Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic has a good post today putting perspective on the situation for Barack Obama and his supporters.
Watching shows like “Good Morning America” and any of the 24-hour cable news networks reminds me that the national media is increasingly devoid of perspective. Hence why the last 72 hours of news has focused on Obama’s former preacher’s speaking tour.
You know, I used to be upset that the hyper-charged media coverage was producing national candidates unwilling to take risks or say what they mean. “Serious” candidates were those that spent decades of their life avoiding anything that would be considered controversial, resulting in more vacuous, poll-driven politicians who suppress their practical strengths in the interest of political victory. But this latest cycle, with the focus on Obama’s past minister the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, carries another risk for future politicians. If Obama is dragged down the only successful future candidates will be those who not only purge their own biographies of political will, but who are also willing to purge their lives of any loved ones or associates who hold unpopular views. In other words: soulless, vacuous, poll-driven politicians. Oh, boy!
To me, that’s why it’s more important than ever that the Democratic Party nominate Barack Obama and get him elected President. We’ve learned that he’s not perfect, but he still provides a strong vision and an extraordinary contrast to the conventional wisdom of today’s lousy political culture. This is a generational political struggle. The thing about struggles is that they often involve struggling. Struggle on!
“he still provides a strong vision “
What is that vision?
“Serious” candidates were those that spent decades of their life avoiding anything that would be considered controversial”
Can you seriously suggest this describes Hillary Clinton? Isn’t the reality that Clinton may be too controversial to get elected?
Or did that describe Ronald Reagan?
And what are the highly controversial, unpopular stands that Obama has taken?
I understand that this is the story line for this campaign. But like most of those story lines the media creates to keep us entertained, the reality is a whole lot more complex and not nearly as entertaining.
Our political culture is bankrupt. If you can’t see the machinations that people go through when the run for Senate or President you’re kidding yourself. Any sign of humanity or deviation from conventional wisdom is seized upon by the opposing parties and media until the originator is made to pay in the public opinion polls. And yes, Hillary has been harmed by this as much as Obama. Candidates like Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Teddy Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln and others — practically all our truly great presidents (Reagan and Clinton were good, not great) — would have been rendered unfit for office by this process. We’ll never have another great president until we figure out how to fix this.
What’s the vision? That it doesn’t have to be like that. That two sides can talk to each other like grown ups. That disagreements can be real and felt deeply but that we’re united in purpose. Yes this vision is stylistic, not concrete. But you can propose ten-point plans until you’re blue in the face and nothing’s going to change until the attitude changes.
Forgot to answer one part of your question on “controversial” stands by Obama:
Obama told the teachers’ union (my union) that the education solution would involve not just vast amounts of new funding to pay for teachers and materials, but standards and incentives to encourage good teaching practices. He had to have known this would cost him the endorsement but said it anyway. Clinton didn’t go there and got the endorsement. But she knows that setting standards while increasing funding was how Bill Clinton fixed the Arkansas schools when they were the worst in the country.
Just one example, but it hits home for me.
“That two sides can talk to each other like grown ups. That disagreements can be real and felt deeply but that we’re united in purpose. Yes this vision is stylistic, not concrete.”
Its the same “compassionate conservative”, “I am a uniter, not a divider.” vision that was presented by the current President when he ran in 2000. That didn’t work out so well.
The problem with that vision is that it is an amazingly easy one to articulate and very popular with almost everyone. The other problem is that it is completely phony. We aren’t all united in purpose. Government makes real decisions that bestow burdens and benefits to different people. And most people want fewer burdens and more benefits for themselves. We tend to think that it is only fair.
“Any sign of humanity or deviation from conventional wisdom is seized upon by the opposing parties and media until the originator is made to pay in the public opinion polls.”
Isn’t the idea of democracy to elect people who reflect current “conventional wisdom”? And how does that not apply to Obama? Where has he deviated from conventional wisdom?
“Reagan and Clinton were good, not great”
Reagan was a terrible president who demonstrated some of the dementia while President that would later be obvious. We are still living with the legacy of his mismanagement.
“Obama told the teachers’ union (my union) that the education solution would involve not just vast amounts of new funding to pay for teachers and materials, but standards and incentives to encourage good teaching practices.”
That’s not really controversial. More money for teachers? Standards? As Obama noted in his talk, its when you start talking about the details of determining the merit in “merit pay” that the union starts to have problems. In fact, almost every union contract provides for higher pay as people add educational qualifications such as a masters or doctoral degree.
I would agree the fact that support for teacher standards can be portrayed as “controversial” and daring is an indication of how bankrupt our political process really is.
“He had to have known this would cost him the endorsement but said it anyway.”
Its at least as likely that he knew he was not getting the teacher’s union endorsement in any case. But that would leave it as the kind of cynical political calculation that is part of the “old politics”.
OK, Anon. I just don’t seem to see where you’re going with this. I don’t see how the alternatives in this year’s election do a better job than Obama in uniting the country. We are not united in purpose? Perhaps true. But we should be and the cold, calculating tactics that have become standard in Dem and Repub politics over the last decade are never, ever going to sit well with me. When I say Reagan was good I’m stepping out of my ideology to see how the country responded to him and itself during his time. Terrible policies, indeed. That’s not the point. The Obama/Clinton differences are minute on policy, but vast on style. That, and biography/experience, are really all we have to go on. I’ve made my call and I’m happy with it. You do your thing and we’ll see where this ends up.
“When I say Reagan was good I’m stepping out of my ideology to see how the country responded to him and itself during his time.”
You might want to read this.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1832
I think you have bought into right-wing mythology.
Another example of Obama’s integrity: He is not in favor of the “gas tax holiday” that McCain proposed and Clinton thinks is such a good idea. Good grief. What will the average person save over the summer? A half gallon of gas? Give me a break. All that it does is encourage people to drive more and allow gas companies to rake in more money. Clinton says she will account for any windfall to the gas companies but this is typical pandering by entrenched Washington politicians. Obama has the sense, decency and respect to tell the public what it actually is: pandering. This voter is sick of pandering. And, by the way, where is Hillary going to come up with the lost tax revenue to keep our bridges from falling down?
Also, original anonymous poster:
Many voters who have paid attention to politics from the outside over the last 12 years have never felt part of the process because they see the underhanded pandering, triangulation (the Clintons are famous for), poll driven, which way is the wind blowing strategies that have shaped the landscape during these years. Finally, they hear what Barack Obama has to say and it hits home. Many voters who would otherwise pass the political season by are saying wait a second, this guy is speaking to thoughts I have been having. He understands why the public is frustrated. Maybe instead of using wedge issues to win an election, he can actually catalyze people to pull together for a common purpose.
I can’t believe that many people want to deal with deceit and lies for the next 4 to 8 years again. I see that happening with the Clintons. There have been various instances that have occurred just during this extended primary.
For crying out loud, Hillary made up a story about sniper fire so she could look more hard-ass. I find that to be absolutely appalling. She made up a story. Why did she make it up? Why hasn’t anyone asked her that? That was no misspeak. It was a fabricated story. I want her to tell me why she did it. What else is she going to make up?
K
“And, by the way, where is Hillary going to come up with the lost tax revenue to keep our bridges from falling down?”
She spcifically proposed a windfall profit tax on the oil companies in conjunction with the gas tax moratorium.
It is interesting how often discussions of Obama digress into anti-Clinton diatribes and threats to not vote in the fall. If there is a unifying message there, I can’t see it. The Obama message that his supporters seem to repeat is almost entirely negative – how terrible the Clintons are and how they poisen the political climate. If Obama has a positive message, his most adamant supporters apparently aren’t listening to it.
” Obama has the sense, decency and respect to tell the public what it actually is: pandering. “
How is that a positive vision for dealing with gas prices? Its really just dismissing people’s concerns and the efforts to address them.
I think a gas tax moratorium is probably bad policy, but how is Obama practicing a new kind of politics by attacking the motives of those who propose it instead of addressing the issue on its merits.
The gas tax idea is not a good idea. It is pandering clear and simple. Clinton and mccain basically are going to take money we borrow from china, push it through the middle east and make profits for big oil. They are using the topic to pander and try to make it turn into a short term gain of votes. Where are hillaryks real solutions? She isn’t going to be able to gain a consensus with such obvious pandering. People have have become more keen to this bs over the last 12 years. Obama is being more straightforward and honest and many many more people respond to that than you think. He at least admits that rising gas prices need a bigger and better solution than proposing a three month holiday. Oh, and by the way, criticism of hillary’s “plans” is warranted. I have no loyalty to her at all. If she, by some miracle, is the nominee I will not vote for her. Precisely because of how she has conducted this campaign. At this ooint, I don’t trust her to run this country the way we so badly need it to be run right now.
The economic models out there show about two thirds of the gas tax will go into price reductions at the pump. If you replace the entire gas tax with a windfall profits tax on oil companies, that two thirds comes out of the oil companies profits.
Is it a bad idea to shift the tax burden from gas guzzling consumers to profiteering oil companies? Maybe. But for people here in northern Minnesota it would certainly help a bit to ease the pain from the run up in gas prices. It also might bring a few more tourist dollars to the area this summer.
I don’t think so. How can you guarantee that the middle man doesn’t keep the money that is supposed to be passed along to the consumer.
Very bad, pandering idea that, once again, does not solve the underlying problem. Why is everybody so excited about quick fixes? Politicians have been trying to placate us with quick fixes for so long and many voters are just starting opening their eyes to it.
This whole discussion is a classic for what is wrong with our political discourse. The media provides a variety of self-serving, hyperbolic, sound-bites from various policy advocates. Along with personal attacks on the motives of their opponents. And then those get repeated over and over again until people come to believe them.
“How can you guarantee that the middle man doesn’t keep the money that is supposed to be passed along to the consumer.”
Because the market won’t let them. They are still in competition with one another. They can’t charge 10 cents more per gallon than the station across the street and have much business. If they could, they would be charging that now.
The economic models apparently show that they can, and will, keep some of it. That is why the entire savings from eliminating the gas tax won’t get passed on. But about two-thirds of it will. And, under Clinton’s proposal at least, all that money will come out of oil company profits instead of consumers pocketbooks.
Even that partial savings is still relief for people who are buying a lot of gas. And those are the people effected by the increase in gas prices. Those of us who fill up once a month don’t pay much attention to the price.
It is pandering. People on average are paying $5600 per year more in living expenses. At the same time they are not able to get overtime or find a second job to keep up with living expenses. So it is actually worse than being $5600 short per year. Getting rid of the gas tax is not going to put much of a dent in that. Admit it, $30 to 60 is a short term pander to get votes. :illary sure didn’t put much thought into this. She just said me too to john mccain and rewarded the oil companies.
She just said me too to john mccain and rewarded the oil companies.
How does shifting the tax on gas from consumers to oil company profits reward the oil companies? That argument is the sort of phony BS that is really poisoning out political climate.
The real reason Obama opposes a gas tax moratorium is that it will encourage gas consumption. He sees the issues associated with that, mostly environmental, as more important than providing relief to gas guzzling consumers. But that isn’t a vote getter, thus the shift to personal attacks about “pandering”. This is politics as usual.
It is pandering. Why can’t we come up with real solutions instead of the headline catching quick fix. If she wanted to help consumers, give a real tax rebate to people who really need it and can directly pay for the gas they need with it. There is no way to absolutely insure that the oil companies would not benefit from a tax holiday. Hillary can talk about a windfall profit tax all she wants but there is no way Bush or Congress would allow it to pass. First, because, Bush is an oil man and he has the veto pen and second, because the majority of our legislators understand that this does not solve the problem; they would never go along with it. Clinton knows this and she is using her bright idea as a pander, plain and simple.
give a real tax rebate to people who really need it
Tax rebate checks going out as we speak? A gas tax moratorium provides benefits to people who are most effected by increased gas prices. I don’t know how else you would target that group.
the majority of our legislators understand that this does not solve the problem; they would never go along with it.
So you are accusing Clinton of pandering because she knows legislators like Obama will obstruct passage of her proposal regardless of its merits?
“That two sides can talk to each other like grown ups.”
If this is supposed to be what is different about Obama’s campaign, I don’t see it. Far from adult discussion, it seems to be closer to a junior high school popularity contest.
Yes, there are tax rebates currently going out. Not everybody who is getting that rebate really needs it. Our country is in debt up to its eyeballs and we send money to everyone, even those who can do without it? It doesn’t make sense. This rebate is not necessarily meant to “help” people out. It is to help our economy out and I don’t think it will do much good. Most of it is going to go into savings or be used to pay off credit cards.
The gas tax holiday is pandering. You aren’t going to change my mind or the majority of clear thinking people’s minds. The price of gas is high right now. However, it is nowhere near as high as it should be if this market followed trends of inflation. It is so different now than it was in the 80s and 90s. People buy big SUVs for status and then they complain about filling them up when the gas price goes up. They probably shouldn’t have bought the SUV in the first place. TImes are tight, I get it. Maybe a sedan would work better for a lot of people and they’d actually save a decent amount of money instead of a measly $30.
Yes, I am accusing Clinton of pandering because she knows legislators like Obama and many many others know this is a bad idea (indluding 150 top economists). It is a bad idea that will provide a negligible benefit and she is using the bad idea because she knows there are many people out there who are content blaming everyone else instead of also looking at there own decisions and habits.
Its pandering and short sighted. Many people are smarter than that.
Oh, and yes, Hillary is using her pandering gas tax holiday as part of her popularity contest.
Pander apparently is the word of the day for the Obama campaign. Poll-tested no doubt.
The rapid runup in gas prices has caught a lot of people by surprise and it is causing some real hardship for people who made decisions based on a much lower price. Whether that is a long commute or buying an RV that was going to provide a low cost vacation. Trying to provide some relief for those folks is not “pandering”. That’s what government is supposed to do.
As you apparently recognize, shifting the gas tax to the oil companies is not enough to eliminate the incentive for conservation. Its just going to provide some relief to those most effected as people adjust to the new reality.
That may still be bad policy, but that is hardly obvious. There doesn’t seem to be much interest here in debating the issue on its merits. Instead its just an opportunity for another round of name-calling by Obama supporters.