Comments on: Obama for President

By: calling all toasters

calling all toasters — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 15:00:12 +0000

“after 8 years of the Bush Family Nitwit, I can’t believe anyone would think that Barack Obama would not be able to handle any aspect of the Presidency.”
There’s a campaign slogan: “Obama–less than 100% incompetent!”
“Obama would have the brains and humility to surround himself with the most qualified people”
Where have I heard that trope before? It sounds so familiar….
Has it occurred to any of you Obama-bandwagoneers that if you need Gen. Clark on the ticket for legitimacy, that YOU don’t think Obama is ready?

By: bcinaz

bcinaz — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 16:43:01 +0000

Gee Mark, thanks for that. I too am a big Clark fan, but am inspired by Obama.
And after 8 years of the Bush Family Nitwit, I can’t believe anyone would think that Barack Obama would not be able to handle any aspect of the Presidency. (Bush really redefined Job Experience) Especially if he enrolled General Clark to join him as a) VP, b) SecDef c)Sec of State or d) National Security Advisor.
Obama would have the brains and humility to surround himself with the most qualified people, unlike the Nitwit, who has surrounded himself with self-dealing cronies and meglomaniacs.

By: RCC

RCC — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 03:57:57 +0000

… continued again …
Or, run as a winning Dem candidate’s VP. Then run in 8 years.

By: RCC

RCC — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 03:55:59 +0000

… continued…
And, I like Clark as well. He’s my favorite.
When’s the last time a Senator won? Kennedy. Senators get creamed. Obama has a thin resume for President. He should just stay in the Senate and then jump into a Dem President’s administration in some Secretary role to gain executive experience, then maybe run for Gov., then maybe President when he’s old.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 03:52:11 +0000

Why pursue the white church going Republican voters when you can put your energy into bringing new Dems to the polls?
Why compromise like that?
There are plenty of Dems out there who just are not voting yet. Dean’s 50-State strategy is working. It worked in the mid-terms, after two more years of implementation, perhaps it will deliver a greater return yet.

By: flyerhawk

flyerhawk — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 00:04:37 +0000

I’m a little stunned with some of the hostility that Obama is facing already from the Left.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. They want candidates that will operate with a politically tone-deaf manner. Party over country.
It’s disheartening but that’s the way the country works today.
We are 2 years away from the Presidential election. Right now Obama needs to build his image. Firebrands don’t win Presidential elections. The people that win elections are the people that appeal to the middle. The people that win elections are the people that the middle can identify with. Hanging on to a Liberal agenda that is not terribly popular right now is certainly not the way to do that.
People are certainly correct that a large number of the evangelicals are never going to for Obama, or anyone with a -D at the end of their name. But some might. And it is that some that makes all the difference.
Obama isn’t going to make the stupid mistakes or give a speech that will infuriate the Right. That’s what we have Howard Dean for. And Dean is certainly necessary. But Obama can’t marginalize himself because the Kos crowd wants him to pick up the sword and fight the good fight.

By: calling all toasters

calling all toasters — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 20:40:02 +0000

Oh, and Rich: thanks for reinforcing my point that the Right sees Obama as a tool.

By: calling all toasters

calling all toasters — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 20:37:45 +0000

The Democrats won this year for three reasons:
1. They ran more moderate candidates
Like Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders and Jim Webb ….
So, yeah, go ahead and run an in-your-face, secular liberal.
Yes, I was proposing that Madalyn Murray O’Hair be the nominee.
But what you cannot do is insult them.
Gee, thanks. I’m not lucky enough to receive Rove’s faxes, so I keep forgetting how the Dirty Hippie Party keeps insulting the godly manly-men!
Any more crap right-wing generalizations?

By: rilkefan

rilkefan — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 20:29:28 +0000

3. McCain’s not named “Bush”, but there are pictures of the two embracing. And McCain’s stance on Iraq is crazier than Bush’s. And the situation in Iraq come election season will have us pining for the current catastrophe.
2. A year of investigation will bring up plenty of scandal the media will find tasty, and plenty of that scandal will either stain the R candidates or will make them run from their party.
1. The Democrats ran better candidates. They were more moderate only by virtue of not being far-out-wackos like most Republicans these days. Compared to Brownback or McCain or Gingrich, any Democratic nominee will be a moderate. If the religious fringe primary voters somehow accept a Mormon or a cross-dressing adulterer, maybe there will be a relative standoff on this point, but I doubt it.
This story makes Obama look good: http://media.orkut.com/articles/0619.html

By: Rich

Rich — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:46:53 +0000

The Democrats won this year for three reasons:
1. They ran more moderate candidates
2. The sleeze factor for the Republicans
3. General disatisfaction on the War in Iraq
Number three won’t be an issue because none of the Republican candidates will be named Bush. Two is unknown but since most of the front runners look like reformers than this will probably be off the table. So, all the Democrats have going for them is number one (props to Schumer and Emanuel for recognizing this in this cycle). So, yeah, go ahead and run an in-your-face, secular liberal.
It is not the policy distinctives that matter it is the in-your-face style. It has been noted that Giuliani doesn’t have much of a problem with evangelicals. That’s because his pro-choice views are not obnoxious. You can sell progressive ideas to faith-based communities. You can even gain their respect and support by disagreeing in a respectful manner like Giuliani has done. But what you cannot do is insult them. That guarantees they will vote Republican while crawling over broken glass.

By: calling all toasters

calling all toasters — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 18:39:42 +0000

You know, I could have sworn that the Democrats cleaned the Republicans’ clock in 2006 without kissing the butt of the evangelicals and without gaining ground in the South. Perhaps that strategy was all wrong, and we should go back to the triangulation strategy of the prior 12 years where the Democrats managed to lose both houses and keep them lost. Also, we should nominate Kerry again, because he’s a decorated veteran! They would never attack his service again,/i>. OTOH, Obama sounds churchy, so they could never discredit him on religious issues. So he’s a sure winner, too.

By: Rich

Rich — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 18:17:10 +0000

Let me help you with your speculation. I am a moderate, white, evangelical precisely those targetted by Sen. Obama. What he said rings true to my ears. It is extremely significant that he spoke at Saddleback. The evangelicals who appreciate Rick Warren are by and large apolitical and hate the bickering that has been going on for the last two administrations. One commenter asked obliquely what about Bill Clinton? Well, Clinton got a significant white evangelical vote that neither Gore nor Kerry got. So, yes, speaking our language does help. What doesn’t help is comments that we cannot get past his name or his race. Marketing 101 tells you don’t insult the “customer”.

By: joseph duemer

joseph duemer — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 09:58:29 +0000

Well, Tom, you make the best arguments I’ve heard in favor of Obama running for prez. I’m still not convinced, but I appreciate your reasonable response.

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 06:52:41 +0000

Also, if anyone’s still reading: Even if Joseph is right that a lot of evangelicals are racists who will never vote for Obama, it can still be useful to spend some time and rhetorical effort appealing to those people and acknowledging their worldview and their concerns.
Even if we assume that their worldview is wrong in all respects and their concerns are all stupid and that no genuine rapprochement is possible, it is still better for us if they do not feel highly motivated to vote.
Consider the way right-wingers react to Hillary vs. how they react to Obama. It’s been said a million times that one good reason not to nominate Hillary is that she will fire up the right-wing base because they think she’s some megalomaniacal lesbian communist or whatever. Well, Obama has the opposite effect – he’s capable of commanding actual respect from at least a significant number of people on the right. Maybe they won’t vote for him, but they might not actively work against him, and they might stay home on election day, especially if the Republican nominee is someone who they don’t feel a strong sense of kinship with.
And then there’s the fact that Obama is a good enough speaker that he might actually be able to change some minds and bring some moderates and conservatives over to the reality-based left. In the long run, that’s something we really need.

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 06:37:40 +0000

Joseph, I appreciate your reality-based response to my question.
I’m not convinced though. The articles you link to seem to basically be faulting Obama for not being a Proxmire, McGovern, Church, or Wellstone. I’ll certainly acknowledge that, but I don’t think it’s realistic to insist on that type of person as a presidential nominee.
Voting for Alito and for the bankruptcy bill are not decisions I agree with, but I’m willing to cut Obama some slack and assume that he did those things for tactical reasons and his heart is in the right place. The Senate is what it is, and you pretty much have to do certain things in order to get there and be effective there.
I think Obama is *at the very least* another Bill Clinton. I can remember being a disaffected leftist during the 90s, but the Bush years have made me sit up and take notice that there are far worse options than Bill Clinton. I am far more concerned with nominating a winner in ‘08 than with seeking the absolute best ideological candidate. The next supreme court nomination and the future of the UN will both be a lot better off with any Democratic president. A Democrat will also be a lot less likely to invade Iran, and may well provide an opportunity to undo the horrible Bush policies on torture, arbitrary detention, and domestic spying.
Lastly, I think a person is more than the sum of his votes and policy positions. I get a good vibe off Obama; a lot of people do (though clearly there are some doubters). It is a real possibility that the people who feel that he is an actual good person are right.

By: muggles

muggles — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 05:08:02 +0000

Obama’s the man.
The guy alredy owns the illinois electoral votes if he wins the dem. nomination.

By: joseph duemer

joseph duemer — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 02:07:53 +0000

Trying again:
I’m using Firefox w/ XP. Thanks for the information, though.
To the point: Obama the progressive voted for the bankruptcy bill last year. Links:
http://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/2006/12/crashing_the_cr.html
harpers.org/BarackObamaInc.html
montages.blogspot.com/2005/06/obama-yo-mama.html
Obama, who would be the second black president, after Bill Clinton, is also, like Clinton, a triangulating faux-progressive. And all the talk about God that Mark likes so much just puts me off. But that’s just me. If it only put me off, that would be all right, I suppose; the problem is, as many have noted, that white conservatives are not going to vote for Obama. They are simply lost souls to the Democratic Party.
Obama has been reliably pro-choice, though his rhetoric of accommodation to the religious right on this subject is not encouraging for progressives.Furthermore, many of the Christians to whom Obama wants to appeal are racists. I grew up with them, I know. It’s “soft racism,” if you will. If a pollster asks, “Would you vote for a qualified African-American for president,” they would overwhelmingly answer “Yes,” but in the privacy of the voting booth they would sooner vote for Daffy Duck than a black man.
So let me sort this out: 1) Obama is not a real progressive; 2) he has never won a difficult election; 3) he criticizes fellow Democrats for not pandering to the religious right; 4) he will not be able to deliver the fantasy evangelical vote.
On both practical electoral issues as well as many progressive fundamentals, Obama is a loser. Mark says we should be lining up behind our candidates now. I think it’s a little early, but I think Al Gore’s time may have come. He has been to the wilderness & returned with real wisdom. I think he’s had the triangulation beat out of him. Like Mark, I was a supporter of Wes Clark last time around & I still think he’d make both a fine candidate & a fine president.

By: joseph duemer

joseph duemer — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 02:05:58 +0000

Thanks, Mark, I was confused because even in this comment thread at least one legit comment contained a live link (from "rilkefan"). I tried initially to use standard html, but when that got stripped out I just pasted the links into the post. Presumably, I need to cut off the http://. Have you thought of going to a catchpa system?

By: Mark Kleiman

Mark Kleiman — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 01:23:34 +0000

Joseph: You can type in the url without setting it as a link. Then readers can copy and paste.
This site receives about 1000 spam pseudo-comments per day, all with embedded links. There’s no other way to filter them without hiring staff.

By: joseph duemer

joseph duemer — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 01:15:46 +0000

It would be ironic if a “fact-based” weblog like this, sponsored by an academic, blocked comments containing links. I am as aware as anyone of the problem of comment spam, but the fact-based online community is meaningless without the ability to link to sources.

By: Laertes

Laertes — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 00:45:01 +0000

I expect your problem is the “supporting links.” Link-rich comments are usually spam, and some filters will block them. Good filter, says I.

By: rilkefan

rilkefan — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 22:57:21 +0000

joseph duemer, I find my comments from firefox/linux get eaten regularly on this site; from firefox/XP they don’t.

By: joseph duemer

joseph duemer — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 22:04:01 +0000

Professor Kleiman, are you now moderating comments for content? I posted an answer to Tom’s question above this morning, with supporting links, but it has not appeared. Probably it’s just a technical matter, but if you have a policy of editing comments, you ought to let your readers know.

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 21:09:26 +0000

Doug Watts up above: Dude, you are seriously overreacting. Here’s the safest political prediction you will see this year: the Democratic nominee in 08 will be a man or woman who has publicly professed a belief in God.
The obvious problem with an Obama-Clark candidacy is that people will wonder why it’s in that order. And the only answer would be: Obama gave some good speeches.
Obama lacks the executive experience and the national security chops for the job. The correct ticket is Clark-Obama: the candidate with the strongest security credentials with the rising star in the second spot. That ticket wins in a landslide against any candidate but McCain, and has the best chance of beating McCain.

By: obsessed

obsessed — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 19:14:07 +0000

I agree that Obama is a better speaker than the rest of the current crop, but “gift for rhetoric”?? Obama is like a guy who’s hitting .260 when the rest of the democrats are below .200. That doesn’t make him a gifted speaker. He sounds tentative and tepid to my ear. Compare him to JFK, RFK or King. Forget about it. Apples and oranges. Obama’s not even in the same league. When I listen to King or Kennedy I get chills down my spine. When I listen to Obama, I bite my nails and hope he doesn’t fuck up or mispeak.
The key to this whole thing is that we DO NEED someone who REALLY has the gift for rhetoric. I think you folks have forgotten what that is, and what it sounds like. There really is such a thing as the gift for rhetoric. We just haven’t witnessed it for several decades. When (and if) you hear it, you’ll understand instantly.
If that person can’t be found, I suppose Obama’s the best bet, but then again, look what they did to Ford in Tennessee. Racism will trump religion with a lot of those potentially useful idiots you hope to recruit to the electoral cause.

By: Dammitman!

Dammitman! — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 17:07:58 +0000

I can’t see Obama choosing Clark as his veep.
If he’s elected, he should have foreign policy experience at his disposal, but that should be a few people he can hire and fire. Having a veep with such overwhelming military and foreign policy experience and a very public profile as veep risks creating a rival center of power, could make for wounded pride and difficulty resolving policy disputes raised by subordinates.
Better to put a few people with a lot of knowledge and a lower public profile in the key slots–State, NSA, DoD–and have an open policy process where agenda and policy selection would be decided by the PotUS and his chief of staff.

By: Perry

Perry — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 13:53:01 +0000

The vote to confirm Alito for one.

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 03:43:36 +0000

I’m seeing some vague references to Obama as Republican-lite here, but nobody’s being very specific about what votes or stances he’s taken that put him in that category. Can someone please explain?

By: calling all toasters

calling all toasters — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 22:51:43 +0000

If Obama’s religion-talk is going to be so popular among evangelicals, why it the most popular figure in that demographic the adulterous, pro-choice Rudolph Giuliani? Obama won’t get squat from them unless he changes parties. They like Obama the same way they like Lieberman–they think he’s a tool. I’m not sure they’re wrong.

By: ck up in this mofo

ck up in this mofo — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 21:57:33 +0000

For all Obama’s excellent policy-wonkery, that sort of language, and thinking, makes him far more strange to me than Wesley Clark is. But it makes him far more familiar and far more comfortable to tens of millions of people whose votes we need.
Gosh, Mark, you are a true technocrat. The people are a mere obstacle to your preferred policies. The people are there to be ruled, commanded. I get the sense that a wise King is what you’re looking for. That’s totally defensible but it’s crazy to see it put so starkly.
Part of this is merely a hard-headed acquiescence to the reality that the president is not merely a care-taker but an active agenda-setter. This much, I realize. As a libertarian, I’d prefer the Grover Cleveland model, but hey, it’s a new millenium now. No sense allowing ourselves to be ruled by the Dead Hand of the Constitution.
If I were a lefty, I’d go for Gov. Vilsack. What are the Rs going to say: “He’ll turn the whole country into Iowa!” Oooh, I’m so scared.
Here’s the problem with Obama. There are still racists in America. A small minority to be sure, but not an insignificant one. If 2008 turns out to be close–it probably won’t, it’s the Ds turn–then Obama’s skin tone could cost you electoral votes. (The Electoral colleges allows small minorities in states to have a greater voice. That’s why we pander to Cuban-Americans in Florida, corn farmers in Iowa, etc. etc.)
Anyway, Hillary’s got the nomination locked up.
And she’ll be our next President.
Mark my words.