Obama Talks To Editorial Boards

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:00


Barack Obama talks to a couple of conservative papers:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Thursday he would be more willing than Hillary Rodham Clinton to work with Republicans.

"Her natural inclination is to draw a picture of Republicans as people who need to be crushed and defeated," Obama said during a telephone interview from Texas with the Cincinnati Enquirer editorial board. "It's not entirely her fault. She's been the target of some unfair attacks in the past."

"I'm not a person who believes any one party has a monopoly on wisdom," Obama said.

I'm not sure where the idea of Hillary Clinton has some sort of super-left, ultra-partisan came from, exactly. During the 1990's, the Clinton's were seen as the epitome of the New Democrats (not Blue Dogs, but New Dems--there is a difference), and of a moderate, bi-partisan way forward for the Democratic Party during an increasingly conservative era. Hillary Clinton herself has been closely allied with the DLC for some time. You know, the same DLC that defended itself from losing its tax-exempt status by noting:

The DLC responds that its exclusive purpose is to develop and promote its "Third Way" agenda and that some causes it has lobbied for-e.g., welfare reform, fast-track approval of free-trade agreements-got more Republican than Democratic votes in Congress.

As a resident of Pennsylvania, back in 2006 I remember Rick Santorum ads that boasted of his bi-partisan relationship with Hillary Clinton, to the gasps of his conservative supporters in the advertisement. If the Republican-friendly DLC and working with Rick Santorum isn't moderate and bi-partisan enough for you, then I'm not really sure what sort of territory we will be entering during a Barack Obama presidency.

More in the extended entry.  
Chris Bowers :: Obama Talks To Editorial Boards
Now, there is a conservative myth that Hillary Clinton is an ultra-partisan leftie who lives for the rare, euphoric moments when she can drink the blood of her conservative Republican opponents in order to sustain her material form. I think what is happening here is that Obama is playing off the false notion of Hillary Clinton as a super-left, ultra-partisan that many conservatives, including the Jean Schimdt endorsing editorial board of the Cincinnati Enquirer, have helped propagate. It reminds me of other stereotypes that Obama plays into when talking with conservative editorial boards:

I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure.  I think part of what's different are the times.  I do think that for example the 1980 was different.  I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.  He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it.  I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating.

In that same interview quote above, Obama refered to "anti-military 70s love-in" as an example of something that he is not. And there are many more example of Obama reinforcing conservative talking points, and strawmen, too.

I have heard around the Internets that Obama is a transformative progressive figure, because he takes liberal ideas and makes them mainstream. Apparently, liberal ideas are not mainstream, and needed Barack Obama to make them such by invoking conservative stereotypes such as "anti-military 70s love-ins." An argument can be made that this is the sort of thing Barack Obama needs to do to win, because it appeals to many independent minded voters. I don't think that is true, but that isn't the bone I want to pick. I have heard arguments about the need for Democrats to distance themselves from the likes of me since I was a teenager, and I am pretty used to hearing that at this point. It barely even bothers me anymore. Obama has also seen Democrats do this all his life, and since he has never faced a competitive general election, maybe he thinks that is what he needs to do in order to win, as well. But really, this is a separate issue.

Rather, what does bother me is the notion is that someone who regularly reinforces conservative stereotypes about liberals when talking to the media is somehow the great champion, defender, and savior of liberalism. Don't tell me that someone who thinks the DLC's champion is too partisan is the next Russ Feingold or Paul Wellstone. Obama's failure to challenge conservative falsehoods, like the notion that Hillary Clinton is some sort of ultra-partisan whose boots are stained with the intestines of her Republican enemies, is a clear indication that he will not fundamentally challenge prevailing conventional, ideological wisdom in other areas. Will he be a hundred times better than Bush? Absolutely. Will be ninety times better than McCain? Oh yeah. Is better than Hillary Clinton? I don't know, but I'm willing to take that chance at this point. What I just can't swallow is hearing, on a reasonably frequent basis, Obama reinforce conservative talking points, falsehoods and stereotypes in one ear, and that Obama is a progressive savior in the other ear. The fact is that he is willing to pander to some conservative media if it will win their endorsements, and to reinforce some conservative stereotypes if it will win him independent voters. While that may be playing to win, it is not playing to transform the discursive and ideological landscape of American politics. In my experience, it is actually pretty much the same old politics.  

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Obama Talks To Editorial Boards | 100 comments
And Now that John Edwards is Out of the Race (0.00 / 0)
You're not going to hear much about challenging the status quo.

Having said that, Hillary Clinton is returning to some of her old roots and been adopting more of Edwards' rhetoric.  How much she would do is another thing.

It's easier for Obama to run on no promises, but as for me, I don't know what I get with him as candidate, whereas with Clinton, you sort of do.  

It's Not Up To the President To "Challenge The Status Quo" (0.00 / 0)
It's up to us! We have to put ourselves in a position to force the President's and Congress' hand, and we're just beginning to organize to do that.

Right now, Democrats don't know what to make of the Progressive movement. They would like to discount, ignore and betray us.

And any Democratic President (even John Edwards) would certainly betray us numerous times.

The question is what are we going to do about it? We have to take a leaf out of the playbook of the right-wing. During the 1960's and early 70's they organized --- and suffered one defeat after another! First Lyndon Johnson, then Nixon ran on a conservative platform - but inaugurated far reaching programs like the environmental statutes (try and imagine Bush signing the Clean Air or Clean Water Acts)! It wasn't until they nominated Ronald Reagan in 1980, after 15 years of organizing, that they finally had a Presidential candidate who would be prepared to run as an unabashed conservative (not just in name) and push for a conservative agenda.

We're so used to the right-wing triumphalism that we forget how long it was in the making, and how long it's going to take us to rotally reverse everything and undo all the damage they've done to America.

"Changing the status-quo" isn't going to happen with the election of a middle of the road Democrat like Obama (or Hillary or Edwards either). It's going to take a LONG period of grass-roots organizing and lobbying to accomplish this task!


[ Parent ]
I diaried a somewhat similar point on Kos (4.00 / 3)
And this is where Obama goes off the rails a little bit, and I say that as one of his strong supporters.  I think what he generally means is that Republicans, as voters themselves, should not be written off, but that Republican leadership is game for criticism - and that HRC isn't interested at all in getting red state support (which I think is evident in her campaign strategy and post hoc justifications).  I think it's also true that HRC is more disposed to acting upon personal vendettas and political retribution rather than focusing on implementing policy. Unfortunately, he sometimes doesn't articulate either of those points very well, and it comes off sounding like he's to the right of the DLC, completely Lieberman-esque.  So I don't disagree with you entirely, and perhaps this just my support of his candidacy that is making me say this, but I wouldn't take these kinds of words at 100% face value.

I'd also argue that HRC is not better, if not even worse on reinforcing conservative talking points.  She sent out a mailer in Jersey before February 5th criticizing Obama because he was going to raise your taxes sooo much, and this is a really bad thing and vote for Hillary! There was also the Buffenbarger fiasco, and her reject/denounce distinction on Farrakhan in the debate was really shameful, and plays right into the Muslim/black fear mongering.  She also actively sought to suppress votes in Iowa and constantly makes it her business to outright denigrate people under 35.

