Congratulations to Barack Obama, and to the USA:
Even those of us who don't share his political views can revel for the moment in his historic achievement, and in the dramatic, positive changes in American society that opened his path to the nomination.
According to the Washington Post, his team looked at the rules of the Democratic party and maximized his delegate count by making sure that he got a lot of delegates from states that normally had no say in the process. While this seems simple enough, the Clinton campaign was caught off guard and before you could say "Mark Penn", Senator Obama had the majority of regular delegates.
In addition, this same team raised a record amount of money from a record number of donors, many of whom had never donated before to any party and would often give money in small aliquots rather than the usual single amount.
Senator Clinton was the annointed of the party in 2006 and had been running for the office since her husband left the White House. She was a prohibitive favorite. Everyone else assumed they were running for VP (with he possible exception of Mr. Edwards) but Senator Obama's team decided that there was an opportunity to win and took it. It was a bold move that worked and even after the strategy was revealed post Iowa, the Clinton campaign failed to adapt. They decided to stick to the script that had been written in 1992 and ran out of money instead.
Senator Clinton made an impressive showing in the second half of the primary, but by then she had spent a lot of political capital and alienated a lot of important people while Senator Obama made the decision to remain above the fray and let others talk for him. Ironically this was the tactic Senator Kerry used and lost with four years ago, but it seems that politics has changed quite a bit since then.
Barak Obama is a glaring example as to the lack of true "colorblindness" within our nation. Instead of being judged as a man, a leader, and a politician, he has been nominated because "isn't it about time we have a black president." That is a failing not a historical achievement. MLK Jr. had a dream that men were judged "by the content of their character, and not the color of their skin," and we have done just the opposite.
Mikeyes: "Ironically this was the tactic Senator Kerry used and lost with four years ago, but it seems that politics has changed quite a bit since then."
Actually, I doubt politics has changed. That tactic is just more effective in a intra-party nomination contest, which intrinsically has a less-divided electorate, and where there is a strong disincentive for the more extreme forms of negative campaigning.
.
Those aren't mutually exclusive. BTW, I agree with your take on the elevation of Obama being a rather frightening reflection of the character and ability of the public.
But allow me to take another tack and quote from here:
I will give you some credit if you are in the business of condemning and fighting the overt and quiet anti-black racism that persists in this country, but I suspect you will deny that it exists, or claim it's so trivial as not to make any difference, and start complaining about consideration of race only when it is used for the benefit of disadvantaged racial groups. If you choose this route, I will leave drawing a conclusion about your character as an exercise for the reader.
Now, of course, we can end affirmative action.
As an aside, this
http://www.lawmbg.com/index.cfm/PageID/2674
has been Senator Obama's law firm. I don't know about you, but if I had been President of the Harvard Law Review, I would have chosen a different firm.
That was how the cultured classes regarded the nomination of Lincoln in 1860.
Of course, on this blog, there are probably some commenters who still think those cultured classes were right.
Thanks for the classy post, DB.
And I wonder what Shirley Chishom would be thinking were she still alive. You younger commenters can look her up.
That was an argument against the Electoral College, not an argument that Gore was the real winner.
The argument for Gore's being the real winner had to do with the award of Florida's electoral votes, not with the national popular vote.
Personally, I favor abolishing the College and going to a direct popular vote, but that is not going to happen while the small states have two senators like the large states -- i.e., never.
Sorry -- I ain't a lawyer, and I don't know one law firm from the next, so maybe you can help me out with the point you're trying to make here. Why would you have chosen a different firm? And what does that say about Obama? (And what does it say about you?) Please, be explicit.
.
They thought he was the political equivalent of a carnival barker? That his moral character and choice of association (with racists) was questionable?
.
I do see, and accept that a substantial fraction of the US thinks Obama is what Obama says he is - more power to them. But I think those people are the equivalent of carnival marks, they're being had.
Inapt. Many among the putatively cultured classes applaud and laud BHO.
I think layedback is almost certainly wrong in his/her assessment of Obama's acheivement, but we won't know for sure unless/until he runs for and wins another high profile office--like Governor of Illinois.
I concur with the majority that Obama's victory is special.
While I disagree with almost all of his political positions, I admire and respect him and his wife for their strong family and the amount that they have both achieved.
(A) Those making the comparisons see Obama as being another Lincoln;
or
(B) Those making the comparisons have to go back to the mid-19th Century to find a potentially-electable nominee of a major party who had so little relevant experience?
And try to make facile comparisons between him and Abraham Lincoln.
You are correct. I find it stunning that he defeated Klintoon Inc. with nothing more than a remake of the Bob the Builder theme song.
If he loses because the 20% of West Virginians and Kentuckians who listed race as a "very important" factor in their decision to vote for Clinton turns out to be a national voting bloc, that criticism will be well justified.
Not everyone goes to law school for the purposes of joining BigLaw.
Lincoln had a full measure of gravitas and was excoriated in his day; Obama channels and surfs the zeitgeist of a perduringly low populism cum elitism, and receives gushing approval. Lincoln faced up to the most difficult challenge of his day, of his century; BHO talks about talking and empathizes with those needful of being "understood".
Shouldn't have napped while Obama was building grassroots in those caucus states....
Not being racist is easy. Cheap, even. In fact, it's so easy, there's hardly any virtue in it. The only way to get some self-backpatting creds is to accuse the maximum number of your fellow citizens of racism so you can be in the minority (minorities are always right) with the highly-developed moral sense, not like all those knuckle-draggers out there.
It's been done. In fact, it's been done so often it doesn't fool anybody any longer.
Joe Biden?
"Inspiring"? Try dishonest and revolting. He's learned the manipulator's and power-luster's trick of reflecting back what he thinks his audience wants to hear? He's been described as a protean figure, and describes himself as a Rorschach test. Those who trust him are being completely duped.
Let me put it a different way. The 2000 election was a mess because the vote was close in Florida and Florida was the kingmaker. Imagine that we used the national popular vote and then the popular vote turned out nearly tied.
We would have a repeat of Florida2000 in every single state.
In the words of Marcus Aurelius, "F* that."
.
That one really cracks me up. I'll give that he's "slick" and "says nice things," and that he's got charisma.
.
But as good entertaining orators go, he's about average. There's a significant number of actors, entertainers and lesser politicians with equal or better delivery.
...so he's like any other politician?
.
The electoral college might be seen as more fair, depending on which interests are meant to be given greater weight in representation. The founders were wisely wary of popular public sentiment.
.
And won't it be interesting if and when a presidential election is thrown to the House for a decision!
And, most unfortunately, those of us who choose not to vote for him because, in our view, he is far too much to the left, willing to emasculate our Second Amendment rights, willing to emasculate our national defense, willing to nominate judges who will ignore the text of the Constitution and the text of statutes whenever convenient in order to achieve their personal views of "social justice", and far too willing to follow "big government" solutions to problems like iol prices and health care costs (which I perceive as disastrous for the Country), will likely be painted with the same broad brush of "racist" as those Kentucky and West Virginia hillbillies who have vowed never to vote for a "nigra" for president, even one with an Ivy League education.
Classy post.
OTOH, I'm continually amazed by the pettiness and mean-spiritedness of many of the participants in comments section... These comments say far more about your (lack of) character than what you are trying to say about Obama.
For those of you who think it is absolutely no big deal that a major party nominated its first black nominee, it's obvious you really have no black friends or family.
It's one thing to disagree with Obama on policy... go at it, bash his policies if you think they are not in America's best interest, but damn, show the man a little bit of respect.
*this also holds true of anyone who uses Shillary, Hitlery, McPain, McAmnesty or any other derogatory phrasing common to 4th graders on playgrounds.*
.
What if he wins because blacks listing race as a "very important" factor in their decision to vote for Obama turns out to be a national voting bloc?
.
The "race door" swings both ways, yes it does. Unfortunately.
sarc?
What it looks as if you mean, if not sarc, is that we will go ahead and institute policies based on lunatic racist dogma--Trinity et al--and nobody will be allowed to complain about it.
Or it means nobody will be paying attention to those nutcases, which is good, except the president, which is bad.
Already have -- Thomas Jefferson.
I haven't decided between Obama and McCain yet, since I've liked McCain in the past but am disturbed by his more recent gravitation towards the far-right of his party. Presumably McCain is giving them some degree of lip service in order to keep those voters motivated and gain financial support. I worry, though--am I being "duped" if I trust that he's still reasonably moderate and independent-minded?
Unfortunately, with the 2 party system so beholden to extremes on both sides, the odds of getting a good centrist candidate I'd prefer seem low. It's too bad.
As counted by who?
The national press has reported a popular vote for every election, but there's nothing official about that number. In spite of "count every vote," that's expensive. If you know who the winner is with enough of a degree of accuracy, you don't really bother for precision down to a single vote.
.
It could be a reflection of how his personal honesty, integrity and consistency is perceived.
.
And/or it could be a general characterization of Democrats and leftists in the "duping the constituents" camp, on the basis that forming a collective and pushing more control up to a centralized government is NOT good for society or the individual.
.
Obama is really good at selling the collectivist vision.
A large number of people do or did recently believe that Obama was very moderate politically. Another large group believes that he transcends politics as we know it, or that he is a different sort of creature from all of the other politicians.
I would say, though, that the number of people in the "duped" category is shrinking.
B. Hussein O. to you.
If you were more serious about "intellectually honest" positions you'd actually forward something in that vein. You didn't. To the contrary, you positively avoided doing so, opting instead for yet more boo hoo populism.
Ask yourself: OTHER THAN his oratorical talents, what evidence is there to believe Obama would be even a competent president, let alone the "transformative" leader his supporters are expecting?
Does he have any executive experience?
Is he an expert in some area of government or public affairs?
Has he shown exemplary good judgment in his personal and public life thus far?
Are his positions in the area of foreign policy -- such as his apparent willingness to abrogate treaty obligations, his perception that Iran is not a serious threat to U.S. interests, and his willingness to meet face to face with anti-American thugs and dictators -- likely to enhance our national security interests?
Is his domestic program notably different from the failed liberal, big-government policies of the past?
With all due respect to the junior senator from Illinois, I don't see how he brings anything to the table other than a non-traditional ethnic background (big whoop) and the ability to deliver a good speech. Anyone who is expecting great things from him based simply on those two attributes -- and that's all there is, as far as I can see -- is indeed being duped.
That's not what we think. That's stupid.
We (the younger ones especially) have been raised in a climate of intense culture war where political opponents are not fellow countrymen with disagreements - they are enemies to be beaten. Obama's promise not to provide intellectual disagreement without demonizing the other side resonates strongly with me.
Take this quote from his speech the other night:
So much for the people in those states having a vote for president.
For the record, Republicans are not the solution to big government. They are, in fact, in recent years the party of big government. Bush has given us the biggest, most expensive, and most powerful Federal government in US history. And McCain would be more of the same. America simply cannot afford the cost of another Republican in the White House. Vote libertarian! Or vote for Obama. But do something to change the path we've been going down.
The inclusion of his middle name in every reference is not an honest argument against his policies. If you don't think the US should sit down with Iran, then say so. But the attack on a man whose middle name derives from a religion that he doesn't even practice (and who cares if he does?) is what it is. Stop hiding from it. Or, start refering to McCain by always including his middle name in caps.
LBJ!
Why on earth are we being partisan for using BHO?
Something to hide???
Something you're afraid of???
You picked BHO. You got BHO.
Barry Jefferson O'Brien maybe.
OK, John ONE FOOT IN THE GRAVE McCain.
Let's keep this comment thread limited to Barack Obama and leave Reagan out of it...
.
Both parties say this. But characterizing speech as "polarizing" (or not) is a diversion from examining the substance of the policy positions.
.
IOW, both parties are using diversion, while simultaneously claiming that diversion is a tactic or fault of the other side.
.
Same thing with the "patriotism" word. It's smoke and mirrors.
What cboldt and BD said. And I'll add that his "change we can believe in" theme is complete dupery. (Yes, that is a word.) It's an empty idea that he never bothers to articulate or define. It's meant to bypass the brain and make one feel warm and fuzzy. "Change" specifically from what to what? Toward individualism, less regulation and lower taxes? Toward increasing collectivism, more regulation and higher taxes? If the latter, that's hardly "change," and it certainly is not something America should believe in.
Well, I don't think both parties say this. If Clinton had been chosen I think we would not have seen this. How can you say "we are all Americans" when some of them are involved in the right-wing attack machine?
It's not just a "diversion" to me. It's important, and he got my vote by focusing on something that I found important.
The concerns raised about him personally don't carry much water for me because I have similar concerns about McCain. I'm just as bothered by the whole Keating five scandal and McCain's personal history of adultery and uncontrolled temper as I am by Obama's lousy judgment in political or religious associates. Flip a coin--they both seem less than desirable to me.
That leaves me with policy positions. I've often found myself in agreement with McCain in the past, and appreciate his caution about using the military for foreign intervention, which I take to be a true "conservative" position. However, lately he seems to have thrown that to the wind with his hundred years in Iraq talk. Would I rather trust a guy who thought the Iraq war was a bad idea to begin with, and who takes the completely reasonable position of preferring diplomacy first? (Leaders in both parties used to think diplomacy was a good idea--what happened to that?) I don't know. Obama's not proven, but McCain seems a little wild. I expect "big-government" policies from Obama, but you can't get much more "big-government" than we have under Bush, and I don't see McCain demanding to change that.
Honestly, I'm hoping the VP picks help me decide. Whoever reaches across the aisle for a running mate or at least picks someone with a more moderate stance will probably get my vote.
We will have demonstrated even more maturity when someone can win a major party nomination who says that he/she is agnostic (or more) on the question of God's existence.
Well speaking for myself, I think a lot of people refer to the presumptive Democrat nominee as BHO for the same reason many refer to our current president as GWB and others refer to the former first lady as HRC – it’s an acceptable form of shorthand for posting on the internet. Unless of course you would prefer that we start referring to him as just plain old “BO” as his wife has intimated ;)
That aside your charge that it’s “racially/religiously bigoted” is rubbish. They’re doing it to mock the fact that Democrats have picked a presidential nominee whose name makes him sound like he was the illegitimate love child of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein during a time when our country is/was at war with them. If his name was Barry Adolph Mussolini, he’d get the same mockery.
Unfair? Perhaps, but no more so than referring to President Bush as “Shrub” or “Dubyah.”
.
I think he's growing the meme that his administration would be "different" from how things are done in Washington. I think he's conveying that he wants to bring Chicago-machine style politics to the national stage.
.
But seriously, "change" is also shorthand for an (accurate, IMO) accusation that Washington/national political action is opaque and full of "insider trading" and duplicity; and that his regime would not be.
.
One has to agree, no matter which politician is given the job, their personal style will in fact, BE change. Everybody IS different. So, at bottom, his promise of change is a statement that he is PERSONALLY above dishonesty, and that he is personally direct, forthcoming, consistent, honest and transparent.
.
And I am Mickey Mouse.
"What you won't see from this campaign or this party is a politics that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to polarize, because we may call ourselves Democrats and Republicans, but we are Americans first. We are always Americans first."
Lovely words, but how do they square with his 20-year association with the likes of Rev. Wright and Rev.
Pfleger?
Also: It's the height of hypocrisy that practically every time BO makes some high-minded pronouncement like the one you quoted above, it contains some thinly-veiled cheap shot against his opponents of the very sort he is purporting to reject.
Examples: 1. "What you won't hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge and patriotism as a bludgeon..." In other words, I, Barack Obama, will always take the high road, unlike those Republicans who we all know are just a bunch of bigots and bullies.
2. His quote the other night about "respecting John McCain's accomplishments even as he seeks to deny mine" (paraphrase).
Repubs STOP referring to 'BHO' when speaking of Obama. And Dems stop referring to 'JFK'.
.
I won't say there is no such thing as polarizing speech. My point is that the easier that trigger goes off, the less time there is to analyze something else.
.
Why even mention "I'm not going to engage in polarizing conduct."? Doesn't the mention amount to an accusation that the other side did it? And off we go, debating "who started it with the name calling?"
.
Both sides do it. It's common. It's pedestrian. It's POPULAR! People LIKE to talk about that stuff.
.
I really don't care if the exchange is diplomatic or coarse ... I prefer to look for the underlying substance. I personally have thick skin (or think I do, at any rate), and think that politicians who spend time on that sort of clap trap do so on purpose, so as to limit the time spent defining and taking positions.
.
"We are all Americans" is just an applause line. Every politician has allies and enemies, so what? "Attack machine" "Media is in the tank" all that stuff, it's NOT an examination of the underlying substance. It's beef about the nature of the messenger or character of the delivery.
.
This is nothing new -- politics has always been about fooling the listener.
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/4011/brak-5.jpg
"Change" has the same specific meaning today as it did in 1992: change from a Washington where a Republican is President to a Washington where a Democrat is President.
So the (ahem) "right wing attack machine" is composed of foreigners? Should we deport them?
Considering Bush's campaign itself put forward the "W" as one of their campaign logos, I don't see any problem with referring to the president as "W."
Now, however, maybe I can qualify this based on region. In the part of the country I live in, the letter W is pronounced as something pretty close to "Dubyah," it's certainly not pronounced as "Double-uuuu." So I wouldn't naturally see anyone saying "dubya" as offensive.
As far as "BHO," it's all dependent on context.
I think anyone who' seven attempting to think rationally about the issue would see that attempting to emphasize Obama's middle name as a political tactic is in very bad taste. It's just tacky.
However, that doesn't necessarily mean that all references to his middle name have that purpose. If you're casually referring to him as "BHO" (Considering BO isn't any better really) there's not a problem. But I think if you're saying "Clinton and McCain and Barack Hussein Obama, then you're emphasizing the name and trying to defend it as neutral is just being dishonest.
Obama = McCain = Continuation of Bilingual Education (most often really monolingual Spanish instruction.)
Obama = McCain = Continuation of open borders policies with downward pressure on wages and increasing taxpayer costs.
Obama = McCain = Continuation of dependence on foreign oil imports, no new exploration/drilling/refineries in the U.S.
Obama = McCain = Continuation of same American self-hatred, rejection of assimilation and rejection of industrialization begun in the late 60s.
regarding Obama's politics.
I don't know that I'll vote for him, but I'm at least open to the possibility of picking him over McCain.
I don't doubt that Obama's politics are considerably to the left of my own, but that's not necessarily what I see in him.
I think even if you ignore his rhetoric and just look at his political career, even starting as Editor of HLR, you see that his fundamental political instincts are toward Bridge Building and compromise with opposing viewpoints.
That's a quality I highly value in a leader of any size group. Knowing that even if he disagrees with my ideas, my ideas will be considered on the merits and won't be rejected out of hand.
Hillary Clinton definitely did not have this trait. McCain might and I haven't entirely made up my mind about him yet. He's marginally closer to me politically, but it appears he has almost as much of a regulatory instinct as any democratic leader.
Too bad Humphrey was never president. "HHH" has a nice ring to it.
And I agree that referring to Barak Hussein Obama is not neitral. But Democrats on VC are kidding themselves if they say they would not refer to a Repub nominee by his initials if they happened to be, say, "SOB."
With the added bonus of changing our policy in Iraq, saving America a lot of money and military lives. Both the Libertarians and Democrats want the US military out of Iraq, the Republicans don't. The war and the economy both huge issues to voters that work against McCain unless he can really show he will take a different approach than Bush.
So Muslims are Black?
Does he have any executive experience?
Is he an expert in some area of government or public affairs?
Has he shown exemplary good judgment in his personal and public life thus far?
GWB, on the other hand, at least had one out of these three - and I'm sure his experience as governor of Texas really helped his competence at domestic and foreign policy.
Why would anyone think that Democrats are the naive ones here?
dang. a secret muslim carnival barker vs. an anti-oil america-hater who may or may not be secretly mexican. this is going to be a real barn-burner!
No, it means that certain types of racial hate are no longer problems to the people who think it's OK.
Which of course is true.
Well, there's that defense/national security/foreign relations-thing.
"Has he shown exemplary good judgment in his personal and public life thus far?"
Yes.
QED.
Please ignore Keating Five and McCain-Feingold in making this assessment.
Nah. I predict the exact same approach to Iraq under Obama as under McCain. Obama talks one way now, but he will talk differently when he's actually responsible for what happens.
And by the way, Republicans do want us out of Iraq - they just want us to win first.
But if we "ignore his rhetoric," on what basis can we possibly conclude that his "fundamental political instincts are toward Bridge Building and compromise with opposing viewpoints"? Where's the record of compromise? He's THE most liberal member of the Senate and has no record whatsoever of "reaching across the aisle." His associations with Wright, Pfleger and Ayres demonstrate that he's at least sympathetic toward, and in fact seems to look up to, some of the most divisive personalities in America. How does that square with your perception of a "bridge-builder."
People ARE being duped. They project onto BHO all kinds of wonderful attributes that are not only unsupported but are even flatly contradicted by his record.
If I could just make a point about law review.
Law review is something you do in law school and put on your resume to use to get a summer associate’s position and maybe an internship/clerkship/first job out of law school.
If you still have to refer back to it – 10, 20 years later when you’re running for POTUS, people might get the idea that you haven’t really accomplished that much else with your life and your still trying to relive the glory days from school.
In which case, BHO may be following in the tradition of another famous Chicago citizen.
By the way, can you elaborate on Obama's "association" with Pfleger? Can you point me to something that will illustrate for me that he idolizes Ayres? I get why you would put Wright in this sentence, but those other two? Kinda seems like you're padding your argument here.
It will be an historic achievement in this country when a candidate is nominated for President and no one remarks on the color of his/her skin.
Along these lines, when Denzel Washington and Halle Berry won Oscars in 2001, there was a lot of talk about how historical this was. When Forest Whitaker won Best Actor in 2006, the talk was about how brilliant his performance was and pretty much nothing about his skin color. That's progress.
I think you might be missing the meaning of what Ben P meant when he said that Obama’s fundamental instincts were towards “toward Bridge Building and compromise with opposing viewpoints.”
He didn’t mean building bridges and compromising with moderates, independents or Republicans.
He meant that Obama was instinctively in favor building bridges and compromising with people who think that it’s okay to use bombs to blow up American citizens to advance the cause (Ayers) and fermenting racial hatred (Wright).
Because those are the sorts of people Obama instinctively relates to and surrounds himself with.
The above is true of every president (and candidate, save *wince* Ron Paul and couple other big losers) in the last several decades. Also, "BHO" seems wholly appropriate, while "Hussain"-ifying references is clearly baiting.
.
Obama Interview - 2004
I was not referring to his references to it, to the extent I'm even aware of his references.
I was referring specifically to an NYT article that talked about his position as Editor of HLR.
He certainly has expertise on military and national security issues. He's also been at the epicenter of a variety of other public policy debates. He's been in Congress for 25 years and I would be surprised if there is any area of the federal government in which he does not have a significant depth of knowledge and experience. Compare this to BHO, who was only in the Senate for about a year before he started running for president.
As for judgment, there's no comparison. I disagree with McCain on a lot of issues, but he clearly has a strong character and operates according to a sense of principle. In terms of questioning his judgment, if the worst thing his detractors can come up is his involvement in the Keating 5, then he must be doing something right. Anyone who has actually read up on McCain's role in the Keating 5 scandal would know it was a minor "appearance of impropriety" type thing involving no actual wrongdoing, and something for which McCain took full responsibility.
How will we know when we've won the war? We've already overthrown the existing government, declared victory, arrested Saddam, and overseen democratic elections. Republicans want us to remain there for decades more. It's not about winning, the Neocons that got us into this war had and still have a larger plan with a remaining US military presence in Iraq. They see occupation of Iraq as essential to regional stability and to the protection of Israel. The Republican Party does not want us out of Iraq, they do not share the majority opinion in the US about the war.
Couple that with the tanking economy, massive growth in debt, and massive growth in size and power of the federal government under a Republican White House, and McCain has some huge hurdles to overcome. And these are real issues, not what someone's preacher said once or what someone's middle name is. (And that's not mentioning McCain's ancient age and health problems, which frankly scare younger voters).
You might try looking at the vast majority of his political career. That is, his time in the Illinois senate, where he displayed quite a bit of "going across the isle."
Even if we do consider the U.S. Senate, you're just willfully wearing blinders. As someone who only somewhat follows legislation I can recall at least two pieces of legislation he sponsored with republicans. That is the Immigration act he co-sponsored with McCain, and the Transparency act he sponsored with Tom Coburn.
If you were to actually, you know, look at facts, You might actually learn something.
But, perhaps you're not interested in that when it's so much more useful to make snarky comments.
Regarding his associations with Ayers and Dorne and Pfluger etc, he was the Senator from Hyde Park. Those people are all influntial people in his (Very Liberal) state senate district.
Would you seriously expected him to have gotten elected from there if he didn't cultivate contacts with well known individuals in that district? At least if he had the political acumen to get anywhere even remotely resembling the presidency?
Or would you prefer he had gotten elected from a more moderate state senate district 10 years ago just to make republicans happy.
I'm under no apprehensions about his characteristics as a shrewd politician able to make connections when it's favorable and drop them when it's not, but I don't see him as different than any other candidate in that regard.
Trying to equate Wright, Pfleger and Ayres to Falwell, Robertson, and Keating is ludicrous. To my knowledge, Falwell and Robertson were not anti-American extremists. And how does Keating remotely fit into this conversation?
It should be clear to any reasonable observer that Falwell, Robertson, and Keating played no role in shaping John McCain into the man he is today. Wright and Pfleger at least have both been identified by Obama himself as important figures in his life.
I too have disagreed with McCain on a number of issues but the fact is I know where he stands and why. And that’s far more meaningful to me than someone who pretends to listen while making empty promises of “hope and change” as his disciples bleat “yes we can.”
George Bush also ran as a "compassionate conservative" and intentionally projects the image of being a country "good old boy" (particularly as against the "effete liberal john kerry") when he's really been neither.
What is the point of discussing "winning" with the best goalpost movers I've ever seen in my life?
Waste of time.
Note: I like McCain. And I don't think his worldview was shaped by Falwell. That wasn't my point, and if that was the message you got from my post, well, I flubbed it. My point is simply that knowing someone -- and even embracing them publicly (as McCain has, metaphorically speaking) -- doesn't make YOU that person. I don't like McCain's embrace of radical right preachers. But I'm able to see that they're different people. I don't like Obama's embrace of radical left preachers. But I'm willing to see that they're different people.
But you also need to keep in mind how "liberal" the Ill GOP is, relative to the national party. It isn't hard for Democrats to reach across the aisle to Frank Watson.
.
The comment was that Falwell, Robertson, etc. are divisive. They are held out as counterpoints to Pfleger and Wright, with the "division" each man "advocates" being across a different line. Falwell and Roberts being homophobes, and Pfleger and Wright being Black Identity advocates.
.
Obviously, there are differences there. FWIW, my personal conclusion, when I see a person holding Robertson, Falwell, etc. out as "divisive" is to BELIEVE that the poster honestly and sincerely holds that point of view. After all, if that person is put off by the message, then the message is divisive, at least to that extent. I happen to disagree with the point of view that Robertson and Falwell are divisive figures, but it's unreasonable to expect to be able to "undivide" somebody from their deeply held belief otherwise.
.
As for Obama, I don't know whether or not he subscribes to Black Identity theology, but I think the evidence is that he found it advantageous to associate with a group of people who generally employ that sort of rhetoric. I think Obama is very self-centered and full of himself, and why not? He's been successful as a politician.
I suppose it’s a little better than just showing up to vote “present” but not by much.
Let's compare it with HRC's experience at Rose. At least HRC knew that Walmart and the firm's other large clients (1) cared about what the law was, (2) tried to comply with it, and (3) would attempt to change the law to enhance their interests or get them out of unfair burdens. Everything is above board and fairly straighforward. HRC may not have liked what her clients wanted, but she certainly understood that there were objective rules and reasons why her clients did things in certain ways. I cannot tell you the same is true of BHO. I have been involved in some low income housing development deals and, except for the tax portion of the work which is scrupulous, most of the development portion seemed to be controlled more by the whims of politicians than the rules of the game.
BHO's legal experience suggests to me that he does not have an appreciation for the vast net of laws that most people and institutions work within. His experience is that of dealing with causes and political power rather than those who abide by the rules that the power creates.
I would have liked to see a couple of years at Cravath or Clifford Chance as leavening.
Your bias is showing.
In my book, people who claim that God punishes America with devastating natural disasters and diseases because we are sinful (as both Falwell and Robertson have done) are indeed anti-American extremists. Not only that it would mean that their God has really crappy aim.
And that has what to do with my comments about John McCain how exactly?
Don’t tell me – you either think that George Bush is going to be on the ballot this Fall or that if you keep referring to George Bush that somehow you’re going to be able to convince people that the Republican nominee who has spent the last seven years being praised repeatedly for his very public disagreements with the administration on everything from spending to the conduct of the War is really just a “third term.”
Uh-huh, good luck with that one.
Gee, where was this attitude ten years ago?
Yeah right. Large corporations and the clients of large law firms are the paragons of virtue.
I think you may be right (as to your 12:30 pm comment) that not all uses of "BHO" are prima facie bigoted. And if you're being honest about your explanation that you use it just as you would use GWB or another such thing, then I apologize.
But I also think Ben P was right (at 12:59 pm) in saying that the context matters. Certainly, a great number of commenters at the VC haven't been using "BHO" or "Barack HUSSEIN Obama in such neutral ways. Rather, they've been using those labels for other reasons.
Rarango
Send me your next comment when you refer to McCain as "JSM III." Sorry you thought my comment was the most stupid you've read on this blog. Apparently, several people who commented later agree with me that, in the wrong context, the usage is, at minimum, problematic.
Hoosier
If a GOP candidates initials were "SOB", I don't think I'd use them to refer to the candidate. I'd rather discuss why (if) I disagree with that candidates policies.
.
Playing the part of Captain Obvious here, I think GWB is a good historical example. A not insignificant number of his ardent supporters had their points of view changed as his regime conducted business. Harriet Miers, big spending, defending Scooter's obstruction, opaque governing, expectations stifled.
.
Exactly the same phenomenon of outcome being out of sync with expectations happens with ALL politicians, and Obama supporters would do well to be substantially more skeptical. Obama's promises are, to use the vernacular, incredible.
Obama will define "winning" in Iraq exactly the same way as McCain will. Same wine, different bottle.
I don't understand how this is supposed to be a criticism, unless you've drunk the Ayn Rand Kool-Aid.
"The above is true of every president (and candidate, save *wince* Ron Paul and couple other big losers) in the last several decades."
Conceded, mostly. Which is why his claim to being above the politics of cynicism is such a fraud.
.
Currently numbers 124 items, and covers a wide range of subjects.
.
Same sort of list, but for Senator McCain
.
Currently number 38 items, also diverse as to subject matter. Both lists are limited to the 110th Congress.
1) Bigotry against Arabs (the ethnic group associated with the name).
2) Bigotry against Muslims (the religious group associated with the name).
3) Some combination of both.
These should all be out of bounds.
And he didn't vote all the time with the other side for like John Roberts, so he clearly is a rabid partisan!
Listen, Obama's a cult of personality. Ever been to the internet? It's only "ChangeChangeChange" over and over. No substance at all. Crazy liberal internet.
Not like George W. Bush, who ran as a Great American. Twice. So much substance in those constant terror alerts!
Also: Reagan was like Jesus, only more tough on Commies. I still await his second coming to save Conservatives. But Obama? Like a cult.
I agree and as I stated in my comments, the ones that emphasize his middle name are using it to mock both him and his party because the name “Barack Hussein Obama” sounds like he was the illegitimate love child of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.
Just as if some party nominated a candidate named Josef Adolph Mussolini, of course their opponents are going to make a mockery of it. Is it unfair? Sure but so’s calling President Bush 43 “Shrub” because he’s the son of a former President also named “Bush.”
As far as what I think of people who emphasize the “Hussein,” I don’t think much of it and I generally agree with Senator McCain and Michael Medved that it’s a juvenile tactic. However McCain has already done more to try to get his supporters to behave civilly than the supposedly “post-partisan” Obama has done so I’m not exactly gushing with sympathy for him or his campaign at this point.
I intentionally deleted the second part of my comment figuring the meaning would be understood and explaining it would be seen as unduly condescending and or snarky, but I guess I assumed too much.
Obama is a politician, George Bush is a politician. Karl Rove and David Plouffe are both masters at the art of the "political campaign." That is, the art of deliberately projecting an image designed to appeal to people who would not already support your candidate.
David Plouffe deliberately ran his campaign on Obama's personality, having very rationally decided that because he agrees with Hillary Clinton on 99% of the issues there was no way he could defeat her by saying he was "better" at them.
Guess what? he won the primary.
Both in 2000 and 2004, Bush, via Rove, very successfully managed to paint the opposing candidate as elite, aloof and out of touch with "the people."
Guess what? He won the elections.
Your rant about "vague promises of change" clearly shows that you haven't really bothered looking into any of this and shows a rather disturbing inability to read between the lines of "spin" and make up your own mind.
I take offense. I am aa Shrubber. My name is Roger the Shrubber. I create and arrange shrubberies.
Point accepted.
but I think it's worth noting that I don't necessarily oppose George Bush. I voted for him in both 00 and 04.
There are things I do not like about his presidency as a whole, but I generally maintain an issue by issue stance. There are some things where he has made good decisions, and others where he has made bad decisions, but very few of them cast doubt on his ability as a whole.
If It was my choice alone to pick the next government of the US, at the present I'd say Obama balanced by, maybe a 55% Republican Majority in both houses of congress. That would test his ability to actually work across the aisle, and would keep the government as a whole from doing anything too far out of line.
really? i didn't think i was trying to hide a bias.
i'm an obama supporter. in 2000, i wrote in mccain. same reason for both, the reason cited by chris bell earlier in the thread: i'm sick and tired of a political culture in which you either agree with us or you're a secret muslim (or a secret mexican, or a secret socialist, depending on the issue). i'm pretty cynical about the two parties and their differences (which is to say i think they're a lot closer than partisans on either side would have us believe). so for me, a big part of the presidency is setting a national agenda and a national tone. when someone appears to sincerely want to end the "you're with us or you're evil" crap, i'm attracted to them.
you set your criteria, i'll set mine.
Yes, it will. And that precludes recognizing the historic nature of this accomplishment how? Should we not have been happy about capturing KSM because OBL was still at large? Should we not appreciate the reduction in casualities from the surge because Iraq isn't free of turmoil? If we eliminated global terrorism, militant jihadism, crypto-communism, violent tribalism, world hunger, AIDS and malaria, should we forestall any celebration so long as there's still reality television?
Who is the bridge builder?
Immigration: McCain-- McCain-Kennedy proposal. Obama-- no change
Courts: McCain: Gang of 14. Obama-- vote against Republican nominees
Campaign reform: McCain-- McCain Feingold. Obama-- no record
Obama has never been a bridge builder. McCain has effectively worked with the other side for years
And your cynical assessment isn't consistent with him being a Rorschach test?
I read up on McCain's role and this is what I found:
I'll leave it up to the reader to determine if this was a minor "appearance of impropriety" or not.
Politicians can always break campaign promises. (In fact, they will always have to break some of them.) But as long as voters punish them for doing so, we can be reasonably certain that the candidate will maintain some general adherence to those promises.
On the other hand, Obama could be a secret Republican....
.
LOL. Hillary is accused of that by some Democrats, as is McCain, by some Republicans. Maybe being labeled "secret Republican" is a prerequisite for contending.
.
Not that anybody asked, I find all three contenders to be smarmy, each in their own personal way.
I agree with both of you up to a point. The problem is, as usual, that we're inundated with false dichotemies (I'm not saying you're doing that). It's certainly possible to use "BHO" with the purest of motives, and I don't doubt some do. Likewise, some might say "Barack Hussein Obama" because it's too ripe a target for mockery to pass up. But it's also undeniable that his full name is frequently (usually?) used in furtherance of the viral e-mail campaign to smear him as Muslim and anti-American. And of course, there's Gaius Marius....
We need to be so very, very scrupulous about using a certain candidate's initials ... but something on the order of Bush/Blair=Stalin/Hitler was a-ok.
But at least we now have the assurance that using BHO's initials may not imply racist or other bigoted qualities. Suggesting, perhaps, it should be the default position with the caveat that, upon careful review, the label of "racist" or "bigot" might be withdrawn? How very judicious, and benevolent, of our would-be moralizers. I know I'm relieved.
1) You presume too much
2) I may have been wrong, but in 2000 I assume the GOP nomination was Colin Powell's if he wanted it. I guess I had the epiphany then.
This is why people shouldn't be too impressed with his opposition to the war (even if they think that it's a good thing). It's like giving credit to a representative from Detroit for supporting the US auto industry.
More false dichotemies. Being the commenter from that previous thread, yes, I obviously consider it a big deal. But that's not in the least inconsistent with evaluating him on the substantive grounds you prefer. His skin color plays no part in my support for him as a candidate, as evidenced by the similar, if incrementally less momentous "big dealness" I felt about Colin Powell and Condi Rice, notwithstanding my opposition to their political leanings. I'm sure some of Obama's support does come from his skin color, and I agree with the comments that we'll be at an even better place when no one either supports or rejects a candidate for that reason.
By the way, the overriding reason I like Obama is the one summarized nicely, above, by Chris Bell and dr, among others. And as liberal as Obama may be on policy, I suspect the reason Chris Bell, dr and I support him is even more vexing to some here. And sadly, those people have plenty of company in both the left and right wing blogospheres.
I don't think that this is a terribly significant factor, outside of Af-Am communities. But his race is a major, MAJOR reason for the media attention he has received. And thus for his ability to portray himself as a figure of national standing prior to accomplishing anything on the national stage.
There is no chance that a "Barry O'Brien," firt-term senator from Illinois, would be the Democratic nominee. That's not the same as saying that any particular individual is supporting Obama primarily because of pigmetation.
Michael, I'm not sure what particular epithet you have in mind, but it doesn't matter. Whatever the epithet, as a regular member of group #2, I can assure you the answer is that all three were clearly evident to anyone who looked.
Apparently Hillary is commenting on Volokh now.
You prove my point. There is no way ANY Democrat would win those states. But, if Obama loses them, like ANY other Democrat would, we'll be racist for him losing.
Obama is nothing but what others are projecting on him. The world is into him big time because they know he is a weakling who sees the U.S. as nothing more than a land mass in North America, indistingushable from any other place.
He's is going to lose. All the shine given to him can't change the fact they he will only lose blue states and will not gain any red ones, which he has to do to win.
And for the record, it isn't just the racist old whiteys why he is going to get rolled big-time in Florida. It will be the Jews and the Hispanics will go McCain.
And I may be wrong, but I remember Colin Powell explicitly citing concerns for his personal safety as a factor in his not running. So I did not share in your "oh racism is dead" epiphany.
Read it again, and see if you still think Guest101's answer proves your point.
Or so it seems.
(For some reason, the song "Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead, the Witch is Dead, the Witch is Dead" is playing in my head.)
The contrast remains and it is a stark contrast indeed, is over-ripe and is telling.
The art of equivocation. Something about a gnat and a camel being applicable here. In this instance, a very small gnat and a very large camel.
Well, there were HHH and TED (Dewey) and EMK, so don't read anything into it.
Sorry, I mistakenly assumed you were referring to one of those ubiquitous, juvenile plays on words, i.e., "Rethuglican," "Victocrat." That said, I don't recall ever seeing Bush or Blair compared to Stalin. Hitler, yes, unfortunately, but in my experience Stalin comparisons are the exclusive domain of the other side.
The semi-literate voters of this country and their trendy media pals have fallen all over themselves to get him elected. That way, they can pat themselves on the back and congratulate one another on how enlightened and progressive we all are.
Oh, you wanted a competent and capable leader? Sorry kiddo. We're more concerned about Political Correctness and the latest fashion trends in social experimentation.
XerxesBarack the Great is not so great. In effect, that's all that's been said, albeit it's been fleshed out a bit with some summary statements and a few details (e.g., channeling or surfing the zeitgeist is not comparable to Lincoln's gravitas; being under the thrall of BHO as empath is not the same thing as "disenthralling ourselves," to recall Abe Lincoln's admonition ***).The response? Boo Hoo Ooo-ing from Bawling & HOwling, Inc. and, predictably, much of it in the accusative, using smears and innuendo, together with recourse to other, similarly vacuous comments. Such is the "change" being proffered from the ideological narrows of Mr. Change™ himself, together with his cliques and claques and true believers, including more than a few among his spam-bot commentariat.
All of it from a group that purports to desire "intellectually honest" exchanges when the truth is they're tacitly and occasionally more overtly saying: "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." Which is why they talk about "intellectually honest" exchanges, yet avoid forwarding them and opt for name calling and smears instead; which is why they talk about Change™ like a Madison Ave. marketing guru, yet continue with the same mindset of the past, absent virtually any self-criticism or self-examination whatsoever; etc.
As with financial bubbles, so there are political bubbles; the only question is, does it pop prior to or after being voted upon?
*** The referenced quote of Lincoln's is: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves ..." Dec. 1, 1862
LM,
Yes, but as they are seeking a purely pejorative claim, I allude to Stalin. In fact, Stalin would have been even more fitting as a pejorative expression since fascism was spawned directly out of Mussolini's Marxian praxis and thinking, c. 1912/13. Hence, in that sense, "Stalin" effectively serves as a condensation of both of the totalitarian and genocidal movements of the 20th century. Still, for what it's worth, I do readily believe you (when you had previously indicated #2).
Just passing by here. I suppose you're the same Michael B who has done a great job around these parts of demonstrating intellectual dishonesty (proof, more proof, even more proof). If so, thanks for being unintentionally humorous.
Self-parody, in an age where egoism and ideology are joined at the hip, is ever in abundant supply.
Yes, I posted proof that you're a partisan hack, who cuts and runs when facts come out. Discharging more orotund baloney doesn't change that.
By the way, "dullardly" isn't a word. But your faux erudition is still adorable.
Except, what is the quickest way to pronounce The Messiah's initials? Bee HO
All that reflects substantial subject matter I've taken note of. Instead, you drive by three times now to forward rank deceits and viperous smears, literally nothing beyond that.
Boo.
That said, derailing the Clnton Express is a singular accomplishment worth applauding.
Or elsewhere? Really? You're full of it (proof, more proof, even more proof).
"you've made up your own facts"
You've presented an impressive number of examples: zero. The one who invents facts is you. Let me know if you're having trouble finding the proof.
"You could have addressed subject matter, in this thread alone, here, here, here, here or here … all that reflects substantial subject matter"
You are pointing to a series of your own grandiloquent posts, which contain unintentionally humorous sentences like this: "Obama channels and surfs the zeitgeist of a perduringly low populism cum elitism." That's not "substantial subject matter;" it's gibberish.
"you drive by three times now to forward rank deceits and viperous smears"
If there's something deceitful about the proof I posted, you've had ample opportunity to specifically prove that, both then and now. But of course you don't do that, because you can't. So what you do instead is evade and whine, with your pinky stuck out.