take what he wants from everyone else. That's what Edwards is advocating.
Where has the principled candidate I supported in 2004 gone?
He's not progressive enough. He's not black enough. He's not cynical enough. He's not clean enough...He's too clean, untested.
I think that Kos and folks who question the degree of Obama's progressiveness (at this late stage) are trying to cover their initial bets (their initial support). That makes them a bunch of chumps. I'm deleting kos from my bookmarks/favorites...will have to look elsewhere for political stats.
For my folks in Atlanta, there will be an Iowa Caucus Watching Party at SLICE on Howell Mill Rd (9PM). Hope to see some folks there. It's going 2 be a Great Night...let's have a drink.
Holla,
Webbuh
mrmagicatl@yahoo.com
BARACKOBAMA.ILCANNOCCHIALE.IT
Edwards is a talker. Talk, talk, talk. When he had an opportunity to make change in the US Senate, he did nothing except angle for a Presidential bid. All he wants is to be president, and if it means ignoring his actual (albeit, limited) record and masquerading as a populist, so be it.
You're right about thanking George W. Bush and how his failure has moved the country to the left. Obama is a unique politician. I know a few conservative white evangelicals. They are planning on voting for Obama is the Democratic Primary (they switched registration to do so or live in open primary states). Brining more people into the tent, more people that want to believe in a solidly progressive person that manages to speak in a way which does not threaten them. And that's a bad thing to Kos and the blogosphere? I don't get it...or maybe I do.
On the bright side, Kos and friends were lambasting John Kerry in the run up to the caucus. Kerry won solidly, and their guy (Dean) failed miserably. Perhaps history will repeat itself!
Liberal Voting Ratings for Obama (higher is more liberal)
2006 - 95%
2005 - 100%
and for Edwards
2004 - 60%
2003 - 65%
2002 - 70%
http://www.adaction.org/votingrecords.htm
Now, this isn't the only way to judge things, but Obama has walked the walk of being a liberal. Edwards has reinvented himself as a populist to try to appeal to the base without a real background as a liberal to back it up. Ignore the atmospherics and look at the voting records and you'll see who the real liberal is.
As a political junkie I have grown tired of our national dialogue. Obama is the only candidate that can change the tone and spirit of the political sphere and even though he is far too progressive for my personal political tastes he is at least a person I can respectfully disagree with. And the fact that he is african-american is actually a plus with me because I eagerly await post-racial politics and believe that a black president is a powerful symbol that that day is getting nearer.
Finally, even though I have never voted for a Democrat in my life, it is time for them to regain full political power. It is time to reform Social Security (yes, it is in serious long term financial crisis) and Medicare. The amount of tax increases and benefit cuts that will be necessary to save both programs will be in excess of $30 trillion. Obama, unlike most Democrats, seems to understand this and could bridge the gap between the parties.
Dealing with Global Warming in a more comprehensive fashion (the bill recently passed was a decent start but not by any means the end) and to deal with the healhcare industry problems would also be welcomed by me.
I guess I am one of the reasons that the Kossacks don't like Obama. A white male conservative that has never voted for a Democrat before actually believes that an Obama presidency gives me and my family hope that some needed reforms can take place before it is too late.
A couple of things raise questions for me: who brought Kos into this? I read that blog like I read many others; but I reserve the right to make up my own mind.
I was not aware that Kossacks didn't like Obama, other than his use of Republican talking points - but then I don't like his use of them either and I'm surprised that no one has told me why these terms - trial lawyers, lost elections, divided electorate, etc. are necessary.
Frankly, I was inspired by the writing in this blog to comment. I usually don't. I tend to read, think and maybe write myself.
I'm glad that Obama has such a progressive voting record, but his acceptance of money from corporations bothers me tremendously because those folks don't play. They always get what they pay for. Read Greg Palast's The Best Democracy Money Can Buy and you'll see what I mean.
Social security is not in trouble. But we need universal health care and we need to resolve issues with Medicare and I don't believe that Obama's positions on those two issues are the way to go.
That said, I'm looking forward to all of us working together after the convention supporting our Party's nominee.
As for his site 50% support Edwards, 25% support Obama, the rest split among everybody else in various fashion.
Go *O* 2008! The time is near.
Check these facts about the Iowa Caucus before you guys all rush to name Obama the next POTUS:
"George McGovern finished second in 1972—the year the modern caucus process started—and still won the Democratic nod. When Jimmy Carter won the presidency in 1976, he finished second in the Iowa caucus to “uncommitted.” George H.W. Bush defeated Ronald Reagan in the 1980 caucus. George H.W. Bush finished third in Iowa in 1988 and won the presidency that year. Michael Dukakis finished third in the 1988 caucus and won the Democratic nomination. Bill Clinton took third place in Iowa in 1992, with 3 percent; Harkin won 76 percent."
This country is not going to enmass vote for a Black man for president...yet. I'm sure it will happen one day, but I'd venture a guess we'll all be dead and gone when it happens. Edwards will most likely be the nominee on the ballot.
Obama has not taken the "most progressive" stands on a lot of the key issues (on the war you could say he has - but then what has he done for us LATELY on that??) I DO take the Krugman criticisms seriously and I think no progressive should take his eyes off that ball, especially if (when?) Obama is elected. Obama will have a chance to disappoint on Social Security, on unions when he is elected.
But you're right overall. Neither Barack Obama nor any other black politician can afford to get typecast as the "angry Black man". Kiss of death. A black Edwards would be a man going nowhere. Those of my age and political views remember with fondness a Chicago mayor named Harold Washington who stood proud for his progressive principles and never bowed (as Obama has sometimes) but Harold's universe was a city that was almost majority black. That isn't a road to the presidency.
So the question is how much of the 'conciliatory Obama' is adaptation to this political/racial reality and how much is his core beliefs? After watching his victory speech, I am ready to cut him at least the same slack I would have to cut Hillary Clinton or John Edwards in light of their past deviations from the "path of righteousness".
For those concerned about electability, I would suggest to you that Obama's 2004 Senate campaign should put those to rest. I'm not talking about his no-contest win over the laughable Keyes, but his primary victory. In that election he went from being
1) the doubtful candidate of the liberal fringe to
2) being thought possibly viable if the white vote split among six opponents - to
3) actually winning a majority vote against multiple opponents.
He and his political style have a track record of being able to melt opposition - rather magically, it sometimes seems. Maybe I should stop fighting it?
At the end of the day, politics is a crapshoot. Sometimes you vote for "putting people first" and get NAFTA. Sometimes you vote for "fiscal conservatism" and get the New Deal. (History of 1932 FDR campaign is fascinating in light of subsequent developments).
So while I retract none of my worries about how Obama may ultimately disappoint, and while I still think the Krugman critiques have cogency, I think we have to give Obama a chance. Pretty soon, unless he screws up massively, he is going to be the Democratic nominee and then we'll all have to pull for him anyway, despite misgivings.
So why not look at the positive side now?
"According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party."
Here's the link:
http://obama.senate.gov/blog/050930-tone
_truth_and_the_democratic_party/index.html
Be sure to copy the entire link.
Now, since I've been asked to be positive, I will. If Obama has changed his mind since 2005 (it could happen) about what we are all facing from the Republican Party, I'll certainly give his bid for the presidency another look. Because as I'm sure we can all agree - President Obama would be one of those prisoners who would not be taken.
Nice blog, though. Gosh, there should be a Jack and Jill adult alliance or something.
If we get the government we deserve, this trend surely defines how, and the trivialization of Chief Executive or Commander in Chief ought to mean more, not less.
Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans....
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/