Just ask yourself this question: if I switched "Romney" for "Clinton" in the above context, would it surprise you at all? If I switched "Romney" for "Obama" in your initial block quote, would it surprise you at all? Honestly, I'd say no, and yes.  

There's no way a conservative would say that Hillary had been subjected to "unfair attacks."

On the other hand, a conservative would absolutely seek to suppress votes, and would definitely criticize a Democrat for being a tax and spend type, call a Democrat "latte drinking, Prius driving," and play up Hannity's points on Obama being an extension of Farrakhan.

Obama on mandates (4.00 / 1)
Some of your points on Hillary's campaign adopting right-wing frames are accurate enough, but let's not forget about Obama's campaign (in mailers and perhaps on his web site, I don't remember exactly which) slamming health care mandates for being a plan where "some bureaucrat" would decide your health care coverage for you.  Straight-up Rovian language.
[ Parent ]
Mostly agree (0.00 / 0)
I agree on your points that Clinton has oftened attacked Obama from the right, and that the image of her as a super-partisan, ultra-lefty such doesn't fly. And maybe we shouldn't take Obama's statements at face value. However, when should we take  Obama statements at face value? If we start being selective on which of his statements are serious and which are not, then that implies we know who he is an how he will govern. I think those remain unknowns, and if we dismiss some and not others, then we will end up creating false hopes of Obama as a great progressive when he just isn't.
 
[ Parent ]
I don't disagree (0.00 / 0)
and perhaps this is just reflective of my desire for him to be a strong progressive, and the frequent flashes he shows on the campaign trail and in his legislative and policy record, but I just get the sense that the way he explains things, it's not as if he's trying, a la Lieberman, to reinforce right wing talking points.  It's just that he chooses to express that in a way that I personally don't think is ideal, and I think you'd agree.  The reason I'm so strongly for Obama is that I believe that his worst day won't be any worse than Clinton's (as I pointed out, she's no angel herself), but his best day could, and I believe will, be exponentially better than her best day.
[ Parent ]
putting meaning into Obama's words (4.00 / 1)
I think what he generally means is that Republicans, as voters themselves, should not be written off, but that Republican leadership is game for criticism

I hope he means what you want him to mean, but look at the quote:

I'm not a person who believes any one party has a monopoly on wisdom," Obama said.

He's talking about the party in this quote, not the voters.

[ Parent ]
I don't think we can read that much into it.... (4.00 / 1)
'party' here is a shorthand for 'republicans'/'democrats'.  this just gets us back to the initial question: which republicans is he talking about, which ideas is he talking about, and what does it matter that he says republicans have some 'wisdom.'  this strikes me as consistent with his rhetorical style (deployed most prominently in 'the audacity of hope,'), where he says nice things about conservative ideas, and then advocates policy that is liberal/progressive and articulates his support for progressive policy in a way that may be appealing to republicans.  the wall street journal had a recent editorial about his answer to a question about gun control that illustrated this point well.

you can also see this in his speeches, when he talks about 'being good parents,' or how he 'believes in capitalism,' or how entrepreneurship is good, or how we need a strong military, etc. etc. -- he says these things right before he makes the case for progressive policy reforms.  its a brilliant rhetorical strategy: you concede some of the bs talking points of the right and then sell progressive reforms, making them seem like they are consistent with these 'values' that the right has so consistently beat the left over the head with... basically, he isn't playing by the rules of our recent political discourse (which is a good thing, considering how well we have been doing lately).  

that said, the thing he said about clinton was annoying and problematic.      

[ Parent ]
He's Michael Bloomberg With Charisma (4.00 / 2)
To answer an easy question first:

I'm not sure where the idea of Hillary Clinton has some sort of super-left, ultra-partisan came from, exactly. During the 1990's, the Clinton's were seen as the epitome of the New Democrats (not Blue Dogs, but New Dems--there is a difference), and of a moderate, bi-partisan way forward for the Democratic Party during an increasingly conservative era.

The idea of the Clintons as super-leftists came precisely from the fact that they were so moderate, threatening to take away the moderates.  Clinton's "putting people first" was reframing the Reagan/Bush class war--accurately, one must add--as the rich and the reckless against everyone else, and it had to be stopped.

While Santorum may have run the sort of campaign you describe, the national messaging--particularly in the post-1994 era--was all about how evil and immoral they were.  Murdering Vince Foster much?

The big difference I see between Obama and Clinton is that the establishment really likes Obama.  It's starting to wear off a bit, but that's what all this liberal-bashing pandering is about.  The last thing in the world he wants to do is challenge the real status quo.  To the contrary, he's the status quo's version of a "change" candidate, much like the old, V.O. Key-described South's oft-recurring populist heroes who railed against the very elites they were in bed with.

The audacity of hope here is that, as Tom Hayden suggested, the movement Obama is sparking will pull him along much farther than he intends to go, much like the Civil Rights Movement did with Kennedy.

And, of course, Feingold as VP would take things even farther.  Which is why I'm not holding my breath, even though I'd love to see 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

Feingold as VP would be a dog whistle to us (0.00 / 0)
It would be Obama saying to us, "yes, I believe that I have to say this pseudo-right wing, vague bullshit to get elected, but I'm with you guys in the end, and I'm not making any promises specific enough to hang me by when in office."

I'm not holding my breath either, but it definitely would be one of the most positive signals he could send.

[ Parent ]
the myopity of hope (0.00 / 0)

The audacity of hope here is that, as Tom Hayden suggested, the movement Obama is sparking will pull him along much farther than he intends to go, much like the Civil Rights Movement did with Kennedy.

But JFK did not move with the civil rights movement, he did not feel he had the political capital for it.  LBJ did, but he had a country horrified at the JFK assassination behind him.  

The problem with Obama's constituency is that the glue holding it together is based on the vagueness of what they're hoping for.  It could unravel very quickly once one started being specific, hence the need to disavow any talk of sacrifice like health mandates.

A lot of people on the left felt that their time had come again when Clinton became president.  Did Clinton yield to their demands?  Hell no, he triangulated between them and the Republicans.

In other words, show me an example where progressives have in recent memory pushed a centrist-leaning President to pursue progressive strategies.  It's a fantasy.

What worries me about Obama is that he may on a personal level buy into some "new-economy-like" mindset from the 90s that we no longer need partisan differences, we can solve all our problems by just selecting the technocratically best approach.  But e.g. the lack of UHC in this country is not due to any rational decision, it is due to a decades-long propaganda campaign by a powerful well-funded power group that knows it will cede a lot of its political power if this country ever gets UHC.  Ultimately this is what the 1994 healthcare debate was all about.  They are not interested in technocratic debate, and this appears to be a point that Obama completely misses.  

I suspect Bloomberg would be a more effective President (whatever about his policies).  As an experienced manager, he would know that this "politics of hope" stuff is strictly for the rubes.  Obama may have come to believe in the power of his own magnificence to overcome all obstacles.  That is dangerously naive (not to mention arrogant).

Well as I told my daughter, in all likelihood by this November we will either have the first woman president or first AA president or first Jewish president in history.

[ Parent ]
2008 Is Not 1992 (0.00 / 0)
We didn't have the internets back then.  The capacity for progressive organizing from below was at a low ebb.  It's still far from what we'd like, but it's definitely much stronger and on the upswing.

So, no guarantees, but no basis for foreordained doom and gloom.

"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 ]
Is Obama saying he is not "elephant"? (0.00 / 0)
That he's not "partisan". As long as he doesn't say that he's not a crook and doesn't say that he doesn't take money from dishonest people then he has a shot at being more progressive than Nixon.

Jeff Wegerson
The Challenge Is (0.00 / 0)
making the environment around him more progressive than that around Nixon.

Nixon was fairly progressive on domestic matters because he needed support--or, at least, docility--for what really mattered to him, which was international power-mongering.  It's harder to see both how such a progressive environment can be re-created, and how Obama can be made so willing to go along with it.

But both these are easier to envision than the prospect of Obama himself actually being progressive in any transformative sense.  We've already seen how quickly he fell silent on ending the Iraq War once he had some real power to help change things.

"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 ]
I think this is a false argument (4.00 / 1)
And I am sick and tired of hearing it. NO freshman senator had "real power" to change Iraq policy. Had he tried, Obama might have succeeded in sabotaging his presidential ambitions, or alienating himself from Senate Democrats - but I would really like to know in what universe Barack Obama was going to single-handedly end the War in Iraq his first year in a federal office.

At least now he may become president and be in a situation where he can actually end the war. Had he voted (in vain) a dozen times to Not Fund The Troops, he would never have had this chance to be president.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
There was enough of a caucus to give him some cover (4.00 / 1)
Or, you know, he could have used this transformative leadership that he supposedly has.  He could at least have lodged a protest vote against the damn war funding bill.

But more than anything, I'm just pissed htat he's trying to have it both ways on this--bragging about how he was against the war from the start, yet not endangering his presidential ambitions by actively opposing it from within the senate, even after becoming a Presidential candidate, and therefore, much more than a freshman senator.

[ Parent ]
A "protest vote"? (0.00 / 0)
You could also call that "John McCain's best talking point ever to bludgeon Obama over defense".  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
Only because McCain is rolling out his blurring strategy (0.00 / 0)
and Obama refuses to clearly argue that the troops need to be brought out.  
[ Parent ]
Accurate? (4.00 / 1)
Is it really accurate to say that Obama "regularly reinforces conservative stereotypes about liberals"? I think that's an exaggeration. That makes it sound like his stump speeches are filled with these things.  
aoei (0.00 / 0)
I only took "regularly" to mean he has more than a couple such incidents and they should not be dismissed as aberretions or mere poor word choices.  

People can reasonably disagree about the most common understanding of the term "regularly" though, since it is an ambiguous term.

[ Parent ]
"progressive savior" (0.00 / 0)
See, the thing is people aren't lying to you or misinformed.  They just have a different version of progressivism than you.  

They believe that progressive is about respecting others opinions and that conservatism is about crushing ones opponent's opinions.

Its more than just a label on one side of two fighting camps to some.

Your view of progressivism is what most people think of as the more conservative attitude.  Which is why there is the disconnect where Edwards got the most conservative voters.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com

Respecting Intolerance Is Just A Wee Bit Contradictory (4.00 / 1)
in case you didn't notice.

I've been saying this over and over again, it's one thing to reach out to conservative voters, the majority of whom are actual supporters of the welfare state, as well as a multilateral foreign policy.  I've been a proponent of this since long before Barack Obama appeared on the national scene.

It's quite different to reach out to their political leaders, who are adamantly, ideologically and irrationally opposed to such supermajority-supported positions.

The former makes eminent good sense on multiple levels.  The latter--which is what Obama has too often done--actually reinforces the hold that rigid, intolerant rightwing ideologues have on their often unwitting supporters.

"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 ]
I'm sorry (4.00 / 3)
but what right wing leaders has Barack Obama "reached out to?" From everything I've seen, he's adept at reaching out to disaffected Republicans, and doesn't seem to have many kind words for Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, George Bush, Dick Cheney - any of them.
[ Parent ]
His "Don't Rock The Boat" Style In The Senate Is Well Documented (0.00 / 0)
We really don't have to rehash it all here.

"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 ]
Actually (0.00 / 0)
that's exactly what we have to do.  You eviscerate another poster downthread for lack of evidence, and now you're saying "We don't have to rehash it all here."  Either provide some kind of evidence on Obama "reaching out to Republicans," or qualify your statement.  I don't want to be an asshole, but not rocking the boat, or whatever, is not the same as reaching out to Republicans.  He's not Joe Lieberman.
[ Parent ]
Theres' No Lack Of Evidence (0.00 / 0)
There's all the difference in the world between a statement that can't be supported, and one that's been made and supported hundreds, if not thousands of times that I just don't feel like rehashing again.

I realize that this is par for the course in a primary campaign, but, in the immortal words of Willow Rosenberg, "Bored now."

"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 ]
Howard Dean (0.00 / 0)
Exit polls regularly showed that Howard Dean performed much better among self-identified liberals than among other Democratic ideological groups. And his message was the exact opposite of Obama's, at least in tone.

I think it is a real stretch to argue that liberals and progressives are voting for Obama because of his conciliatory rhetoric. That may be why indies are voting for him, but not liberal Dems.  

[ Parent ]
Hillary describes herself as a super partisan, Chris (4.00 / 5)
Let me explain to you where the idea of Hillary as a super partisan has come from: Hillary herself. Her main campaign argument has been that she is the only candidate who has spent the last 16 years fighting Republicans and therefore is the only one who is vetted and ready to fight them the next 4 years to pass universal health care, etc. I will grant you that self description doesn't hold up very well to the facts, but there you go.
that is is selective interpretation of her message (0.00 / 0)
she has also frequently boasted of her bipartisanship, and sometimes attack Obama from the right.
[ Parent ]
I don't think it is all that selective of a take (4.00 / 1)
I think that Clinton is trying to have it both ways: she wants to come across as someone that knows that Republican ideas and tactics need to be vigorously fought, and also as someone willing to work with Republicans.  In fact, I think most politicians (including Obama) try to find a balance between these two, so I'm not really criticizing her.  

However, I've certainly felt that rather than trying to plant herself right in the middle of these two positions, she has really emphasized the "fighting" end of this spectrum more than the "bipartisan" end.  I think that Obama's campaign has the feel of "I'm a post-partisan uniter with the judgment to stand up to bad policies when I see them," whereas Clinton's campaign feels more like "I'm a fighter against the right and it's attack machine, but also have the judgment to court bipartisan support for good policies when I see them."

Incidentally, I agree with most of the original post on it's criticism of Obama reinforcing right wing memes.  That's why I was more of an Edwards guy at the beginning and took awhile to settle on Obama over Clinton.  I just don't think that the quote with which you led off the article was the best example of Obama doing this.  I think Obama's characterization of Clinton is pretty accurate on this point, even though I think that Obama should adopt more of Clinton's Republican-fighting ways.

[ Parent ]
"She started it!" (4.00 / 1)
Hillary slipped into this ultra-partisan frame in the 1990s in response to being demonized by the vast right-wing conspiracy and its collaborators in the main stream media. When Bill Clinton was fighting for his political life against the Gingrich-Delay hyper-partisans, it was useful to circle wagons with core party support from both party leadership and rank-and-file voters.

Neither Obama nor Clinton is going to change the way conservative Republicans in Cincinnati view Hillary. That segment of conservative activists and the voters they have hornswoggled would turn out in force in November to defeat the demon they believe Hillary Clinton to be, so that she and Bill would not return to the White House.

The polarization that Hillary's persona brings out is a major reason that many of us think she would be a disastrous candidate in November. This spirit of polarization was imposed on her unfairly, but it is a fact of electoral life for 2008.

It's practical politics for Obama to tell Hillary's enemies what they want to hear, for purposes of drawing a contrast. Few dedicated readers of conservative editorial pages are going to vote for any Democrat, but Obama's pointing out that he is "not-Hillary" (as Kerry was "not-Bush" in 2004) may help persuade some conservatives that he will be easier to deal with.  

[ Parent ]
I'm not sure where the idea of Hillary Clinton has some sort of super-left, ultra-partisan came from... (4.00 / 4)
It's likely that comes from her own language of being a fighter, and being the one who will fight for the people. she is the one that's distancing herself from triangulation. He is merely riffing off of that.  She's positioned herself, at least rhetorically, far to the left of her own beliefs for the primary.

Of course if you pay attention and you know that she's centrist and a triangulator in-chief.

That's not always a bad thing, but it is when you throw the most disadvantaged of us under the bus. Which of course Bill Clinton did in the 1990s.

"Of course if you pay attention" (0.00 / 0)
And, of course, people don't pay attention. Which is why polling used to show that Hillary was the most liberal and Edwards was the most conservative.

And I stronlgy agree with you and other commentors that Hillary has cast Herself as the fighting Dem, waging an unending war aginst the Republicans. She knows how they fight, she's fought 'em before, and she'll fight 'em again!
THAT is why people think she is divisive - and they are right.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
Changes (0.00 / 0)
I think Obama is reaching beyond labels and trying to bring out something deeper. He knows that all the factions are trying to accomplish many of the same goals and that they go about it in very different ways. Once you start lableing the people you are going to be working with you greatly decrease the chances of bringing them together. He is a uniter and I think he is on the right track. Hillary is a fighter which is the exact oppisite of a uniter. We have had many fighters and it is time for someting new.  
Obama subverts frames (4.00 / 2)
Obama's response to conservative frames is to accept them and use them to argue for progressive positions. The best example is Social Security where he used the idea that SS is in trouble to argue for expanding it. This is all part of the same cloth. We know Hillary is anything but unwilling to work with Republicans and Obama does too (note the 'unfair attacks' business). But by saying he's different, and attaching that belief to a deep Republican frame, if the Republicans refuse to work with him now it's their fault in the eyes of the frameholders.

I'm with Obama on this, because the country is chock-full of people who mostly hold liberal ideas but call themselves "moderates" or even "conservatives". If you remind these people that the liberal ideas they hold are not "conservative" they swing to more conservative positions. So the road forward to a progressive agenda is defusing the "conservative" vs. "liberal" dichotomy. Obama's tactic is basically to say "from a conservative point of view, we need such-and-such a policy" - for a liberal policy. It's a pretty deft strategy.

Whatever people say here, Obama's not going to abandon his subversion strategy. It's served him very well both at the Harvard Law Review, in the Illinois legislature, and in his campaign (by bringing in independents). He's even got an example of what happens to people who adopt a frame confrontation strategy - Edwards did, but in spite of a much stronger position in 2005 Edwards is now our and Obama is the likely nominee. Frame subversion works, in Obama's hands.

the raod to liberalism is through conservativism? (0.00 / 0)
the road to liberalism is by accepting a conservative frame and arguing for a liberal position from that frame? Hardly. If you accept your opponent's framing of the issue, then their policy is half to being accepted. Reinforcing conservative frames will not lead to more progressive policies.  
[ Parent ]
Are "accepting" and "subverting" the same thing? (0.00 / 0)
Or, maybe you don't believe that "frames" can be subverted?

The poster clearly spoke of Obama attempting to "subvert" the right wing frames, yet your response is all about Obama "accepting" and "reinforcing" the frames.  

Are these "frames" really that powerful?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Tactics =/= Strategy (4.00 / 1)
What's effective in subverting a frame tactically may only serve to reinforce it over the long run.

After all, the mere fact that you are using it serves to reinforce it (hence the title of Lakoff's book, Don't Think of An Elephant).

I'm all for subversion.  I'm a snarky guy.  But subversion alone is not enough.  Subversion is what you do on defense.  What we need is going on offense.

Obama's failure to go on offense, when he's better positioned to do this than any Democrat in 30+ years, is severely disappointing, to say the least.

"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 ]
Effective subservsion will eliminate the frame (4.00 / 1)
or allow it to be replaced by another - so in the "long term" those who might hope to "reinforce" it will have had the tables turned on them, no?

I suggest using the right wing frames in the same sense that the air force uses a bombing target.  I suppose you could say that the mere targeting of a site reinforces its value to the opponent, but if the intent is to destroy, or dismantle it - so what? I'm not saying its easy and I'm not saying that Obama is dedicated to this approach (although he MAY be)- but that's no reason to shrink from the task.

Perhaps, that's a minor point.  

I agree that subversion alone is not enough - neither is being a gifted orator - neither is being a dedicated policy wonk. This is a multi-faceted universe and the more multi-faceted our approach to understanding and manipulating it, the better the chance of success.  Its a tight-rope, though, because as Harry Nilsson once sang, "sometimes a point in all directions is like no point at all".

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Make Up Your Rationales As You Go Along (0.00 / 0)
It works for the wingnuts.  Why sholdn't it work for you, too?

Me, I'll stick with reality-based politics.  I know it makes me all divisive, old-fashioned, and such.  An enemy of the people.  That's okay.  I'm used to 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 ]
No skin off my nose (0.00 / 0)
"It works for the wingnuts.  Why sholdn't it work for you, too?"

Thanks for your vote of confidence.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
See my post above.... (4.00 / 2)
He appropriates and subverts conservative frames.  The right has done a really good job over the last 20+ years of making it seem like the left thinks that 'government can solve all of your problems' and that republicans, on the other hand, believe in 'personal responsibility,' 'family values,' entrepreneurship, a 'strong military,' etc.  What Obama is doing is basically saying: yes, personal responsibility is important, and the government has a role to play in making people more able to be responsible for themselves.  a strong military is important, and the best way to have a strong military is to give soldiers the right training, rest, and veterans benefits. etc.  these kind of rhetorical maneuvers are really prevalent in obama's speeches, particularly his more recent stump speeches.    

the thing is: most of the 'values' that the right supposedly stands for are, if understood properly, good values (maybe not the strong military... but that conversation is probably too unwieldy to have here).  they are values that people actually, believe in, at least to a certain extent.  so conceding them to the right is really bad strategy.  not only is it bad strategy, it also makes for inane political debates, where values that are, in reality, compatible, are set up against each other as if they were mutually exclusive.  i think this inane quality of political debate is what obama is actually talking about when he talks about 'changing the tone' or 'moving us past some of the debates of the 90s.'    

one last point:  much has been made of the 'obamacans' -- republicans who plan on voting for obama.  i think that this is an important phenomenon, but actually may be less important than another, related, phenomenon: obama's rhetoric may actually diminish republican turnout, and de-energize the right.  there is already some evidence for this, as john mccain's media advisor has vowed not to stay with the campaign if obama is our nominee.  republican voters more often than not vote against someone or something, just as much as they vote for someone or something.  if enough of them feel comfortable enough with obama, they just might not turnout to vote, or might not donate, or might not phonebank in november.  this is probably more important than the relatively small percentage of (former) republicans who might actually vote for obama over mccain.  

[ Parent ]
I'm not entirely disagreeing, but... (4.00 / 2)
If Obama has to say SS is in 'crisis' in order to build the political momentum to increase the cap - then who the hell cares that he said SS was in crisis? Because a)it will now be much longer before it approaches anything resembling a crisis thanks to the cap increase an b) more importantly he will have successfully pursued a progressive policy change.

As an added bonus, the ability for conservatives to continue to claim SS is in 'crisis' and needs to be privatized will be greatly reduced following a raise in the cap.

This is just one issue - but it would be interesting to see what other issues could be approached in such a way.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
That raising of the SS cap... (4.00 / 1)
...will be used to pay for more tax cuts.

This is what happens when you buy into RW frames.

You advance RW policy.

[ Parent ]
Well.... (4.00 / 1)
Tax cuts for the lower-middle class in exchange for a tax increase on the upper-middle class seems like the definition of progressive taxation.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
Stupid comment (0.00 / 0)
If you want government services, you have to pay for them. That is, or should be, a basic progressive position. That is the decision that has been made in Europe and Canada.

In this country, ever since Prop 13, government services have been starved of money because people have been led to believe that they shouldn't have to pay for them.

Your idiotic comment is just more of the same RW frame.

Well the China and Saudi central banks have a different idea, and they're going to be ringing your doorbell real soon.

[ Parent ]
Your momma's stupid! (0.00 / 0)
But seriously, SS is (supposed to be) a separate budget. So, looking as SS as an independent program, how does one make it more progressive? I would argue we should SHIFT the window of taxation up, exempting lower income earners and including higher income earners. That IS progressive taxation. Or, we could just expand the cap. Or, we could create a window between $100k and $200k, and tax all income over $200k. Any of these methods is preferable to the current regime, which basically ensures that the rich pay far less than the poor and middle class.

I am clearly missing something about your argument, so feel free to clarify and also to call me stupid again.
 

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
Apologies for the ad hominem comment (0.00 / 0)
As for the rest of it, either you choose to understand the argument re frames or not.  It's your choice.  
[ Parent ]
What I don't get (0.00 / 0)
I don't get how using a right-wing frame against the right wing, and in the process invalidating that frame, is a bad thing. More importantly - it is an effective strategy.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
Also... (0.00 / 0)
Prop 13? What? As a Californian I assume you mean the property tax limits?
Just another idiotic comment from your local jackass.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
Well there's the problem (0.00 / 0)
"If you accept your opponent's framing of the issue, then their policy is half to being accepted. Reinforcing conservative frames will not lead to more progressive policies."

This is a good post in many respects, but I think it starts from the wrong place.

Your initial premise, it seems to me, is that when people reinforce conservative framing they are not progressive.  So: "given that accepting framing puts your opponent halfway to getting their policy, I dislike Obama's approach."

But do we have any proof of that premise?  Obama's argument (well explained by the poster here) seems to be that framing is not set in stone.  In fact, it's not only possible to re-appropriate those terms, it's essential in many instances.  

Unfortunately, it seems like you're trying to frame it as an argument about whether Obama is following the one and only progressive path.  If it looks like he "reinforces" conservative frames he must, therefore, not be the truly progressive leader.

Now, that might be true.  But I think it would be far more useful to frame this less as a "gotcha" about whether he's truly progressive and more as a debate about whether the progressive strategy he has chosen will bear any fruit.

It may be a subtle difference, but I think it very effectively answers your question about why Obama would differentiate himself and Clinton in this way.  He is clearly saying that her progressive strategy is to throw punches while his is to win friends and converts.  Those are gross generalizations of course, and both would be far closer to each other than that implies, but it is a meaningful difference.

[ Parent ]
You've Misunderstood The Argument (0.00 / 0)
Your initial premise, it seems to me, is that when people reinforce conservative framing they are not progressive.  So: "given that accepting framing puts your opponent halfway to getting their policy, I dislike Obama's approach."

Whether Obama's a progressive or not is not the point.  The point is that using conservative frames serves to reinforce them, regardless of what his intention may be.  

But do we have any proof of that premise?

There is, like decades of empirical research supporting this point.  How things are presented strongly impacts how they are seen and acted on.  This has been shown in multiple ways at multiple levels.

While it's possible to reclaim some low- or mid-level frames, this can only be done by reasserting more fundamental frames that serve to define the larger context that surrounds those other frames.  But Obama has been particularly weak on the big context frames.

"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 ]
Cites please? (0.00 / 0)
Can we move this beyond "I say"/"you say?"  I'd love to see some of this research which so unequivocally declares the strategy of appropriation to be an abject failure.  To be clear, I'm not accusing you of inventing it - I would just honestly like a quick list of places I might go to get some more information on this.

Beyond that, I guess I simply disagree that Obama does "reassert more fundamental frames that serve to define the larger context that surrounds those other frames."  The entire premise of his campaign is that there is a driving force in America that transcends easy categorization - a dream that America will live up to its promise.  And his entire strategy is to emphasize the ways we are similar and suggest that the logical conclusion for the values that hold us together is a progressive agenda.

This is, in my opinion, precisely what you are describing.

Just a few examples from that famous Convention speech.  There are countless more like this.  

"My parents shared not only an improbable love; they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation. They would give me an African name, Barack, or "blessed," believing that in a tolerant America, your name is no barrier to success.

They imagined me going to the best schools in the land, even though they weren't rich, because in a generous America you don't have to be rich to achieve your potential."

...

"People don't expect -- people don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a slight change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better. And they want that choice."

...

"John Kerry believes in America. And he knows that it's not enough for just some of us to prosper. For alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga, a belief that we are all connected as one people.

If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child.

If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for their prescription and having to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandparent.

If there's an Arab-American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties.

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

[ Parent ]
So Many Different Arguments Here, You Can't Keep Them Striaght Without A Scorecard! (0.00 / 0)
(1) Obama's convention speech is not the same as his behavior in the Senate, nor is it the same as his method on the campaign trail.  Blurring them all together into one big glorious lump may make one feel all warm and gooey inside, but is not much of a recipe for producing insight or facilitating critical thinking.

(2)

I'd love to see some of this research which so unequivocally declares the strategy of appropriation to be an abject failure.

That's not exactly what I said.  There are multiple possible ways of devising a "strategy of appropriation," some of which I am enthusiastically in favor of.  Rather, the argument was about something quite a bit more specific than that--reinforcing frames by repeating them.  And for that, you can start with Don't Think of An Elephant.


"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 ]
Do You Have ANY Evidence Whatsoever To Support This??? (0.00 / 0)
I'm with Obama on this, because the country is chock-full of people who mostly hold liberal ideas but call themselves "moderates" or even "conservatives". If you remind these people that the liberal ideas they hold are not "conservative" they swing to more conservative positions.

This sounds like pure Versailles CW to me.  The sort of stuff that Friedman gets from talking to cabbies--who, of course, are experts at sussing out what their fares want to hear.

So the road forward to a progressive agenda is defusing the "conservative" vs. "liberal" dichotomy. Obama's tactic is basically to say "from a conservative point of view, we need such-and-such a policy" - for a liberal policy. It's a pretty deft strategy.

It's a deft tactic if you're in a tight spot and fighting for your life.  But that's not where we are. It's 2008, not 2002.  Obama needs to wake up and smell the fair-trade coffee.  

Its long-term impact is that it further erodes liberalism as a brand, and fails to build liberal frames.  Thus, it's a self-defeating long-term strategy.  And where we are right now--heading toward a realigning election--is all about long-term strategy.

"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 ]
How about: (0.00 / 0)
"ending the politics of fear"

"a goal of zero nuclear weapons"

"leading the world on responding to global warming"

to name a few.

the idea that a candidate can't subvert and appropriate (the latter being more important than the former, of course) conservative frames at the same time as s/he puts ideas on the table that had previously been verboten is fallacious.  the two go hand in hand -- they both are crucial if we are actually going to generate a political realignment (both in terms of voter-identification and in terms of institutional/structural formations).  

 

[ Parent ]
Those AREN'T Conservative Frames (0.00 / 0)
"politics of fear" is not a conservative frame.

"nuclear weapons" is not a conservative frame.

"global warming" is not a conservative frame.

All of which leads me to wonder if you have any idea what we're talking about.


"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 ]
I know. I'm saying that he is not just... (0.00 / 0)
playing defense.  Which should be pretty obvious from my follow-up graph about how these things aren't mutually exclusive.  Sheesh.  
[ Parent ]
Ronald Reagan And George Schultz Wanted To Get Rid of Nuclear Weapons (0.00 / 0)
so your definition of progressive is more than a bit dubious.

"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 ]
The study of realigning elections doesn't lend much support to that claim (0.00 / 0)
I have yet to see any proof that the subversion strategy on position issues has much if any role in producing realignment.  The study of electoral realignments, I believe, suggests that valence issues like the economy are the driving force in every significant realignment.

Given that, I don't see much harm in a strategy which aims to neutralize the ebbs and flows of electoral opinion while making every effort to build a strong and clear division on the major governance issues.

Another element of realignment studies suggests that such things are firmly rear-wheel-drive affairs.  They build a wave which pushes a whole host of issues into the forefront and build majorities to implement them.  In fact, that is precisely what we have seen.  On a whole host of issues, a Democratic wave has built and Obama may very well be the point at the tip of the spear.  But if a realignment is in store, it emerges organically, and is emphatically not at risk based on the mode of speech employed by a candidate.

One final thought from the study of realignments.  They are far, far more rare than commonly accepted.  The only certain case is 1932.  A very strong case can be made for 1860.  But apart from these two extreme cases (civil war and the worst depression in US history), there is little to support the premise.

Indeed, the true function of "realignment theory" is as a historical narrative.  Looking back we declare X to be a turning point and ignore all data points to the contrary.  

This is not to say that we should not be focusing on building a strong progressive coalition, nor is it to say that the premise of 2008 as a realigning election is entirely fanciful.  But it is to lend a cautionary note against demanding too much.  If this election produces Democratic control of the executive and legislative and a perceived popular mandate for a broad expansion of health care and a return to a foreign policy of leadership rather than unilateralism, it will be a tremendous victory.

[ Parent ]
Three Points Of Disagreement (0.00 / 0)
First, you seem to be garbling my argument about what Obama is doing.  Second, we disagree about realigning elections.  Third, we disagree about the significance of wasting rare political opportunities.

Other than that, we're in perfect agreement.

(1)

I have yet to see any proof that the subversion strategy on position issues has much if any role in producing realignment.

I wasn't making any sort of argument about "the subversion strategy on position issues," whatever that might mean.

(2)

One final thought from the study of realignments.  They are far, far more rare than commonly accepted.  The only certain case is 1932.  A very strong case can be made for 1860.  But apart from these two extreme cases (civil war and the worst depression in US history), there is little to support the premise.

Some folks even argue there are none at all.  But I take the view that the transitions between party systems are indicative of fundamental shifts, and that elections associated with these transitions can be characterized fairly simply in terms of what sets them apart--two consecurtive House wave elections favoring the formerly sub-dominant party, accompanied by a decisive presidential victory. The only true realigning election that breaks with this pattern is 1800, which inverted the initial dominance of the Federalists--and here it can be argued that the party system was not fully formed in 1796.  The only transition that breaks with this pattern is 1968, which brought us into the only party system dominanted by divided government.

This is much cruder than most of the academic argumentation, but in my view it's properly calibrated to the nature of the phenomena.  And I generally subscribe to Burnham's view that these transitions come about because the existing party system can't solve emerging problems anymore.

(3) Leading figures and their political choices matter, not because they play a causative role, but because they facilitate certain modalities of response as opposed to others.  This is all the more true during the initial period of a party system era.  That's why Obama's choices matter.  The modest hopes you hold forth are nowhere near what we should be pressing for, however "realistic" that approach may seem.

The advent of new party systems are precisely the times when what is "realistic" is most in flux.

"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 ]
On those issues (0.00 / 0)
(1) is precisely what your argument is about.  I'm suggesting that the study of electoral realignments suggests that how people speak about the general positions they support or oppose has very little effect.  Realignments are driven almost entirely by whether the electorate thinks one party is substantially more trustworthy on high priority valence issues like war and the economy.  In short, realignments are far more backlashes against ineffective parties than they are an endorsement of a far-reaching narrative.

(2) is perfectly reasonable.

(3) we can just agree to disagree about.  Or, more accurately, I'm perfectly willing to accept that a candidate has a role to play in developing a narrative.  But I find little reason to believe that his forays into "conservative frame" territory do anything to overwhelm his positive effect in creating a framework for disaffected "conservatives" to discover how much they agree with progressives about.

BTW, thanks for a very pleasant argument. I gave up on posting for a long time after endless frustration at MyDD.  It's nice to rediscover what it's like to argue with passion but without rancor.
 

[ Parent ]
Refining The Point (0.00 / 0)
Looking at (1) and (3) together, what it comes down to is impact of narratives, which we both (I take it) agree is heightened at some times--and this is likely to be one of them.  To reiterate a point I made before--but apparently not clearly enough--I am not arguing that this will cause or undo a realignment, but it can affect the modality of how one is expressed.  My concern is that this can have profound impacts over how successful it is.

There is also the additional factor that this time around we face a unique situation because of a confluence of relatively novel factors--as I discussed over a series of post last week, parts 1-4 of "Three Waves and A Wall: 2008 And The American Future".  I believe that the additional constraints I discuss in this set of diaries serves to magnify the potential impact of narrative choices.  

"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 ]
Great post (0.00 / 0)
Um, Chris, didn't you (as well as Kos) just (0.00 / 0)
have a vote earlier this week and pretty much try to convince the readers of this blog to put Obama atop a slate of progressive candidates?

I agree with you 100% on this post, but if you are asking why there are so many people who falsely believe that Obama is a progressive leader, shouldn't you start by looking in the mirror?

I don't think these criticisms are incompatible with the endorsement idea (4.00 / 1)
I don't think that Chris has ever had any illusions that Obama is the perfect progressive leader. Both he and Matt Stoller have offered a great deal of substantive criticism of Obama right here on this blog.

That doesn't change the fact that they consider him the superior progressive leader to Clinton; it simply goes to show that the best progressive leader that can emerge from a presidential primary is always going to be deeply flawed. One solution to the problem is to do exactly what Bowers does here; support the best progressives around (including suggesting formal endorsements of imperfect candidates when they are the best available within their field of competition) and critique their shortcomings as part of the larger attempt to pull our leaders towards greater progressivism.

In fact, in this very post, Chris points out that his support for Obama is a sort of informed bet that he will prove more progressive that Clinton and is not reflective of a belief that he's the ideal progressive.

[ Parent ]
ugh (0.00 / 0)
I'm an Obama supporter, but this makes me cringe:

In that same interview quote above, Obama refered to "anti-military 70s love-in" as an example of something that he is not. And there are many more example of Obama reinforcing conservative talking points, and strawmen, too.

Everybody got all hot and bothered cause of those ambiguous remarks he made about Reagan, but what pissed me off was the "excesses of the sixties and seventies". I still want to know what were those "excesses" that Reagan brought us back from? The Civil Rights movement? Environmentalism? anti-war movement? the ERA?

That said, the Clinton campaign is hard-selling the idea that Obama supporters are elitists. Tom Vilsack (whose state went to Obama by how many points?) was on Ed Schultz the other day and his buzzword was "the Coasts". Those decadent coastal elites are for Obama, but Real AMmericans, in the "heartland", support Hillary Clinton. Coastal places like Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, Illinois and.... Colorado. Pissed me right off to hear Democrats singing from the Andy Sullivan/al Foxeera/Newt Gingrich hymnal.

and... (0.00 / 0)
The Clintons are still sending that idiot Machinists Union blowhard, Archie Bunkerbuffer, to smear Obama supporters as latte-sippin' Prius-drivin' DFHs.

That's helpful to the party... how?  

[ Parent ]
My interpretation (0.00 / 0)
I understood Obama to be saying that Reagan was a response to people's perception of excesses in the 60's and 70's. He is not saying that HE supported Reagan because HE had a problem with these 'excesses'. But, much of society thought the rapid changes of that era were unwelcome or, at least, overwhelming. I think this is what he was referring to.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
And The Fact That You Have To INTERPRET What He Said (4.00 / 1)
is proof that he, too, is the "Great Communicator" of his age, don'cha know!

"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 ]
Didn't Reagan use "code words" (0.00 / 0)
that required "interpretation" by his base?

But beyond that - EVERY statement by ANYONE must be interpreted by the listener.  That's where projection comes in and that's where the MSM gets their power - they get to interpret the utterances of our political oracles for the masses.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
I Have This Eerie Feeling... (0.00 / 0)
that you think you're refuting me, when you're actually making my case.

"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 ]
Isn't it clear (0.00 / 0)
that he is just trying to win some republican votes in Texas? He will be liberal as hell once he is in office. When judging how progressive a candidate is you can't listen to what they say during a campaign, because they are going to say what they need to to win. If you want to know how they will govern, just look at their voting record. Come on, of course someone who is trying to win independent votes in going to boast about how they are the most bi-partisan. It's the only logical thing to do. When all is said and done, he'll be a very liberal president. Al Gore proclaimed he was moderate during the 2000 election, but look how liberal he turned out to be.
sure (0.00 / 0)
I get what he's doing, I just wish he would find a better way of doing it
[ Parent ]
Really? (0.00 / 0)
I think he has found a way of doing this that is profoundly effective. In fact, it is downright shocking how successful he has been in wooing moderates and conservatives. Perhaps even historically unprecedented on the left.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
historically unprecedented (0.00 / 0)
there was a Democratic president in the 1990s named Bill and his wife named Hillary, and I believe she is running for president. Both have been attacked by some on the left for triangulation - NAFTA, welfare reform etc.
[ Parent ]
I was arguing... (0.00 / 0)
That Obama has found an amazing way to woo moderates and conservatives. Bill Clinton found an unimpressive way to woo moderates - by becoming a moderate. Well, except for all of those moderates that voted for Perot.


"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
you need to define wooing moderates and conservatives (0.00 / 0)
or give examples of that. are you talking something he's done in the Senate or just the votes he has received so far in the primaries?  
[ Parent ]
I'm talking about the primary vote (0.00 / 0)
Which, of course, is not the GE vote. But so far he has been pretty amazing in his ability to bring out new voters and bring over independent/right-leaning voters. And I don't base this just on voting patterns, but also on (anecdotal) personal experience talking to people about this campaign.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
bringing out new voters and independents (4.00 / 1)
how does that translate into governing with a liberal/progressive agenda? many people here have said that reaching out across the aisle will only be effective if there are 60 Dems in the Senate. i just can't see these same new voters or right-leaning voters throwing out their Republican Senator in the process. in fact, aren't the right-leaning voters going to demand a more right-leaning agenda?

it's kind of sad really for progressives to need a super majority to accomplish anything. after the 2006 midterms, 70% of the country were against the war in Iraq, and the Democrats won both chambers albeit by slim margins, and we still got the frigging surge.  

[ Parent ]
To answer your question... (0.00 / 0)
"bringing out new voters and independents how does that translate into governing with a liberal/progressive agenda?"

It means winning the presidency, which is a necessary pre-condition for "governing with a liberal/progressive agenda". =)

[ Parent ]
It is a given that a Democratic president will govern (4.00 / 1)
with a liberal/progressive agenda, whether that's Edwards, Clinton or Obama. This entire thread is about how playing to conservative stereotypes about liberals will mean to that agenda.

This is from Chris: "While that may be playing to win, it is not playing to transform the discursive and ideological landscape of American politics. In my experience, it is actually pretty much the same old politics."  

[ Parent ]
About the right-leaning voters (0.00 / 0)
Are they demanding a right-leaning agenda? Seems to be they are voting for a guy running on government intervention in healthcare, an end the the Iraq war, fighting global warming, repealing Bush's tax cuts, and so on.

I am very interested to see how Obama frames downticket races once the GE heats up. He needs to make a big push to concinvce people that we need more liberals in Congress to get these things done. If he can get these Republican turncoats to vote Dem up AND down ticket, then he will really be on to something.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
Are they demanding a right-leaning agenda? (0.00 / 0)
you are assuming that they are voting for those progressive ideals. doubtful. they are right-leaning, therefore they are seeing him as someone more bipartisan, more likely to accept their ideas, more tax cuts, limited government, pro Iraq war.

if they supported those progressive ideas, UHC, repealing tax cuts, etc., they wouldn't be right leaning by definition. i guess if we see UHC, ending Iraq war, fighting global warming as just mainstream, then that's a great thing.

[ Parent ]
"He will be liberal as hell once he is in office" (4.00 / 1)

Now that's the audacity of hope. Don't worry about what he says on the campaign trail, we know he's a secret liberal.  John Edwards wasn't a true progressive, it was just a campaign rhetoric when his entire Senate record and 2004 campaign were centrist.

If we are to believe this story, maybe Obama is just Forrest Gump, right place at the right time. His entire Illinois record was established in one year, with a lot of help.


[ Parent ]
Oppose the Iraq war from the start (0.00 / 0)
This is a great Obama virtue, and one of Chris' criteria for choosing his VP, (picking the drapes a tad early, it's almost over but we've seen wide open receives or running backs fumble at the goal line with no one around). We all know that Obama gave that speech in 2002. But what how would he have voted if he were in the Senate in 2002? If you look at Senate Democrats who voted against the resolution, not a single one ran for president in 2004 or 2008. Those with presidential ambitions apparently calculated that they needed to vote for the resolution to show that a Dem is not a wuss on national defense (even if Iraq was the wrong war). Obama's virtue is that he wasn't there in the Senate.
[ Parent ]
Just one (0.00 / 0)
not a single one ran for president in 2004

Bob Graham, though his campaign lasted about an hour and a half
[ Parent ]
thanks, i knew i could be wrong on such a definitive (0.00 / 0)
statement. here is the list.
[ Parent ]
Graham's campaign implosion had nothing to do with Iraq... (0.00 / 0)
...and everything to do with the fact that he kept diaries filled with every minutiae of his day-to-day life.

What is even weirder, he shared it with a reporter.

Otherwise, on paper, a formidable candidate.

[ Parent ]
a sound and bright guy (0.00 / 0)
it's a shame that diary got so much attention. Since he left office, he's been pretty quiet, but when he speaks, I've been impressed. But yeah, he was simply a poor candidate.

I wish he hadn't retired from the Senate..

[ Parent ]
the point wasn't that Graham failed because of Iraq (0.00 / 0)
John Kerry won the nomination despite voting for the authorization. Dodd, Biden, Edwards, many of them voted for it. I'm saying that "opposing the Iraq war from the start" is no Holy Grail.  
[ Parent ]
This is what every president basically runs as... (0.00 / 0)
The Democrat runs as a "center-left" moderate and the Republican runs as a "center-right" moderate.  The divisions become increasingly clear typically only after they reach office.

Even in 2000, I remember friends telling me that while they wanted Gore to win, Bush probably wouldn't be that bad because he was a "moderate".  That turned out well. John McCain is known as a maverick "moderate", and Obama knows that he can't get labeled as a "far-left liberal", hence his pandering to these conservative outlets.

I think it's just the reality of the situation.  It's not clear to me at all that someone proclaiming to be a "proud liberal" can win the presidency.  The term has been too effectively demonized.  Even though I don't think the country is actually as "conservative" as people assume, people seem to fear a "proud liberal" moreso than a "proud conservative".

In other words, McCain can run as a "Proud Conservative", but with moderate inclinations, but Obama probably can't run as a "Proud Liberal" with moderate inclinations, hence his answer to the "liberal" question... Clinton couldn't, and wouldn't, either.  I haven't heard Clinton say that she stands up for "liberal" values... if anything, it's about "American" values... and that's what any of the Democrats will probably have to do.

[ Parent ]
IMHO (0.00 / 0)
Obama will be a huge disappointment to the Obamabots who consider him a Progressive.
But they'll never admit it.
Just as Bushies didn't - even as Bush continued destroying the country.
I love it. (0.00 / 0)
He hasn't even won the primary, and we are making analogies with a second term lame-duck president.    
[ Parent ]
Grown ups (0.00 / 0)
Whover the next president is, he or she will make compromises and say and do things that disappoint supporters and partisans. Understanding that politicians are imperfect, that no candidate is always going to please everyone, is part of being a grown up with regard to politics.

But by all means, if name-calling and insulting people who support Democratic Centrist B instead of Democratic Centrist A makes you feel better about the disastrous campaign Democratic Centrist A has run, go right ahead. It makes huge advances toward undoing the things that have been "destroying this country" for the last seven years.

[ Parent ]
This is why I am leery when Obama (0.00 / 0)
loudly declares himself to be qualitatively different than anyone who has come before, and dares people to have the hope to believe that he can change washington to the point that we can't recognize it.

He won't be able to, and all these new activists will see this as just another campaign, and this will breed apathy and cynicism, just as it did when Bill Clinton played this same game.

[ Parent ]
And the alternative would be? (0.00 / 0)
Obama is actually pretty up-front about this: he often says that we need to hold him accountable.  He basically gets that he will be constrained in various ways (and, I will concede, there is also no way to be sure that he isn't actually more conservative than a lot of us).  

But what do you want him to do: say "vote for me, I'm the lesser of two evils"?  

[ Parent ]
The alternative is not saying wrong things (0.00 / 0)
He can talk about issues that he will work toward, or even his style of governance, without pretending that the state will wither away upon his election.  
[ Parent ]
Two sides (0.00 / 0)
I'm a strong believer that if you list someone's greatest strengths and greatest weaknesses you end up with two very similar lists, just worded differently.  For example, some people are 'flexible' and 'indecisive'.

One of Obama's great strengths is the ability to talk to people in their own language, from their own reference points and their own frame.  Starting from their prospective he is able to talk them threw the issues and convince them his way is correct.  That is a great and useful gift and should not be confused with pandering.

But there is a side effect, particularly on a national stage; he often reinforces conservative frames simply by using them.  Almost every liberal commentator has pointed this out from time to time.

There was a fun article in Slate a while back looking at the various candidate's personality types.  According to this article, Obama is an ENFP.  (As an INFP personally, I approve 75%!)  For those that don't know, the 'N' stands for iNtuitive, which is relatively rare -- only a  bit over a quarter of the population is intuitive as apposed to Sensing.  

According to the article linked above and the questions that followed, no president (except, perhaps, Lincoln) has every been an intuitive type.  You see it all the time in science, programming (NTs) and the arts (NFs), but rarely in politics.  It will surprise no one that those in politics who are intuitive are not actual politicians, but leaders of movements; both Gandhi and Dr. King qualify.

I believe what we are witnessing, and why it is so hard to judge at times, is something that is honestly different than what we are used to or have seen before.  That makes Obama confusing and, as nearly everyone has stated at one point or another, a high-risk/high-reward candidate.

Right Wing Talking Points (0.00 / 0)
Just in case there is any confusion about who pushes right wing talking points the hardest: And yes, I understand the comments on Obama stand on their own. I just don't want the remaining Clinton supporters to think this somehow is evidence to vote for Clinton instead.
Obama Talks To Editorial Boards | 100 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox