Obama Tentatively Moves Towards Populism

by: Matt Stoller

Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 18:58


This is interesting.

Health insurers block progress toward universal health care. Big Oil corrupts our energy policy. Banks and lenders make money on the backs of college students forced to repay huge loans. Agribusiness benefits from government subsidies at the expense of small farms.

This was Barack Obama's populist message this morning at the Adeline C. Marston Elementary School here, one of three public campaign stops in the last two days in New Hampshire. To Republicans, casting business as an enemy of change may sound like a tired trope of the left. But Obama laid the blame for inertia on health care, energy independence, and other issues squarely at the feet of select industries and their lobbyists.

On health insurance, for example, Obama repeated his pledge to sign a universal health care bill by the end of his first term, saying, "I shouldn't have better health insurance than you since you're paying the bill for my health insurance."

This is very different than the call for universal  health care in January.  Today, he's directly blaming the lobbyists and industries.  In January, he was blaming cynicism and unnamed skeptics.  Here's a representative passage:

Matt Stoller :: Obama Tentatively Moves Towards Populism
For too long, this debate has been stunted by what I call the smallness of our politics - the idea that there isn't much we can agree on or do about the major challenges facing our country. And when some try to propose something bold, the interests groups and the partisans treat it like a sporting event, with each side keeping score of who's up and who's down, using fear and divisiveness and other cheap tricks to win their argument, even if we lose our solution in the process.

Obama has clearly changed his campaign strategy.  He's not a natural populist, so this suggests that he has either decided that economic populism will defeat Clinton or that the establishment has accepted that universal health care is going to happen.  I think it's the latter, since the neoliberal Hamilton Project people are now beginning to move towards universal health care in return for free-ish trade.

I will note the following is quite interesting.

And he again called for diverting the billions being spent every month in Iraq to domestic programs, such as broadband network expansions and other infrastructure improvements in rural areas.

"I still can't get a cell phone signal when I'm driving through New Hampshire," he said. "How can you do business when you can't get a cell phone signal?"

With Google's bid for the public airwaves, and John Edwards already weighing in on the spectrum auction, now would be a good time to make his position clear and public.


Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Tentatively? (0.00 / 0)
Interesting! I guess that means he may swing the other way later?.

"With Google's bid for the public airwaves, and John Edwards already weighing in on the spectrum auction, now would be a good time to make his position clear and public."
 

I think many have been waiting for a few months now for him to make it clear - how much longer and how many more times are some going to try to get him to understand that?

http://www.eenrblog.com/
Great new Progressive blog!Check it out. Let's get active!


Give him time (0.00 / 0)
It's early, Senator Obama is just getting warmed up. You aint seen nothin' yet!!

Most of America is just starting to pay attention.


[ Parent ]
Actually, We Have (0.00 / 0)
You aint seen nothin' yet!!

I, for one, was very excited by Obama before he actually became a U.S. Senator.

Now, not so much.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Broadband is not a new issue for Obama (4.00 / 4)
Back when Obama formally announced his candidacy in February, he specifically announced his intention to further broadband penetration, specifically in rural areas. I wrote this item for Slashdot at the time.

On a side note, it's funny Obama mentions cell phone reception in New Hampshire, cause I'm in NH and I just lost a call twice literally a few minutes ago.

Check out my blog at TheDailyBackground.com


It's the same message. (4.00 / 2)
This is what he's always said and always stood for.  One of his most important platforms is to remove the influence of lobbyists, corporate money, and force legislators to be transparent in their business and earmarks. The reason is because health insurers block progress toward universal health care, big Oil corrupts our energy policy, banks and lenders make money on the backs of college students forced to repay huge loans, agribusiness benefits from government subsidies at the expense of small farms.  He has always had a populist message only he doesn't go around saying evil, evil, evil like some want him to do.  He cuts off their source of uneven power and then invites them into the negotiating room to sit at one chair, not own all the chairs. 

I am sorry to disagree with your take on the Lobbyist angle (0.00 / 0)
Despite Rhetoric, Obama Pushed Lobbyists' Interests

http://blogs.abcnews...

http://www.eenrblog.com/
Great new Progressive blog!Check it out. Let's get active!


[ Parent ]
Lobbyists vs. Constituents (0.00 / 0)
He wasn't pushing the interest of lobbyists, he was pushing the interests of his constituents.  That is why reform in this area involves more than just lobbyists but also has to involve transparency of government.  The problem with lobbyists is not that they are agenda-based, we all know there are many good lobbyists groups most of us probably endorse (Sierra Club, NRDC, etc.).  The problem is the amount of money involved can have a corrupting influence especially when Congressmen can do their bidding in secrecy.  He's taken the first step in cleaning this up with the reforms he pushed through the Senate on Earmarks.  He's taken the 2nd step in releasing his own earmark requests and urging others to do so.  How else do we start to remove the unwarranted influence short of banning the practice altogether - something which at this point would never pass.  Would the Environmental Lobby endorse a plan to ban all lobbyists?

[ Parent ]
Democratic Congress (0.00 / 0)
It's probably worth noting that another difference between January and today is that Obama has experienced a Democratic-controlled Congress. 

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

Stoller: Not Exactly Neutral (0.00 / 0)
Again, Stoller attempts a subtle putdown piece on Obama.

We know for a fact that Matt Stoller believes the Obama campaign is, according to Matt Stoller, "A narcissistic festival of self-love".

This explains the image he decided to use in his post. When the picture in the article was quite different....

It is also quite ironic....in that this is the type of biased "journalism" bloggers often rail against...I guess only when it involves St. John Edwards of North Carolina...


Stoller's Selective Quotations (0.00 / 0)
In his article, Matt Stoller says "This is very different than the call for universal  health care in January.  Today, he's directly blaming the lobbyists and industries.  In January, he was blaming cynicism and unnamed skeptics.  Here's a representative passage". 

The passage he quotes is one where Obama is talking about the "smallness of our politics", where he lays the blame at the feet of "the interests groups and the partisans (who) treat it like a sporting event, with each side keeping score of who's up and who's down, using fear and divisiveness and other cheap tricks to win their argument, even if we lose our solution in the process." I'm not too sure where the cynicism and unnamed skeptics come in.

But one wonders what drives Stoller to select that quote anyway.  To be fair, I think what Matt wants to see is Barack laying the blame on people or entities, not on the process which has kept us stalemated on Health Care for, most recently, the last 16 years.  And if that's what he's looking for, it is in the Obama speech.  Just further down the page, he puts our present day struggle in historical context of the last health care struggle waged against "private insurers" and "well-financed, well-connected interest groups".  That battle then, which finally gave rise to the Medicare bill some 20 years later, gives us hope that once again reason can prevail.  Here's the full quote from his speech, for those who don't want to click the link and read the full part.


Half a century ago, America found itself in the midst of another health care crisis. For millions of elderly Americans, the single greatest cause of poverty and hardship was the crippling cost of health care and the lack of affordable insurance. Two out of every three elderly Americans had annual incomes of less than $1,000, and only one in eight had health insurance.

As health care and hospital costs continued to rise, more and more private insurers simply refused to insure our elderly, believing they were too great of a risk to care for.

The resistance to action was fierce. Proponents of health care reform were opposed by well-financed, well-connected interest groups who spared no expense in telling the American people that these efforts were "dangerous" and "un-American," "revolutionary" and even "deadly."

And yet the reformers marched on. They testified before Congress and they took their case to the country and they introduced dozens of different proposals but always, always they stood firm on their goal to provide health care for every American senior. And finally, after years of advocacy and negotiation and plenty of setbacks, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Medicare bill into law on July 30th of 1965.

The signing ceremony was held in Missouri, in a town called Independence, with the first man who was bold enough to issue the call for universal health care - President Harry Truman.



Obama, January 26, 2007 (0.00 / 0)
Chicago Sun-Times, 1/26/07:

"Most health insurance in the United States is obtained through employers, and Obama said it may be time to sever the link and ask if "the employer-based system of health care itself is still the best for providing insurance to all Americans."

Obama has stepped up to this point in the past but not gone over as far as Sen. Wyden's plan. It sounds like Sen. Obama is leaning towards making his pool the only pool, like Sen. Wyden's 'Healthy Americans Act'. That kneecaps health insurance as we know know it and entirely shifts the incentive towards health, not the bottom line of providers. If Obama wants to go that far he may as well start landing punches on the insurance companies now (who can only buy love - nobody likes insurance companies, not ever Republicans). Obama's 'new kind of politics' was never supposed to be about being nice-nice - it's about being straight forward about what you are fighting for and fighting a hard good fight to achieve it. That would be new in our Federal government where generally people don't say what they mean. If you want any kind of healthcare reform with universal affordable coverage it means telling people WHY their current coverage is expensive and fragile. It looks like Obama is starting to make that case. Good for him.

John McCain


Less Than Meets The Eye--But Room To Grow (0.00 / 0)
Reading this piece and the comments, it appears there's less here than meets the eye--at least so far.  But that could change, and I hope it will.  Specifically:

(1) Obama has criticized special interests before for their part in keeping our politics small, even while accepting the parameters they impose on keeping our politics small.  The contradiction's been brewing for a while.

(2) There may, however, be a shift in emphasis.  When Matt writes:

Today, he's directly blaming the lobbyists and industries.  In January, he was blaming cynicism and unnamed skeptics.

It appears to be more a matter of who gets top billing.  There is a definite path here for message evolution.  I would be very happy to see it, since it is an evolution toward realism as well as populism.

(3) Even though Matt may have given Obama more credit than he deserves, some Obama supporters are bashing Matt anyway.  Gotta love their "new politics."  Nothing cynical there.

(4) Is it just me, or is this a a cri de coeur?  Unlike health care, a problem for other people, crappy cell phone service happens to him:

"I still can't get a cell phone signal when I'm driving through New Hampshire," he said. "How can you do business when you can't get a cell phone signal?"

Yeah, and about universal health care, Senator.  How can you do business when you're dead?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

hatred (0.00 / 0)
Ideally, Obama supporters should rise above the hatred directed at their candidate I think.  However pointing out that hatred is perfectly acceptable in my opinion. 

Its also good to point out dishonesty.


[ Parent ]
And, Al Gore (0.00 / 0)
is a hypocrit for his carbon use. Whatever.

[ Parent ]
Lack of Infatuation Is Not Hatred n/t (0.00 / 0)


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
In response: (0.00 / 0)
1.  Accepting the parameters?  Is that why he is responsible for the changes regarding the transparency of earmarks.  Is this why, to this date, he is still the only candidate running who has made his earmark requests public?  Where is Hillary?  Where is Dennis Kucinich for God's sake?  In case you've missed it, here is the major policy speech he delivered on Taking Our Government Back:

http://www.barackoba...

2.  The rather mild criticism of Matt's piece is that there isn't a message evolution - this has been the message all along.  As I pointed out in my comment above, in his Health Care policy speech he talked specifically how private insurers and special interest groups have always been the opposition dating back to the Medicare fight.  And, to cut criticism off at the pass, he also makes clear that his brand of negotiation does not include capitulation: "...they introduced dozens of different proposals but always, always they stood firm on their goal to provide affordable health care for every American..."  Here's the link again to the policy speech:

http://www.barackoba...

3.  I guess one man's bashing is another mild rebuke.  I don't find any of the comments objectionable, I know for myself I tried to be fair to Matt, tried to be reasoned.  But just as the criticism of Obama as being somehow soft is incorrect, so is the thought that the "new politics" allows improper statements to go by without correction.  To say that the New Hampshire comments represent a campaign shift is as inaccurate as your statement that he accepts the parameters imposed that keep our politics small.  If you listen to his statements he has said frequently that he is not so naive to think that change is going to come by sitting around a circle and singing Kumbaya, and he does not back away from a good fight, and that if you look over history you see that change has always come from the bottom up, by people coming together to insist on a better way.

4.  I don't want to be accused of being cynical so I will just point out the article Matt references is from a campaign stop, not a speech on health care.  The stop covered a number of subjects not just health care which the reported covered more than others but not to the exclusion of others.  I don't understand the rationale behind even making such a point.  Is he only supposed to talk about one issue at a time on the campaign stops?  Is this a criticism you carry forward to every candidate at every one of their stops?


[ Parent ]
1,2,3,4 (0.00 / 0)
(1) Earmarks aren't the problem. Earmarks are the symptom.  Transparent earmarks and another trillion dollars wasted on private health insurance is the ultimate boobie prize.

(2)

The rather mild criticism of Matt's piece is that there isn't a message evolution - this has been the message all along.

The message is not the words.  The message is how the words are formed into a whole.  If Matt is wrong, and there has been no evolution, then so much the worse for Obama.  And so much the worse for Matt's critics for shooting themselves in the foot.

(3)

I guess one man's bashing is another mild rebuke.  I don't find any of the comments objectionable, I know for myself I tried to be fair to Matt, tried to be reasoned.  But just as the criticism of Obama as being somehow soft is incorrect, so is the thought that the "new politics" allows improper statements to go by without correction.

It's all about tone, dude. All about tone.

(4) WTF????  Non sequiter is one thing, but this is ridiculous!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
We agree on one thing (4.00 / 2)
Yes it's all about the tone.  You write "Yeah, and about universal health care, Senator.  How can you do business when you're dead?" and I respond by saying it was a campaign stop where a number of issues were discussed.  Your response is "WTF????  Non sequiter is one thing, but this is ridiculous!"  You parse words to say earmarks are a symptom not the problem when I never said they were either of those words - I talked about them as part of the way special interests impose their will through our system - and then you run off to talk about boobie prizes in the most condescending manner.

Yes, Paul, it's all about the tone.  My question to you is why are you so angry? What is it about Obama's campaign that makes you feel so threatened?  Is it that he's effectively knocked Edwards out of the race or that he's diminishing Gore's chance to be talked into riding in on a white horse to save the party?  Or is it that he is bringing in new people into the Party who you consider uninvited guests?  Is it his age, his mixed heritage, his intelligence, his unfair advantage in oratory, his ability to be effective and progressive at the same time?  What is it?  If you look at that video which captures Matt's anger toward the Obama campaign and it is so out of whack with the reality I see it really leaves me at a loss to know what to think.  A narcissistic festival of self-love? I would agree there is quite of few of those goin' around but not from the Obama camp.  Yeah, dude, it's all about tone. 


[ Parent ]
request (4.00 / 1)
Please be polite and respectful to other commenters.  Thank you.

[ Parent ]
I'm Not Angry (0.00 / 0)
believe me.  The tone you've heard from me so far is merely mild annoyance.

Makes me wonder how you'll handle real anger when you encounter it.

The problem here is simple, DD2.  You're strongly identified with Obama.  (Harldy a first in the history of electoral politics.) So you're taking things I say very personally when they're not meant that way at all.

I'm sorry you're taking them like that, but I am not responsible for how you choose to listen.  Obama is a big boy and he can take care of himself.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
And of course, (0.00 / 0)
the suffering of the residents of New Hampshire and Iowa are so rarely aired in the year before primary season!

[ Parent ]
I Can't Object To Rural Neglect Getting Attention (0.00 / 0)
For all the good it's done, alas!

But where's rural access to health care in the mix?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Could Obama Be The Great "WHITE" Hope (0.00 / 0)
Has Gov't Been Outsourced?  When Is Enough, Enough?

While we are spoonfed frivilous news by the the Big-8 Corporate Cartel now a propaganda tool which ended our free press in the 90's, the Davos Demagogues are hammering the last nails in  "Democracy."  You don't want the candidates they insidiously promote & often praise with faint, very faint criticism.  The PTB (powers-that-be) have been running the U.S. in Davos Switzerland, independent of the people since the 90's.

Chaos--helps,  it keeps the people in stress mode & ill-equipped to re-tool democracy to what it was before the Davos Agenda took off in the 90's.  The slick Davos Demagogues determine U.S. policy in Switzerland.  What a cool idea to keep their offshore agenda within running distance of their secret bank accounts.  NAFTA's 1,000-plus pages give international investors extraordinary rights to override government protections of workers and the environment. It sets up secret panels, rife with conflicts of interest, to judge disputes from which there is no appeal. It makes virtually all nonmilitary government services subject to privatization and systematically undercuts the public sector's ability to regulate business.  "NAFTA happened," said the then-chairman of American Express, "because of the drive Bill Clinton gave it. He stood up against his two prime constituents, labor and environment, to drive it home over their dead bodies." 

As the well respected journalist Christopher Hitchens says in his book: "No One Left To Lie To":  "The legacy of Bill Clinton is the expiration of American liberalism,"  and  "the Clinton machine, if successful,  will become the model of pseudo-democracy for the coming century."  Looking at their "legacy," Clinton's latest grandstand,  to finance a museum dedicated to --what!?--- Woodstock!?  has gotta!! be a joke.  I mean-- do military generals hold benefits for Pacifists?  Their mission since they began w/Lieberman,  30 years ago or more has always been , to surround themselves with the most predatory of the "uber" powerful; their jihad was not against republicans, it was against liberals. 

NAFTA and the end of corporate regulations was only the beginning. The Clinton/Republican alliance then pushed through the WTO agreement and the subsequent deal with China that traded off more US industrial jobs in exchange for protections for US investors in that huge Asian market. Not only has this produced a massive trade deficit with China and further downward pressure on US wages, it has also sent some 250,000 jobs from Mexico to China, as the Mexican exodus causes further upheavel in the U.S.

Clinton "Bashing?" Say What?  Political scrutiny of all the Clinton's "screw the people" radically conservative milestones have been Shut Down --across the board.  His administration was the most conservative in modern history but most of the  intrepid souls that dared inquire about anything but his sexual proclivities were, unfortunately, intimidated or bought off.  And you all Know! the Clintons have the power, influence & bux to engineer,  pretty much what they please.  Few, unconscionably few, Americans have the faintest clue about the halacious SCOPE of fundamental hard-right reforms engineered by Bill in the 90's, even Hillary's claim to fame with her often mentioned Health-Care "initiative" is her secret--for two good reasons-- Big Insurance Corps & Big Pharm. 

The Clinton's pity-party & the Monica-martyrdom gave them a free pass for  a decade and a half-- It worked! like a charm, to shut down any inquiry and, especially scrutiny that might reveal their rightwing legacy but, voters need a  break!, an end to the secrecy, duplicity & strategic misguidance----  We need some authentic! opposition to Clinton/Bush-- from banks, the market and insurance companies to the battlefield--Enough is Enough. 

  We need some authentic! opposition to Clinton/Bush-- from the battlefield to the stock exchange, banks, insurance companies -and health care, Enough is Enough. 

Maybe we still have a shot at reinventing  the Nafta Follies into a healing! force  the world may trust....



I don't think Obama's is the best (0.00 / 0)
run campaign I've ever seen.  My guess is he still isn't getting traction among lower middle and middle income voters, so he is turning to Edwards populist rhetoric, which fankly hasn't attracted these voters either.  I predict this approach will be unsuccessful.  For one thing, it comes off as pandering.  Why the sudden rhetorical change?  It doesn't seem very sincere.  Also, I've noticed with both Edwards and Obama they seem to be patting themselves on the back a bit too much for caring about the average voter.  That's not a winning theme.  For example, I saw an ad of Obama's where the announcer claims Obama graduated from Harvard law and could have made money but instead he became an organizer.  I mean that self-congratulatory rhetoric is unappealing. 

How about a quote (0.00 / 0)
of what you mean by the self-congratulatory rhetoric?  Or even where his rhetoric has turned?  It didn't turn at the New Hampshire stop-over, it's all the same as has been in his speeches if you stop and read them.

[ Parent ]
I have read his speeches. (0.00 / 0)
I gave an example of this self-congratulatory rhetoric.  This new ad where he seems to be saying he's special because he went into community work rather than corporate work.  His rhetoric is decidedly getting more populist and less "new kind of politics" as evidenced in the quotes from his recent health care speech presented here.

[ Parent ]
That's a new interpretation. (0.00 / 0)
I thought you were referring to things he said about himself in the self-congratulatory rhetoric.  I guess you can take anything a campaign says about the candidate to be coming from the candidate himself, but then wouldn't every campaign ad be self-congratulatory?  Obama has a Harvard professor talk about how impressed he was that Barack chose to go back into community organizing right after graduation and John Edwards in his new ad has his wife talking about what a wonderful man he is.  Is Edwards using self-congratulatory rhetoric?  I'm sure Hillary does the same. 

What has been talked about here is not evidence of a switch in rhetoric as stated.  Watch his speech at the Take Back America conference and tell me if you see a less populist stance than now.  Here's Part 2 which begins with him  saying almost the exact same words as in the NH speech and speaking about what he means by a new kind of politics:

http://www.youtube.c...


[ Parent ]
You're Right That All Campaigns Are Self-Congratulatory (0.00 / 0)
But originally masslib was trying to say something more specific:

I've noticed with both Edwards and Obama they seem to be patting themselves on the back a bit too much for caring about the average voter.  That's not a winning theme. For example, I saw an ad of Obama's where the announcer claims Obama graduated from Harvard law and could have made money but instead he became an organizer.  I mean that self-congratulatory rhetoric is unappealing.

What he's saying here is that it's too much about the candidates when it should be about the voters they are trying to reach.  Otherwise, it just comes off as talking about their merit badges.

Now, actually, I think there's a place for these sorts of ads, at least if they're properly done.  After all, someone who's never lifted a finger for the working poor could run all sorts of ads touting their plight, implying that s/he cares about them.  So it makes sense to run an add that says, in essence, "I didn't just discover this issue because it tested well with focus groups."

But what I'm hearing masslib say makes sense to me because I don't really see much need for such ads at this point in the Democratic primary contest.  Later on, perhaps. During the general election, definitely.  But right now, I think masslib has a point.  It's putting the cart before the horse at this point in the cycle.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
They're biographical. (0.00 / 0)
To continue your analogy, you need to build the cart first.  There's a false impression out here in the so-called blogosphere that people are as clued in and informed as we may be.  I was very surprised during the Walk for Change day to discover how many people knew very little about Obama.  They had heard his name, seen his picture, but that's about it.  So there very much is the need for biographical based ads for Obama to let people know his background and how it relates to his candidacy.  Issues are not the only basis for people's voting decisions in either the Primary or the GE.  As we all know, experience is a big factor, as is integrity.  The ad talks directly to both of those concepts - it says that the experience of working on the most local level of community organizing is an important part of his resume, and that he put his own career on hold to work for others speak to his character. 


[ Parent ]
And masslib's Point (0.00 / 0)
is that this is not a very effective way to send a populist message, that it fails to resonate with the people it's supposed to reach (though it may make him more appealing to folks like you).

It's amazing how many responses you can generate off of masslib's original comment without ever addressing this directly.  And it's this subtle (or not so subtle) evasion of true dialogue that many of us find so annoying with many of Obama's supporters.

That's where at least some of the "lack of substance" claims come from.  It's not that Obama hasn't stated positions, it's that they seem insubstantial because there's a lack of back-and-forth engagement.  Online, a lot of this comes from his supporter like you, inadvertantly shooting yourselves in the foot.

This is an attempt to help you, DD2.  If you can take the correction, you will do yourself and your candidate a world of good.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
A direct response (0.00 / 0)
Masslib's original comment was addressed directly, you are just too stubborn to accept that.  I don't agree with it.  It's kind of like what part of No do you not understand?

His basic premise, as is Matt Stoller's, is Obama has changed his rhetoric to be more "populist".  I do not agree.  I do not accept that premise.  Is that direct enough for you?  There is no change.  The words delivered in NH are quite similar to what he delivered in Take Back America, are quite similar to speeches he has made throughout the whole campaign. 

The second point of Masslib's is that Obama is using self-congratulatory rhetoric designed to portray a populism to lower and middle class voters, or average voters, that could appear to be pandering.  His example is Lawrence Tribe talking about how impressed he was that Obama went back to community organizing immediately after graduation.  Again, I do not agree.  I find this to be a tremendous stretch for a number of reasons.  One, it is just a simple fact of his biography.  Between Columbia and Harvard he spent a few years as a community organizer.  After Harvard he went back to the Southside and worked on Voter registration.  This is simple biographical information that has appeared in all his campaigns because it tells people who he is and what personal experience he feels is important. 

Two, it is presented in a manner that is the opposite of pandering.  Instead of being spoken by someone poor to make it the point he is "one of us", they chose a professor of his who was inspired by his choice.  (And someone who one day might very well sit on the Supreme Court.)

Which brings me to point three, the ad he speak of does not attempt to portray a "populist" Barack.  The ad is called "Choices", and the intention clearly is to fill in biography while portraying Obama as a leader who can effectively inspire people to change, to bring this country back to the principles we believe in.  It begins with an inspirational message, not a traditional populist one:


"It is that fundamental belief, I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper, that makes this country work."

That's what the ad is about.  Values, and action which reflects those values, not issues.

And lastly, I disagree with Masslib's contention, or implication, that the campaign is not successful with speaking to lower and middle class voters.  I don't know what he has to base that on except perhaps a gut feeling.  The campaign has been absolutely brilliant in raising money from small donators in numbers which are  unprecedented.  He has built a network of supporters in 6 months that exceeds the Clinton's base.  They realized that merchandising sales could be a major tool in building this network.  And they realized that they could use Barack's experience in community organizing as an inspiration to this network of supporters to get people into the streets in traditional grassroots methods to speak directly to lower and middle income voters.  He had 10,000 people knocking on doors one month before this supposed switch  to a populist rhetoric.  So no, I don't accept Masslib's contention.

Nor yours.  There has never been any evasion of true dialog and I don't buy your annoyance comes from anything less than many Obama supporters are people new to you and won't be bullied into your line of thinking or intimidated by your lecturing demeanor.  You want to have honest dialog then treat people with respect, not call them "dude", "you folks", or "people like you".  You want to have honest dialog, then don't punctuate comments to imply anger or incredulity and then claim just "mild annoyance" when called out on it.  And don't delude yourself into thinking I either need a world of good or feel you are the one to give it to me, or that to say so is in any way, shape, or form, true dialog or respectful.

 


[ Parent ]
Bored Now! (0.00 / 0)
You can question someone's premise, and still take their argument seriously.  If your primary interest is in winning an argument, there's not much payoff in this.  But if your primary interst is in creating a dialogue, then it makes a lot of sense.

Obviously, you have made your choice.  Just take some responsibility for it.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox