posted
I thought Clinton's speech was strong, and said what needed to be said, but it didn't move me the way Michelle Obama's speech of the previous day had.
I did find the "she didn't say he's ready to lead!" response from the McCain camp incredibly weak. What, you think she said he "must be president" [despite not being ready to lead]?
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No kidding. But they have to criticize something, or else it's a tacit agreement that the speech was correct in it's assertions.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, she didn't say that. She didn't talk about Obama's ability at all, really. Just that he had to be president (presumably so McCain wouldn't be). That's not pro-Obama, that's pro-Democrats.
Obama supporters were hoping for more of a "He's our best person for the job" speech, and they weren't going to get it.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't get these disgruntled HIlary supporters. The PUMAs. Their biggest complaint seems to be that the process was corrupted. That the party leadership screwed Hilary over and pushed Obama on the people. What world are they living in?
The party leadership was all about Hilary. She was their shoo in. Obama was completely ignored until the movement became too large to ignore. Hilary lost. There was no corruption involved. Is it just a mass case of denial?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dems have to be wondering, though, why Sen. Hillary is not on the ticket, when she looked and sounded so good in her speech. Just wait, when Sen. Biden gets up to speak, and everyone sees him as an old political hack (only six years younger than McCain), totally lackluster, they're going to be asking even louder why this guy is on the ticket and Hillary is not.
Frankly, I am amazed at how many things the Dems have have done wrong in the past year. Just watch--Obama will not get any bounce in the polls after the Dem convention. The day after, McCain will announce his veep pick, and completely knock Obama and the Dems out of the news cycle.
Already, the Gop is running ads consisting of outtakes from speeches by Hillary talking about Obama's lack of experience, and how even McCain has more experience, so would appeal to voters over Obama on that issue. I think the GOP has a library full of Hillary outtakes they are ready to run.
If Obama loses, then Hillary can run again in 2012, with the slogan, "I told you so."
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would the GOP be running different ads if Hilary was the VP pick? They ran ads of Biden criticizing Obama when Biden was announced. They'd be running the same ads with Hilary criticizing Obama regardless of her position in his candidacy.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't get why Dems have to be wondering...I think it's pretty clear why she's not on the ticket; you even listed some reasons yourself that make her teaming with Obama look stupid and contradictory to voters on both sides.
She may have given a decent speech, but it's not like she could afford not to. I very much get the impression she's a Democrat through and through, and would love to take back those sound bites of her criticizing Obama if she could; but deep down, she wishes it were her, and perhaps for that reason, did not "knock it out of the ballpark" as everyone thought/hoped she would. I don't think we need so much of an Us vs. Them speech, as we do a "Obama's your man" one.
Of course, maybe she'd feel she'd be lying if she were to claim that he's the president we all need, but when has a politician ever been afraid to lie for the good of the party? Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Dems have to be wondering, though, why Sen. Hillary is not on the ticket, when she looked and sounded so good in her speech.
Not really. I'm a registered Democrat, and I'm not wondering that at all. Clinton is a divisive figure, and her presence on the ticket would likely galvanize the right. She would also be likely to maintain the broader role that the office of VP has taken on under Bush/Cheney, which would likely be something that Obama wouldn't want. Taking Clinton as VP could have been spun to look like weakness, with Obama caving to the demands of the Clintons. There is little love lost between Obama and the Clintons; all other things aside, mutual dislike is a good reason for Obama to choose someone other than her as his VP. I could go on and on; there are myriad reasons why Obama would opt not to include Clinton on the ticket.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like living in an America with PUMAs. I hope Obama's people don't try to put Biden on a leash. He is running for VP. The position lets you take greater chances and make more gaffes. Let Biden be Biden. With Biden as the VP, I'm probably going to vote for Obama, but I do hope that Obama shows some courage, and talks tough to America.
posted
Ron, in your eyes, the Dems can do no right. You'd have been criticizing them if Obama had picked Clinton just as much. I'm surprised that you're "amazed" at how many things the Dems have done wrong.
posted
Bokonon, it's just that few political parties in modern history have made so many major mistakes and miscalculations that alienate massive numbers of people as this year's Dems. They've shot themselves in the foot so often, they have to dance on their knees now. Half their budget must go for spin-doctors, and the other half for orthopedic doctors.
Frankly, if the Dems had used better judgment, they could have won this election in a landslide. But it no longer appears so likely to me that will happen.
Sure, Sen. Hillary was no one I would vote for, but Obama is much further to the left, has no experience, and I have zero confidence in him. Of the two, I would prefer her to be president, if the GOP loses. Though I do shudder to think of Bill Clinton in the White House again--with nothing to do. (Hide the interns!)
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the Democratic party were half as inept as you say, it would've burst into flames years ago.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
notice ron has been slowly lowering and lowering the bar since the beginning?
2007: The dems are really going to shoot themselves, Hillary is going to win Obama can't possibly win the primaries!
Later: Obama may have won 11 states in a row but he still won't win the nomination he doesn't stand a chance!
Later: Okay Maybe Obama has more super delegates and normal delegates but the Party will still shoot themselves and choose Hillary!
Now: Obama will not win the Presidency!
Probably Later: Obama Won't win a second term!
After that: The constitutional admendment for letting him have a third term won't possibly pass!
IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I'd agree with him on the last one. I'd vote against an amendment like that, no matter how well Obama had carried out the duties of the presidency.
posted
I don't think Dems have made that many mistakes, I just think Republicans are THAT good at politics. Obama hasn't been losing ground lately because he has bad ideas, he's been losing ground because the McCain attack machine is working overtime to smear him all across the board. Factcheck.org must be paying its employees overtime trying to correct all the crap he's slinging at Obama, and if you listen to Republican talking points and read polling data, the most oft stated lies are the ones that are sticking the best and reducing Obama's lead. To be fair, Obama is throwing out a share of untruths as well, but they aren't sticking nearly as well.
This hasn't been a campaign about policy or substance so far. And for the Republicans, it can't be. I think if this election becomes about substantive debate, the Republicans lose hands down, which is why I think Obama is going to cream McCain in the debates and pick up 5 or 6 points.
With the coverage of the major news networks, I might add, It's going to be nearly impossible for Dems to get a bounce off this thing. Maybe if you're watching on C-SPAN, which I've switched to, you get unfilitered content, but watching it on CNN or MSNBC or Fox is like watching the Convention through media goggles. They're constantly harping on the speakers, saying they aren't doing well enough, saying what they should be doing, and leaving out whole speeches, often when those speeches do the things that they say aren't being done. I almost wish they hadn't covered it at all and just let us watch the keynote speeches like 4 years ago. I expect the same awful coverage when the Republicans have their next week.
I'm still not worried though. I really think the debates are going to decide this election. I think the polls are off, especially when they say that 55% of people in Florida want a Democrat to win the White House but only 46% choose Obama to win. There's a disconnect. I don't take any of it seriously until after the first debate. That's when most people start to tune in and really pay attention. The rest of this spectacle is for the hardcore enthusiasts of politics (like anyone in this thread). If Obama is tied or behind heading into October, I'll be a little worried.
But I don't think the Democrats have run a particularly awful campaign. I do think that they'd be doing a lot better if Clinton or Obama had dropped out a long time ago. Other than that, maybe they should have gone a lot more negative a lot sooner. Obama's gravy train ended when McCain started throwing thunderbolts at him, and he tried to reason his way out of it instead of hitting back. I also think that anyone who wouldn't vote for Obama but was pining for Clinton is an idiot to vote for McCain. They're diametrically opposed on so many issues that it makes no logical sense to me. But hey, that's the American electorate!
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One Obama supporter's take on Hillary's speech. His commentary is significantly more critical than anything I've heard from McCain's camp. I wonder if McCain et al aren't commenting because as far as they're concerned the speech spoke for itself.
In full disclosure, I didn't watch the speech. It was pretty late on the Eastern seaboard, but I toughed it out through Chelsea's poorly-narrated and poorly-themed montage. I got right up through the introduction. And then the image of Bill Clinton, biting his lip and tearing up in faux sincerity, mouthing repeatedly "I Love You." Turned the t.v. off and went bed.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the montage was pretty decent. I mean I wouldn't buy the DVD or anything, but it wasn't awful. But the constant camera pans over to Bill mouthing "I love you," looked either staged or that he knew the camera would pan over at some point and was just guessing. I feel horrible for saying that, because I hate being so cynical over people's actions in that type of situation, but considering which two people it was, it's hard not be. Still, I like to think that it was sincere, even if there's a nagging doubt in the back of my head that it's all staged.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm actually a little surprised more hasn't been made over the dissonance in the GOP refrain of "things are going great!" while pointedly trying to avoid being seen anywhere near the gentleman in charge while things were going "great".
No one has a crystal ball, and I would advise against confusing one's hopes with accurate predictions. McCain hasn't even picked his VP yet. It seems common sense (or at least conventional wisdom) that, if nothing else comes of the convention, Hillary's speech will mean that some of her people who were on the line will go to Obama, and some who were thinking of going to McCain will just sit out. That alone is probably enough to put Obama back in the lead by at least a few percentage points. That lead may or may not be eliminated by the subsequent McCain VP pick and GOP convention.
I would note that McCain has hardly been without missteps of his own that have alienated portions of the "core" party. Obama has made significant inroads with the evangelicals, and there are a number of states that are considered to be "in play" this year that would have been shoe-ins in previous years. Also, McCain is having difficulty escaping rumors that he tends left on some issues, and his closeness to Lieberman seems to put some GOP voters off.
posted
There was a poll I read recently that was talking about common misconceptions over candidates, and one of them is that a lot of people think McCain is pro-choice because of his "independent maverick" image. This actually helps him with independents but hurts him with Evangelicals wary of him. So McCain might actually have to spend some money defending his position on abortion.
I think a neat, and funny, ad from Obama against McCain would be to try and pick apart this maverick thing. Bring up all of his positions and then show his position and ask the question: So how is he a Maverick? Abortion? Against it. Alternative Energy? Nice idea but keeps voting against it. Iraq? Votes with Bush 100% of the time. And so on and so on. He keeps calling himself a maverick with seemingly no proof behind it. Obama has just started recently to use the "votes with Bush 95% of the time" thing, which is good, but I think they need to break it down by subject to really pull people in. Bush can't win the election for the Democrats, they have to win it themselves.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whew. The entertaining part is going to be watching Republicans try and spin that as anything but a whole hearted effort. I saw a couple points they could try and nail him on. Clinton didn't necessarily say that Obama had the experience, he said that with Biden on the team they had what was needed together, but if you listen to the WHOLE of the speech, he painted a picture of a presidential candidate with great judgement and a keen mind, and implied that those things were far more important than experience. He also drew parallels to his own presidency and said they tried to use all these same arguments against him, and that they were wrong. Die hard Republicans won't buy that, but they aren't the ones he's talking to anyway.
As for "Do the Clintons support Obama?" I think he put that to rest. As for "Did he give a ringing endorsement of Obama?" He did. It was far less self-serving than Hillary's, which I think almost had to be to placate her supporters. I think he laid out his case for Obama and did it well. If Biden can light it up, this'll be a great night.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Kerry is giving one hell of a speech too.
What at least three people have yet to fall asleep?
I'm kinda mad I missed Mr. Clinton's speech, now I have to rely on transcripts until I can catch it on youtube.
I think for those supporters of Hillary who are still incensed, their major complaints are that women have been struggling for years to break through this barrier, and Hillary seemed like the logical conclusion of that effort. She was displaced by a newcomer, who they feel should have waited out of courtesy. The media decided that Obama was their darling, and since all major media outlets are run from the top by men, it's easy to believe that women were being told to stay in their place and keep quiet.
Hillary is probably their greatest,(currently) champion, and nobody will likely have as good a chance of winning the presidency now, or in the foreseeable future.
In the NYTs they asked a Hillary supporter if she would vote for Obama in November, and her response, referring to Clinton was, "Of course I will, she just told us to."
On the one hand, it's good that greater unity is likely being achieved, on the other, I'm not sure I like sharing a vote with people that malleable. What is even more stupid are the Hillary supporters who in spite of her endorsement, still hate Obama. It's as if their support of her is so deep even she can't refuse it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did you see Kerry's speech? It was good. For Kerry, it was pretty high energy, but content wise it was a perfect thread in what the Dems were trying to weave tonight. It was a scathing attack on McCain and support for Obama via comparison and contrasting of their opinions on major foreign policy decisions. That seemed to be the theme tonight.
I think Clinton's best line was something like "the world has always been benefitted less by our example of power than our power of example." Something like that, but it was a great line.
Biden was great too. Nice backstory, nice positives for Obama, and nice scathing attack on McCain. Also, Biden's mom sounds like an awesome person and a great mom too.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did anyone see Richardson? It was the only speech I missed tonight that I wanted to see.
I got my mom to watch some of it, and she didn't get why so many people she'd never heard of were giving speeches all saying the same thing. I think her exact words were: "Is everyone in the Democratic party giving a speech?" I had to explain to her that it's pretty much every Democrat up for a major office that needs the face time on prime time. It's no wonder people get bored during these things. They weren't designed for regular people, they're designed for diehards. At least before 9pm they are.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's been a while since I checked it, but http://www.pollster.com/ has a fun little interactive color coded map/toy thing.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Did you see Kerry's speech? It was good. For Kerry, it was pretty high energy, but content wise it was a perfect thread in what the Dems were trying to weave tonight. It was a scathing attack on McCain and support for Obama via comparison and contrasting of their opinions on major foreign policy decisions. That seemed to be the theme tonight.
His hypothetical debate between "Senator McCain" and "Candidate McCain" was great, very reminiscent of that classic Daily Show clip where they have "Governor Bush" debate "President Bush."
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't see much of Clinton's speech, but what I did see was pitch perfect. Honestly, I think the Clintons just schooled the GOP in the art of politics. I think Hillary led with a feint, and when the conservative talking heads lunged (on the "she didn't say Obama was ready to lead" point, which I agree with Sterling was very weak) Bill laid them out cold.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn - according to the channel I was watching last night, Richardson's speech got moved to tonight. So you didn't miss it.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
There are a couple of things that are bugging me (and part of it goes to why I found the Chelsea montage poor). The assumption is that most disgruntled Hillary supporters are women who wanted a woman president; I think that's completely wrong. Obama has led a resurgence of the liberal wing of the Democratic party, which has ousted the centrists (like the Clintons) who've more or less held sway for the past 25 years. I think a lot of the disgruntled Hillary supporters are just centrist Democrats who don't like the rainbows and sparkles idealism of Obama's candidacy, but prefer a more hard-headed political realism (which translates to centrism). While Obama's paid this position lip service (through his infamous pivot to the center), I don't think it's been enough to convince that contingency of his sincerity.
As for McCain, I think he's got the inverse problem. He's spent his career in the Senate as a realist, a Republican centrist in a time of Reagan idealism. But for the past eight years, he's positioned himself to be able to mollify the currently-in-power idealogues within his party (at the expense of tarnishing his "maverick" image). I think he's been more successful than Obama in mollifying the opposing wing of his own party (to the "why aren't we talking about GOP dissonance" point) because he's invested more time preparing for it. That said, the dittoheads are still leery, which is why there were major news items last week about Rush's threats over McCain's potential not-completely-pro-life VP picks (Lieberman and Ridge).
About the picking of VPs: I think the Obama camp has done a much better job of using the media than the McCain camp. Obama's staff managed to strike the perfect balance between teasing and coy, with leaks allowing the press to vet various candidates (Bayh, Sibelius, Kaine, etc.) and generate buzz. McCain's taken a much more private approach, or at least has been much less successful at getting the press to present the story. I think when it comes to framing the story in most media (television, newsprint, blogosphere), the Dems do a much better job than the GOP. When people complain that Dems don't know how to play politics I think it's pretty naive; Dems are just as good at the things they do well as Republicans are at things they do well. The whole "they're just that good at politics" meme along with the "Republican smear machine" meme are poor reflections of reality (IMO).
Lastly, I hate that I care so much about the presidential election. Whether Obama wins or McCain wins, I don't honestly believe my world or my way of life will be dramatically different in four years, or eight years, or twenty years. I wish my local elections were as entertaining (or generated as significant levels of media coverage), because I think time spent focusing on how much money to allocate to repaving roads and how my school board will be constituted will have a much bigger impact on my life than offshore oil drilling or the constitution of the US Supreme Court.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When people complain that Dems don't know how to play politics I think it's pretty naive; Dems are just as good at the things they do well as Republicans are at things they do well. The whole "they're just that good at politics" meme along with the "Republican smear machine" meme are poor reflections of reality (IMO).
This suggests that how one handles the media is the only way to play the game. I think Republicans are better at it personally, but I don't think that's the entire game. I think Republicans are more willing to take a stand and trust the American people to back them up, even if they're totally wrong, because Democrats constantly back down under such pressure, even when they are right. I think that's why Democrats tend to win in spite of themselves, because they're scared to death of the American people, and are willing to compromise their stated principles to do what's popular over what's right.
That's all part of the political game. The war in Iraq is the perfect example. The midterms of 2006 were hailed far and wide as a referendum on Republican support for the war. I don't think anyone voting didn't think that their vote was going to have a serious effect on the war, or at least hoped it would. It caused a nationwide upheavel of the political landscape, ushering Democrats into state houses, governor's mansions, the US Senate and House all across the nation. And what did Democrats do with their mandate? Not a damn thing. Why? Because every time they paid lip service to the whole ending the war thing, Republicans trotted out their "Democrats are unpatriotic and hate the troops" mantra and Democrats backed down every single time. They said there wouldn't be a blank check for the war, and yet Bush isn't complaining about funding, just the hassle he has to go through to get it. Nothing has changed. Democrats could have ended the war a year ago quite simply by cutting off the funding for it. They could have sent Bush a letter saying "Sorry, your wellspring of money has dried up, so if you plan to feed or clothe the troops, you'd better bring them home. You have a year, tell the Iraqis to figure it out." In such a situation, what would Bush do? He can't veto such a measure, since there's nothing to veto. If Congress doesn't pass a spending bill, the money doesn't get spent. Congress has constantly refused to use the power of the purse against Bush. It's bad enough they've abdicated their oversight responsibilities, but they've given the White House wide control over the budget too. Why even bother with Congress? Instead of doing that though, they kept saying "benchmarks and time tables," and when the Republicans refused to back down (because they KNEW the Democrats would cave) the Democrats, of course, caved, and gave in to pretty much every demand that Bush had saying "drat, they bested us again!" You might say it's a pretty dramatic way to end the war, and Republicans would have framed the issue first off as beint anti-troops and second as anti-American safety. Considering the nationwide pro-Democratic vote, I don't think they would have had a problem with the safety issue. Americans wanted to end the war. On the other point, they could stand up for themselves and say "Look, this is the only way to end the war given Republican opposition, and it will only hurt the troops if President Bush refuses to bring them home, so it's really his fault." But they never tried it because they didn't trust the American people to side with them, despite the massive number of votes for them only months prior.
I still won't vote for Republicans until they get better policies, and I'll still vote for Democrats because I think they have better ideas, when they actually enforce them. But not a day goes by that I don't turn on the TV and wish to high heaven that the Democrats would friggin' man up, grow a pair, and fight back once and awhile. More specifically, I wish they'd do two things: 1. Become better at explaining why what they want is good for the American people. 2. Trust the American people to listen and give them a fair shake.
[/rant]
In other news, McCain is to announce his VP pick tomorrow, but I bet it's leaked by tonight for two reasons. 1. I think that like Obama's pick, he just won't be able to keep it under wraps. The media will find out. 2. I think he WANTS them to find out ahead of his official announcement to cut into Obama's post-speeh afterglow as much as possible. He if times it right, it'll end the Democratic Convention instantly and launch the focus onto the Republican Convention. There are conflicting reports that he has and has not picked, but he's supposed to start making calls later tonight. Rumors are swelling around two oft named favorites, Romney and Pawlenty. Joe Lieberman is on the short list, supposedly, and a woman is said to be in the running (which I take to mean either KBH or Sarah Palin of Alaska). There are a lot of other names too, but these are the ones being talked about the most. I bet we find out in about 12 hours.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: 1. Become better at explaining why what they want is good for the American people. 2. Trust the American people to listen and give them a fair shake.
Here is what I consider the nub of the problem. The Republicans have mastered the short, simple, no nuance slogans. The media want short, simple, soundbite slogans. People get bored with long complicated answers and change the channel.
Unfortunately for us, reality often requires long complicated answers, but explaining nuanced positions sounds "wishy washy".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne Bradley, you know full well I never said any of those things you attributed to me. Is this a deliberate tactic, or just a poorly conceived attempt at satire?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Unfortunately for us, reality often requires long complicated answers, but explaining nuanced positions sounds "wishy washy".
I was thinking this morning, of the "Kennedy Assassination Quiz Show Game" skit from SNL.
In it, contestants are given 10 seconds to recite their conspiracy theory for the Kennedy assassination. The first contestant starts with the Mafia and its ties to the CIA, and then runs out of time. The second talks about the KGB and Lyndon Johnson, then runs out of time. The third says "A tiger got him" and wins, because he's able to completely verbalize his theory in the allotted time.
It loses a lot of funny in the telling, but it was a good skit.
I agree our political discourse needs more dialogue and less demagoguery. I don't believe there's any truth to the assertion that Democrats are unique in their ability to wrestle with nuance. Nor do I believe that they lack an ability to couch their doctrines in bumper sticker length sound bites for ease of consumption. This is exactly the sort of simplistic and counterproductive meme that I think detrimentally misleads Democrats into believing Republicans have a populist advantage. It's also, IMO, part of why the competing "elitist" meme is so current among Republicans, despite a similar lack of grounding in reality.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: 1. Become better at explaining why what they want is good for the American people. 2. Trust the American people to listen and give them a fair shake.
Here is what I consider the nub of the problem. The Republicans have mastered the short, simple, no nuance slogans. The media want short, simple, soundbite slogans. People get bored with long complicated answers and change the channel.
Unfortunately for us, reality often requires long complicated answers, but explaining nuanced positions sounds "wishy washy".
I agree, but then I have to go into my rant on how much I hate the media, and that's a whole different can of worms. I think the media are probably 40% to blame for the current state of politics in America. I blame 40/40/20, media/US Government officials/the American people. The media stopped being effective when they started caring less about their jobs as informers of the public and started caring more about making money and ratings. I think the media in America has always had partisan rags, and has always been a business, but the noise to substance ratio used to be far, far more skewed towards substance, whereas today it's far, far more skewed towards noise. They suck at what they're supposed to do, politicians take advantage of it, and we're complicit in the whole thing by not DEMANDING better politicians and better coverage. Blogs have tried to pick up the slack with a new 21st century sort of muckraking, but they just don't have either the access or the face time that the big hitters do. I think part of the problem is that Americans are lazy and just want the information laid out for them (but again, that's a separate rant as well). There will always be bad journalists, and dirty campaigns. Heck, they go back to Thomas Jefferson. But the advent of the 24 hour news networks has really turned everything on its head. They talk just to hear themselves talk, because there isn't always something super exciting going on, so they sensationalize things that really aren't that exciting and push and pull Americans all over the place, placing emphasis on things better left silent and refusing to cover the larger issues of the day. No one is asking hard questions and demanding good answers.
I think the current crop of media people cater to the lowest common denominator both in the American electorate and in the American government.
posted
And bloggers don't really fill the gap with most people. Not everybody is "wired". Especially in poorer or more rural areas or among older voters. We forget how new the internet is. I didn't use a computer till I was out of college and wasn't connected to anything until I was in my thirties.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Obama has led a resurgence of the liberal wing of the Democratic party, which has ousted the centrists (like the Clintons) who've more or less held sway for the past 25 years. I think a lot of the disgruntled Hillary supporters are just centrist Democrats who don't like the rainbows and sparkles idealism of Obama's candidacy, but prefer a more hard-headed political realism (which translates to centrism). While Obama's paid this position lip service (through his infamous pivot to the center), I don't think it's been enough to convince that contingency of his sincerity.
As a member of the liberal wing of the democratic party, I think people are assuming that Obama, because he is black, is further left than he is. Sure, he was against the Iraq war, not out of a principled stand against violence, but only so that he can put more troops in Afghanistan. He is pro-death penalty. He likes the architecture of NCLB; he just wants to put more money in it. Liberals don't even like the architecture. If Evan Bayh-- the paragon centrist-- were pro-choice, or even Pro-Choiceish, I don't know how much daylight there would be between Bayh and Obama.
Obama has a bit of loft in his rhetoric, which gives the appearance of being a liberal, but he just employs picturesque metaphors to support down the middle policies.
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: As a member of the liberal wing of the democratic party, I think people are assuming that Obama, because he is black, is further left than he is.
In my case, I assume he's liberal not because he's black, but because his support base is young and he has the backing of the Kennedy contingent that lost out back in 1980, as well as the early and continuing support from MoveOn.org. Not to mention his positioning in his primary run against Clinton, where he pretty willingly held himself up as the "progressive" candidate to Clinton's realist-centrist. None of that is issue-based, however.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here is what I consider the nub of the problem. The Republicans have mastered the short, simple, no nuance slogans. The media want short, simple, soundbite slogans. People get bored with long complicated answers and change the channel.
Unfortunately for us, reality often requires long complicated answers, but explaining nuanced positions sounds "wishy washy".
I find this goes the other way at least as often, such as accusations that McCain supports torture or favors a 100 year war.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here is what I consider the nub of the problem. The Republicans have mastered the short, simple, no nuance slogans. The media want short, simple, soundbite slogans. People get bored with long complicated answers and change the channel.
Unfortunately for us, reality often requires long complicated answers, but explaining nuanced positions sounds "wishy washy".
I find this goes the other way at least as often, such as accusations that McCain supports torture or favors a 100 year war.
Both sides have mastered the smear tactic. I think they were referring to simple slogans for their own positions.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair, NCLB is a liberal policy by definition. Rather than a federalist approach where you let the states have the most control of their education programs, you have regulations and testing that's required from Washington. That said, you have fairly strong points on the other aspects of Obama's liberalism.
I've been loving this convention, it's been fun, the speeches are nice, we've been getting more than we hoped for in needed speeches, (Michelle Obama proving patriotism, Senator and President Clinton showing ardent support for Obama, etc.) and we have a great amount of energy being built.
By the way, Gallup's daily tracking poll may be showing the start of a bump.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Blayne Bradley, you know full well I never said any of those things you attributed to me. Is this a deliberate tactic, or just a poorly conceived attempt at satire?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
