I am also worried about what an Obama presidency would imply. While there is no doubt he would be better to have in office than a Republican, I sense that many Obama supporters who are willing to continuously forgive his repeated throwing of progressives under the bus using GOP talking points, don't understand that the Democratic party has not build a lasting "brand" in the eyes of Americans and you can't build that "brand" - which requires the creation of broad progressive infrastructure, vision and an aggressive defense of progressive positions - with the help of someone who frequently trashes that very "brand" using the talking points of the opposition.
If Obama wins the nomination - and if he pulls off a general election victory (which is going to be very tough for him compared to Edwards or Clinton) - it would certainly be better than having a Republican in office. However, I think it will likely have significant negative long-term consequences for the Democratic party because his Presidency will likely become a Presidency of one person - and not a Presidency that will facilitate the reconstruction of the Democratic "brand" and progressive infrastructure which is still seriously lacking compared to the massive conservative noise machine. Given that Sen. Obama feels so comfortable trashing progressive views and progressives even before we have begun the primaries, I can only imagine how much more he would be inclined to do so during the GE and after, when he is under constant attack by Republicans.
Anyway, I will be happy if I am proved wrong, but Democrats should be thinking a lot more about about the long-term ramifications of an Obama victory.
Posted by eriposte at January 1, 2008 12:06 PMeriposte-
and people rip hillary for being "dlc"- obama's running on the old dlc model!
Posted by Turkana at January 1, 2008 12:09 PMTwo comments:
First, I saw some of Obama's stump speech on CNN today (and kudos to them for showing long, uninterrupted stretches of the candidates' speeches), and I thought he was running heavily on his own uniqueness: what I heard is that he saw something wrong with the country, and realized that he (and implicitly he alone) could fix the problem.
Am I the only one hearing this? I found it quite disturbing.
Second, Obama has fooled no one more than the Demcocrats who support him. They have this delusion that Obama is fooling Republicans and centrists, and that once elected he will turn the tables on those people and move them leftwards.
Unless they believe Obama is the mirror image of Bush, who fooled many Democrats about his aims, then I can't see it. And suppose that Obama really is running Bush-style, fooling the Republicans---then can't we expect that his Presidency will be just as polarizing and divisive as Bush?
Exactly right.
Thanks for aggregating the posts Turkana.
Posted by andgarden at January 1, 2008 03:02 PMI think this is a little bit of overkill on the left side of the blogosphere. He is not running a Harold Ford type campaign in which he denounces everything democratic. He knows the score and is playing to the audience he's dealt. In other words like just about any politician regardless of party he's doing a little bit of pandering. Big surprise there.
No he is not moving the party away from the base, away from unions, away from core Democratic values. Let's slow down a little bit.
This from a guy who is rooting for someone else.
Posted by Daryl at January 1, 2008 03:38 PMIt's amazing how much you people obsess over things said on the campaign trail, when the obvious roll back equilibrium is for presidential candidates to LIE!!!
Looking at past voting record and things said before running for president can be useful, but this dialog between Obama/Hillary/Edwards is just posturing.
Either make your decision based on their voting records prior to about 2004, randomly pick one of the three or just don't vote. If voters were rational, I would suspect that Kucinich would be the front running democrat. But fortunately for the establishment, cheap talk still wins over those indoctrinated at government run schools.
Remember the equilibrium for a duopoly in a loosely regulated market with large barriers to entry is for the two groups(political parties) to collude.
daryl- spewing repug talking points on social security, copying repug spin about unions and trial lawyers, throwing gays under the bus to win the homophobe vote in south carolina, and his whole broderistic purple theme- it may help him win, but it is what it is- and it isn't democratic party values.
jay- opposing kucinich is actually rational, on several different levels. he can't win, he's never demonstrated the ability to lead, and his literally overnight flipflop on choice proved he's just another pol, anyway.
Posted by Turkana at January 1, 2008 05:24 PMTurkana:That's all well and good but you are still blowing this out of proportion.None of these things are going to happen. As jay pointed out let's look at the voting records. I can name a couple of points that fall in line with dem party values.It's called playing the game and it doesn't bother me.
Posted by Daryl at January 1, 2008 07:29 PM