If you have "no place to go," come here!

Formula for defeat

Salon's Walter Shapiro:

The problem that Obama has had with expanding his base in every primary since Wisconsin (Feb. 19) may boil down to the simple equation that either you get it (the young, the affluent and African-Americans) or you are tone-deaf (older voters, blue-collar Democrats, middle-class women and Hispanics). Trapped by the true-believer enthusiasm that the fledging Illinois senator arouses, the Obama campaign has become something of a Cool Kids Club. Either you are a full-fledged member (with the secret handshake and the decoder ring) or else you find yourself voting for a well-known, albeit flawed, alternative called Hillary Clinton.

Obama is the first insurgent candidate in memory who has not come up with a new issue to challenge the establishment favorite. (Clinton's 2002 vote to permit the Iraq war was part of the background of the campaign before Obama decided to run.) By predicating almost his entire campaign on inspiration and process (he can reform the broken system in Washington and Clinton cannot), Obama has deliberately forsaken bread-and-butter issues as a means of persuasion. Maybe a federal bowling-ball subsidy plan might have been derided as economic pandering, but it would have at least given Obama something new to talk about in the run-up to the Pennsylvania primary.

The Shrill One blogsums it up:

if he is the nominee, and runs this way in the general election — if it’s about the candidate’s awesomeness, not about why progressive policies make peoples’ lives better — it’s a formula for defeat.

Hey, I've got an idea!

Let's have Obama give a speech!

From where I stand, Obama's not asking for my vote. And with "cling to" and throwing Universal Health Care under the bus, Obama's saying he doesn't want my vote. Perhaps he intends to win and govern with from the center right based on a fractured Democratic Party, and making up the difference with Moderate Republicans.

Good luck with that.

No votes yet


gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

using terms like "awesomeness" though I prefer the phrase "awesome awesomeness" since the former is much too inadequate to describe the descriptions I get of Obama.

If the redundancy is meaningful, it's not really redundant. But "ATM machine" has got to be permanently erased from our vernacular.

jeqal's picture
Submitted by jeqal on

Ok with Koolaid the thing is this, if you don't add water and drink it straight from the cup the dust just gets up into your nose and you start believing that you are seeing awesomer and awesomest things even awesomester is the awesomestness with which the awesome and awsomehopefuler things are occuring.
This is the type of change we are bespeaking of.
This is really all there is to the decoding mechanism of Obama.
Koolaid - water = awesomehopefulerestingly changefulness.
Who says you have to be German to conjugate?
Maybe the objective that Obama has had for the election has already been met? He does not worry about who votes for him because he really does not care. He expects voters to have our blinders on and not notice his voting record. To not notice that what he says he says is not in any public or other legitimate record.
That we should just believe what he says because he "says" it. Wow that is some forward thinking politics! Pass the Koolaid!
The more that I research him, the more I dislike him, the more I research Hillary the more I like her. A vote for Obama is not a vote for the Dems, I'm looking at his record and McCain seems more Dem than Obama.
If it is found that the Reps were behind his campaign I would not be the slightest surprised. He is the only candidate that the Dems could have possibly tossed out that could lose. Even Dukakis is more electible.
Thanks DNC! I'll take raspberry.
Of course the irony is that if we were to not know the color of the candidates and look at their statements while in the Senate and look at their voting record, Hillary would be chosen as the black candidate.
I love racism it has a habit of shooting itself in the foot.

obamakins live in their obamakin haze, surviving on koolaid and sugar--jeqal

basement angel's picture
Submitted by basement angel on

If you will recall, the Village Voice did a whole expose on how ratfucker extraordinaire Roger Stone was running and financing Sharpton's campaign for the presidency. I personally think the GOP is behind Obama's run. Why else is he running? Who, but the GOP, benefits from his candidacy?

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

That's why I think that Obama's money will dry up after he is or isn't the nominee. I hope I'm wrong, but if his actual donor base was expanding as rapidly as the numbers suggest, I think this thing would have been wrapped up quite a while ago. But no, he's on the precipice of a humiliating defeat.

Robin's picture
Submitted by Robin on

From where I stand, Obama’s not asking for my vote. And with “cling to” and throwing Universal Health Care under the bus, Obama’s saying he doesn’t want my vote.

I've been saying the same thing for a long time.

jimbo's picture
Submitted by jimbo on

Hey Shapiro,

If horseshit were gold you would be a rich man. Get it? Are you cool enough to get it?

Submitted by cg.eye on

-- McCain seems more Dem than Obama --
and means it, is a troll.

Now, who would even think of preferring someone who still has the possibility of being influenced by Democrats, if elected, instead of a tortured, compromised, desperate man who will be indebted to the worst conservative warmongers of the GOP, just to seem legitimate to his base?

And, if we're going to be fair, GOP money is behind the trolls infesting all of the main progressive sites this campaign, so in a way, if revenue's dependent on page views, we're all backed by GOP cash. If only they'd give us the cash, and give the trolls meaningful jobs such as sewer repair, cleaning out cluttered houses of dead pets, or patching the Katrina levees with their bodies, instead of the newspaper used by some contractors....

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Intentional or not, "tortured" seems an unfortunate choice of words.

Submitted by cg.eye on

of his life, in order to curry favor with the type of men who would have allowed his torture in the first place, then I think the use of that word should continue to haunt him and his career.

Hey, it wasn't me who gave torturers cover, when I could have stopped the pain in its tracks. From Miss Avedon:

Glenn Greenwald says there are exactly two reasons why Bush has been enabled to claim the power to torture: John McCain and the Military Commissions Act. "In September, 2006, McCain made a melodramatic display -- with great media fanfare -- of insisting that the MCA require compliance with the Geneva Conventions for all detainees. But while the MCA purports to require that, it also vested sole and unchallenged discretion in the President to determine what does and does not constitute a violation of the Conventions. After parading around as the righteous opponent of torture, McCain nonetheless endorsed and voted for the MCA, almost single-handedly ensuring its passage."