"Call for Unity" versus "Call for Policy"
Primary tabs
Hillary's speech is being covered as "Call for Unity."
But if you listened to her, it was just as much a "Call for Policy."
Unfortunately, Obama hasn't necessarily committed to any of those policies -- and, I would argue, can't, because the post-partisan schtick and the "big table" concept preclude any commitment to outcomes. The only commitment Obama makes is to turn the sausage-making machine on; there's no commitment to the kind of sausage that comes out, or even if there will be sausage. There will, however, be the hope for sausage.
This was clearly true in the case of universal health care. That awkward topic was conspicuously absent in the earlier speeches; but each time Hillary brought it up, her language got more forceful. I'd like to hear the same commitment from Obama ("And we get?"), and I'd like to have it stand up under parsing. (Let's remember that "Hillary would be on anybody's short list" turned out -- in violation of syllogistic logic -- not to mean "Hillary is on my short list.") The case is even more clear for "gay rights."
And what breaks my heart, as well as making me pound my forehead on the desk, is that none of this should be hard for someone willing to exercise leadership instead of talking about exercising leadership. 80% of America says the country is on the wrong track, and I'd bet most of them are in fear. And along with fear of losing your job, and fear of losing your house, fear of losing health care ranks right up there, and a lot of times, the loss of any one of them is the loss of the other two. Not only is universal health care (single payer; Medicare for all) the right thing to do, morally and in policy terms; it should be a political winner too, and on the FDR scale.
I'd like to be at a loss to understand why the Ds don't get this, and stop crapping around. But I'm working on the assumption that the D leadership gets this completely, and has written off the people who actually need government to work because the campaign contributions aren't there, and new funding is required, and they either believe that money's not there, or it's too much trouble to get it, so things net out badly for them. (The hate for the old now being happily manufactured by Obama's base will be very useful for framing such issues, in future. Well done.)
Hence, the D leadership writes off that portion of the party's base, and moves right to the evangelicals, the (much cheaper) youth, and the corporations -- all of whom, for their various reasons, find a message of hopey change deeply resonant.
It's not the difference between half a shit sandwich and a whole shit sandwich; I've been wrong, wrong, wrong for all these years. It's the difference between bullshit and horseshit. And no doubt there is a difference, but discerning the difference will take several tasting flights, and will include modeling which kind of shit I may be expected to eat, in future.
Just saying.
NOTE Of course, real unequivocal (not rumored) policy commitments on universal health care and gay rights could change the taste of D shit in a hurry, for all the reasons I give above why it will never happen. Perhaps Thursday?
- lambert's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
The problem....
...for Obama is that he can't take strong positions on issues, because that would constitute a flip-flop.
I think that the only way Obama makes real headway in redefining himself outside the "rock star" box is to make Iraq an issue again. Not only has Bushco managed to take Iraq off the table, they've done so in a way that makes Obama look like an idiot (the surge "worked", and there is now a 36 month timeline, when Obama was insisting on 16 months).
Obama should insist on the 16 month timeline -- making the case that Bush is allowing Iraq to determine US policy, squandering US lives and US resources while Iraq sits on an $87 billion dollar surplus.
Obama needs to draw a line -- and the only place he can credibly do so is with Iraq. By taking a stand on Iraq, he can then start to credibly take stands on other stuff.
Also a call to be a Democrat
I first heard her speech on radio (7 hour drive), then caught CNN, MSNBC and Fox rebroadcasts on teebee.
Even more powerful the second time. CNN and MSNBC (especially CNN) were effusive with praise. Prior to her speech my wife heard Maddow laying into Clinton for being a "vain bitch" or something like that. I didn't see it, but apparently Noonan (Noonan!) was trying to be nice and say Hillary would do what she eventually did do, but Maddow would have none of it, preferring to stick to Chuck Todd's disgusting "You're so Vain" schtick. And she's BIO and Greenwalds fan fave? I don't think it is possible for them to eat crow, but one can "hope"....
Anyway, the all important Village narrative apparently was she had done everything asked of her and more so and there even was (finally) some push back (on David Gergen's part) against the whole "all about the Clintons" trope.
So what did she do? Well, she came damn, damn close to getting my wife and I to drink the koolaid. Masterfully done to talk about all of the people she had met who were suffering and to challenge her supporters to think of them over thinking of her. But more importantly, she challenged OBAMA to run for those people too. This was every bit the challenge to Obama as it was to her supporters. I don't think that really sunk in at the time due to her very artful use of emotion in that appeal, and her very forceful statements of belief in Obama carrying her goals forward. It will sink in though. The premise for her appeal to support Obama is that he WILL fight for those Democratic values that SHE based her presidential bid on. If he doesn't, if he continues to mouth mealy platitudes, the entire premise of her appeal is GONE.
Obama got what he asked for, the best possible, the strongest possible appeal from Clinton to her supporters and voters to unite behind Obama. I think it is going to dawn on him that he may not have wanted what he asked for.
-----------------------------
Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites
Herb nails it
She took everybody to school last night as to what it means to be a Democrat (and it ain't about hope and change and post-partisanship, it's about fighting and "keep going" for social justice).
To me, this only emphasized how much Obama has NOT been a Democrat so far and how much he lacks substance.
Go Global!
If you want a bit of nausea, read this article
about the rewards of cashing in on one's personal integrity:
http://tinyurl.com/62v8gf
I'm glad someone noticed how vehement Maddow was about still blaming Hillary for just about everything wrong in the campaign.
I have lived long enough to agree with Pat Buchanan, who last night noted that since Biden was for the war and stood with Clinton on most other issues, that it made no sense *not* to choose the candidate with 18 million votes behind her. Who knew I could tolerate him, and want to dash the remains of my Slurpee at the back of Maddow's head, as she fumed last night that Clinton still was at fault? I was at MSNBC's setup last night behind Union Station, in the nagging glare of their audience lights, and wondered what would be if I only had a pitcher's throw....
And amazing jujitsu from Hillary: That's what a Democrat does, and that's what a Democrat looks like -- someone who gives a damn about people, someone who proposes practical policies to help those people, and a person who does not quit, despite the odds.
Hillary has not quit; she's just moved back, in the interests of fairness and process, and I can live with that. What I will not stand is a repeat of this procedural chicanery and bullshit in 2010, because you know that if they got away with it here, they'll try out their intimidation techniques on any progressive challengers to DSCC and DCCC incumbents. we have to work it all the way down, now.
Herb does indeed
Here, especially:
Now we have a checklist for Thursday. Boring bullet points about policy!
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
The key line
Sometimes the key line is the speech is not necessarily the most powerful or most memorable line.
This is the key line said after she runs through the very powerful (and very Democratic) list of why she ran:
Basically, if he does not follow through on those "reasons", you have no "reason" to vote for Obama. Plus, throughout she emphasized fighting for those reasons, that it will be hard work, that it will require pushing through adversity and against rabid opposition.
Brilliant, effective, powerful. The ball is indeed in Obama's court now.
Look for more of the same from Bill Clinton tonight. He will likely put on a clinic on why we should elect a Democrat to the White House and why that Dem needs to fight for Democratic ideals. I predict he will call that Democrat Barack Obama, but will not be basing his appeal on Obama's nebulous "character" or "background", rather it will be on immutable Democratic ideals. A challenge to Obama to adopt those values and fight for them or lose.
After watching the lame procession before her (maybe excluding Schweitzer), we got to see a truly inspiring political leader last night. We will see another tomorrow night (not Joe Biden, Bill Clinton), and who knows what we will see on Thursday.
-----------------------------
Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites
Meanwhile
Over at TPM, they just can't help themselves:
Sigh.
-----------------------------
Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites
Broder with stubble
I love the picture of WKJM calibrating degrees of corniness ("somewhat corny") before issuing his carefully worded pronouncement. Truly, after a good start, he's become our own Broderalla.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
i recall the Edwards speech
some months ago, in which he threw in for obama. everyone on the tubes was in a tizzy! "universal health care!" "two americas!" "end the war!" people were just lapping it up, all that progressive goodness.
it didn't seem to occur to many, however, that it was edwards saying these things, things obama scrupulously avoids saying, nor that if these things were actually important to voters, they should've, you know, supported the candidate who advocated them.
now, i know johnny is a 'disgrace,' b/c he had sex with a woman not his wife. so i guess it's a 'good thing,' that he isn't The One this time around. but i can't forget how easily people put their hopey changey faith into obama, as if all edwards' pretty words were coming out of obama's mouth. it frightened me a little bit, to realize just how easily even 'die hard' progressives and internet savvy netroots types can be impressed with bright lights and roaring crowds. i kept thinking, "is anyone here actually familiar with obama's stated policy aims?" and i believe, still and to this day, the answer is mostly, "no."
"Universal health care would be on anyone's list"
Just not mine.....
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
To ChiDy@8/27 10:22pm--Charlie Rose's panel last night began
finally to ask just what Obama's proposals, stands are. A supporter of Obama said he's been plenty specific, said he'd counted 147 (!!) specific econ, iirc, proposals.
Amazingly, few voters know what they are. Gee, wonder why....
Anyway, not that the Dem nom is on the cusp of being finalized, the MCM decides to look at his effin' proposals???
And, no, I do know how he will govern. I can guess, but that is all. I can try to read between the lines of what he's said, what he's known to have done, how he's voted, how he's talked about his votes--and I have no idea how he will govern or what he will actually do.
It's exhausting. So much easier when pols actually talk about their plans. Like those awful Clintons do and did.
I've Said All Along
the main problem with Obama and his campaign is that I a poltical junkie have no idea what his domestic priority will be (other than unity and being awesome). He's been campaigning for more than a year and I have no idea what's the most important things he thinks he needs to accomplish. That this is even possible is a failure of the media, the party, the campaign, the blogs, and the voters.
It's not even that I disagree with his priorities. I don't know what they are.
And the priorities we know are scary
Like making faith an integral part of the national agenda and boosting faith-based initiatives, and bombing Pakistan.
Go Global!
And not once
has Obama ever articulated any position that can be described as firm. Apparently, nowhere has he drawn a line in the sand on any issue whatsoever. Everything appears to be negotiable. And that's good for progressives how??
he's been firm on the faith stuff alone--
and it's absolutely GOP, and alienating.
Maybe it's the optimist in me
But I also believe in "death-bed conversions". I am hopeful Obama will have one. A conversion I mean....
In the 'Christmas Carol' Scrooge didn't really try to change his ways until after his visit from the Ghost of Christmas Future, when he was shown his own, lonely death. I think the polls over the last few months have been Obama's Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future. Or maybe it's the Clintons who are those ghosts, I don't know. It's confusing....
Whatever! The point is that if Obama comes out completely turned around, Scrooge-like, on Thursday, committed to running like a Democrat, for Democratic ideals and goals, that will be enough for me. As long as he also promises to keep the spirit of Democratic Progressivism alive for the rest of his days.
Oh, and get Tiny Timmie some health care.
-----------------------------
Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites
Agreed totally Herb
as long as when we parse the promises and they are still meaningful ("universal health care would be on anybody's list" -- just not mine).
That's what I've been saying, except you said it better.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Which kind of shit I may be expected to eat
Your comments regarding the gradations of shit we'll have to eat reminded me of some comments from author Ken Kesey, "Cream rises, but shit floats. The trick is being able to tell the difference." Maybe we'll get lucky and find out that it really is cream. One can hope, hehehe.
He won't change without pressure
And even then maybe not. Even if he says things that can't be parsed, he still needs to be monitored because he has proven he's not above lying. cough*FISA*cough.
I really believe the Clintons will be watching him though and the degree they support him is indeed conditional (to a certain extent). I think it is clear the speech she gave backed him as a Democrat, not as a Unity Pony.
After reading the comments here, I also think that most of us 'vote withholders' are kind of tracking the same way. Weird!
-----------------------------
Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites