Oh, wait.

Hey, where’s your sense of humor?

The answer will be, CD, that Obama is appealing over the heads of Republican Party to the ordinary, honest Republicans.

But if we grant the Iowa results the significance the Obama supporters claim, then the Republican result counts too, and they’re going to either nominate a stone lunatic or implode (which is where, BTW, the distinction between electoral politics and institutional politics comes in; in the Village and the press, the Conservative Movement will be as ferocious as, well, they are paid to be).

So, the Republican moderates have to place to go. Why pander to the Class of 2008?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

because he’s not going to be the one. or so i will maintain until proven otherwise.

- he’s a young man, and he’s got support with the young. the village is ruled by tired old men, and it would be great to see a fresh, differently-thinking obama administration for a change.

- he’s articulate. unlike bush or most republicans. i’m so naughty

- his policies and voting record are pretty good, for today’s democrats. obviously not good enough for hard corps progressives like me, but when do we ever get what we want?

- he’s got lots of smart friends he’d likely appoint to gov’t positions. no more cronies, no more morAns running the FDA or NIH. obama is too much an intellectual to let ideology alone determine his appointments.

- he would help start a conversation about race this country needs to have. if elected president, a whole mess of white people are going to have to face their Worst Nightmare: a black man with ultimate power. that is a good thing.

- he seems to appeal to “moderates” and even republicans.

http://iowapoliticalalert.blogspot.com/

A top Iowa Republican says he’s hearing evidence that Barack Obama’s
crossover appeal will play a role in tonight’s caucuses.

“I continue to run into Republicans becoming open about supporting
Obama this evening,” said David Oman, a top staff member with Iowa’s
last two GOP governors, Terry Brandstad and Bob Ray.

Oman notes that the Register poll picked up some of this and other
campaigns dismissed it.

Oman predicts will be one of the stories tonight.

“This is real,” Oman told Iowa Independent.

-any democrat elected will be forced into fiscal responsibility, and obama has the smarts to know how to negotiate the mess bush has made. it’s still in question if a dem prez would have a strong enough congress to do anything, but obama has at least the brains to attempt to undo the great economic damage bush has done.

now, i could say almost exactly the same thing about edwards. my reasons for not liking obama are mostly personal, and i don’t really see myself as that different than many of his supporters. however, i suspect that the bottom line for a large number of obama supporters is this:

black man = automatically means “change”

now, change from what and into what seems to be different to each individual supporter i’ve heard from, and that’s the part that worries me. no one seems all that clear about exactly what change i can expect from obama, and as i’ve said before, i’m not reassured by his words so far.

he’s “good enough” if he gets the nomination. but i’d really love to hear exactly what makes him so special from those who support him. so far, the most they seem to do is call me names and tell me how stupid this blog is. it’s not very reassuring.

I keep hearing about a “movement”…. It’s laudable that Obama’s supporters want to be involved in something larger than themselves. That is awesome. But when they’re set upon by dogs in Birmingham, I’ll use the word “movement.”

A progressive movement must be about more than one man. Clinton was the best politician of his generation, and he didn’t leave the Democratic Party in good shape institutionally. A network of FOOs has no more staying power than a network of FOBs.

And the history of “movements” led by single, charismatic figures… The story generally ends badly for all involved, including the charismatic figure. That’s why we have parties…

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

of emotional attachment than substantive policies. But likewise, if he gets the nod, I’ll support him all the same.

But it’s also been said by someone wiser than me, that bipartisanship is just another word for Date Rape….

I’d feel a whole lot better this morning if I saw a well-reasoned argument in support of Obama. (one that addressed the bullet points of lambert’s excellent “Considered Harmful” would be a good start.)

in the end, it doesn’t even have to convert me, as much as just “show the work”.

Otherwise we would have heard them already, right?

Iowa’s record of predicting the actual nominee isn’t great so I’m resisting the siren calls that last night’s outcome is changing American politics. Besides, I hope that Obama’s win last night encourages more serious vetting than we’ve seen in recent months.

There is no evidence that Obama will hold ANY GOP criminals responsible for ANYTHING if he gets into office. Which leaves us in the same boat after Nixon left: The same crooks are allowed to go unpunished, leaving them to come back later and royally screw everyone once the dust has settled (see: Administration of Bush, George W.) Also, many up and coming GOP slimeballs see that there is no punishment for bad behavior. They just have to make sure that they howl ’PARTISAN’ every time someone tries to hold them responsible for a crime.

I am deliberately not watching video of ’the speech’ that is floating around right now, because all it says is that Obama is good at making speeches. Big Freakin’ Deal.

If he wins, I can only hope that he turns around, says ’SURPRISE!!’, and begins throwing his weight around to capture and punish the a-holes who left this country in such disarray. I can hope, because that’s all I have. We cannot allow this whole fiasco to happen again in 25 years.

Think of FDR’s fireside chats (back when radio was a new medium, and no I don’t remember that).

I think in some ways the attachment the Obama fan base feels is the analog, for us, to the “under the radar” feeling the Republican establishment had about Huckabee — Shit, he worked through the churches? Who knew? Now, I don’t think we’re as clueless as they are, may the God(ess)(e)(s) Of Our choice help us if we are, but the sense of not knowing all the media at work is very similar.

And of course our famously free press just totally, totally sucks. Their suckitude is awesome in its magnitude except for McClatchy, of course.

UPDATE Part of the reason I don’t talk about Obama’s obviously excellent speaking style is that word, “articulate.” I mean, how do you praise without going all, you know, “A girl as pretty as you doesn’t have to be smart!” Gad, what a minefield. Help out, here.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

wasn’t there that same BS message when bush was running — what a great guy, something about a barbecue… and he was gonna CHANGE washington?

but bush was really just crossing his fingers behind his back when he claimed to a “compassionate conservative” and had the “girls” in the family run cover for his draconian views on reproduction and abortion, etc., etc. ET FUCKING CETERA!

so i gotta say i wouldn’t exactly be looking forward to voting for another demagogue who’s pretending to run down the middle with his compassionate progressive rap, all the while just being a great guy and fun to hang out with while watching oprah.

i wanna vote for someone who actually knows some shit, and can actually historically remember the good stuff that used to be taken for granted [health insurance, mortgages that meant something, media and newspapers who weren’t just a front for the corporate plantation, school desegregation, et cetera — there must be a zillion things i’m leaving out — oh, yeah, a supreme court which had some dignity and integrity left, bridges that didn’t fall down, and congressional subpoenas weren’t blown off] until gwb came along and wiped his ass with the planet.

so, like vastleft, this 61-year old needs some serious convincing, too. ’cause, not unlike his “i just like him” supporters — i just don’t like him.

I have had exactly that argument made to me by Obama’s fan base — Obama will run as a centrist, like Bush, then govern from the left (I call this The Phonebooth Theory) — and it threatens my cranial integrity.

1. What does that say about Obama? (I’m sure not getting progressive dog whistles from the fan base, if indeed they’re getting any). And what does it say about the ability of our bright young people to accept a staggering level of bullshit as business as usual?

2. Where’s the evidence? I can think of two litmus tests:

a.) FISA

b.) Social Security privatization

He’s coming up short on both (and I’m not sure those litmus tests are at the top of the list for the fan base, either).

So, “tastes great, less filling.”

On the hand, the biography is compelling. Community activist. Constitutional scholar. Excellent field operation in Iowa. There really is a lot to like here.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Is he tough enough?

What the Bushies have shown is that if you sprinkle the “right” people through out the Administrative structure, you can have a nitwit at the top, yet still do a tremendous amount of damage. Even as a minority in Congress, these guys are champs!

In my view, at the top, Obama with his rhetorical skills will hold the obstructionist Republican feet to the fire, and force Congress further to the center left…

But it will be how he tackles the Administrative structure that will really count. Hallo EPA, FDA, and the rest of the alphabet soup. He functioned as a community organizer, where alphabet soup is what is served in the bread line… I have no worries, if you are not tough, willing to persevere, you ain’t going anywhere as a community organizer.

That said, I favored Dodd and Biden.

It sounds like a good meme. It should be in the glossary, no?

I’m associating it with Cult of Personality, where devotees identify so strongly with The Personality that they project their beliefs and wishes upon The Personality and then believe them to be The Personality’s own.

What I’ve heard from Obamabots is “Obama really believes X, feels strongly about Y, is truly committed to Z” even though there is no evidence in Obama’s speeches or voting record to back it up. XYZ are convictions held by the Obamabot, or ones they wish Obama held and they are willing to believe despite evidence to the contrary.

Charisma is a powerful thing and Obama has it in heaps. But that is not the only thing we need right now.

A candidate runs using right wing talking points.

Having won the election, said candidate dives into a phonebooth, loses the Clark Kent glasses and the suit, and emerges, garbed as Progressive Superman, and governs that way.

To which my considered answer is: Possibly.

And my gut answer was and has been: Na ga happen.

That is The Phonebooth Theory …

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

… tending to the versions of this discussion on DU and Kos, and the results aren’t pretty.

We’re dealing with a cult of personality here, for sure.

Basically, we’re supposed to support Obama because he’s a decent, smart, likable guy, who’s good at giving speeches (even if they repudiate important facts and validate dangerous spin). And he’s a Democrat. That just may have to do.

that is, all superheroes who are african american always have “black” in front of their names. to remind you they’re black, in case you forgot, of course. just like all black politicians are always “black politicians,” and never “politicians.”

so, if obama* is really a superhero progressive, right now he’s got to pull a clark kent like move, and pretend not to be a black superhero but instead a mild mannered white regular guy. because black vulcan scares people, where they may love superman they only respect black vulcan’s enormous…ability to articulate. so black vulcan keeps his true identity a secret until the moment it’s time to go into action.

sort of like the phonebooth theory, but more sinister. ;-)

* and as a mixed race person, don’t think it doesn’t pain me to have to call obama, of all people, “black.”

… and give the right ammo — I mean, they’re hardly going to attack him for being unwilling to take Social Security off the table — I say let’s go for it. I’m so fucking tired of being tactical, and I’m not looking for a job in DC, and I feel apocalyptic anyhow.

VL, I gave two specific ways of convincing me. The fan base seems to be completely unable to engage. It’s bizarre! (Good fodder for a movement, of course…. Oh, no. Please don’t tell me we’re looking at authortitarian followers… Followers, no question. That would be bad. I really don’t think do, but after dealing the OFB for days…

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Educational. Definitely learning a thing or two about the dynamics of personality cults.

What is the acceptable term-du-jour for b/w mixed-race (for use only as required and in appropriate context, to be sure)? Since Obama’s hot, would “latte” be correct?

I keep having this vision of Barak and Michelle sitting around the kitchen table some years ago with a piece of paper between them, blank except for the heading

“Things I Need To Do To Get Elected”.

“Move more to the center” and “Act more white” would certainly be high on the list and heaven knows he wouldn’t be the first politician to construct a saleable public facade. On the other hand, he may be completely genuine; not sure which one is more disturbing.

;-)

i’ll do a post on it later. ok? i’m having a period/migraine moment just now, so you prolly don’t want to hear me at this specific moment. but i will answer you, remind me if i forget.

…he’s not a woman.

who aren’t familiar with the proper nouns, buffed by street cred, for use in such cases.

Obama frightens me.
He’s very polished.

But, like zircons, he doesn’t quite hit me as pukka.
“A trifle more point-device than the best taste approves.”

Yeah, I’ve been reading Sayers again … shoot me. It’s cheaper than a lawsuit, and you’ll have a better chance of getting satisfaction.

We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

I’ve listened to Obama fairly carefully. He strikes me as a variation on Clinton. When he’s pressed for policy specifics, and actually delivers one, he’s opportunistic, and always heads to the right.

Lieberman really is his model. I think Obama thinks he can be a more convincing Lieberman. And that is exactly what we don’t need right now.

And let’s not forget that he’s an Illinois polician. You can’t do squat in Illinois politically unless you know which side your bread is buttered on. How anyone could think otherwise about Obama is beyond me. I suspect that most of his supporters are very naive.

I too will vote for the democrat in November, whoever they are. But if I vote for Obama, I will do it in resignation, because I will know that, once again, corporate America has won. I don’t know why I should think it might be otherwise. Money always talks in this country. Always has, always will. Does anyone in the progressive community—anyone who has a basic grasp of American history—really think that corporate America will *ever* give up the control it has over our politicians at this point? Ever?

I thought not. We need another FDR is what we need, and Obama is not FDR.

He’d still be better than another GOP lunatic. Far better. But he’s a corporate tool, just like Hillary. Just like nearly everyone in DC. Except maybe Edwards. Maybe.

elighten me, i’m obviously a young whippersnapper who is uninformed and uneducated about high falutin words like that. ;-)

LL is right. no one, and i do mean no one, fails to get their hands dirty while getting elected in IL and chicago. natch, that’s not really a big negative in my book but it’s worth remembering.

especially all those people who think he’s the next great white hope. you’re being played, dreamers, if you think obama is like you. he’s not. he’s intelligent, hard headed about what to present in this campaign, and calculating. none of those things are bad. but they don’t mean that he is going to bring about a progressive wave of change in this country.

dammit, that’s really the only point. what do we need right now? centrism? bipartisanship. Fuck no! please stop thinking obama will bring about a progressive revolution just because his skin is brown. please.

You asked for it, you got it.

I posted here a few days ago and I was at one with your take. There was NO daylight between us.

After watching the speech, a little daylight has emerged. I’ve become resigned to him, a little. It was a fine speech, it had a little more populist content that I was expecting, a little less phony bipartisanship and it basically rocked.

So what about all those reservations we had and maybe still have?

1) I think we have to give a little more consideration to race issues. Fact is, for all the racial progress that his Iowa victory represents, there’s no way as a black man that Obama could, say, espouse the politics by Edwards and succeed. Angry black man is not a ticket to the presidency. So I’ll cut him some slack - why not, we’re cutting Hillary a LOT of slack to consider her and Edwards some too.

My favorite politician of my lifetime was Mayor Harold Washington of Chicago. He was a proud, indisputably progressive black man and not an accomodationist, as Obama often appears to be. He could barely get elected in a close-to-majority black city. So what you call the “phone booth” theory gains a little credibility here. Obama to some extent, has to play it closer to the vest than a white guy would.

2) The positions that Edwards is taking (and let’s not forget the populist side of the Huckabee phenomenon) may force any politician to the populist side of the house. That’s a good thing, and it may help to keep a President Obama honest, if indeed he wants to sell out.

3) What’s this crap about Hillary now hitting Obama on opposing mandatory drug sentencing. Whoa - that puts her to the right of the latest Supreme Court decisions, doesn’t it? On THIS issue, I’m on Obama’s side, strongly.

4) That said, on the two points you want Obama to take a clear stand on I’d feel more assured if he did, as well. I think, however that ALL the Dems would take the no SS privatization pledge, so I’m not sure that’s relevant. Sounds more like you want him to apologize for opening the door even a crack. I doubt that will happen but I’d be satisfied with him not bringing it up anymore. On FISA, I’d be thrilled if any Dem candidate took a clear stand.

5) Back to the phone book theory. Two names for you. Abe Lincoln - supporter of “leave slavery alone where it exists”, recolonization of slaves - but there was unexpected Iron in that man. Franklin Delano Roosevelt who governed to the left of where he initially ran (fiscal conservatism). It does happen, on occasion. One should never count on it, but it can’t be ruled out.

6) It’s out of my control, anyway. Soon we’ll be where we always wind up, supporting the nominee, and it’s more than likely going to be Obama.

So my take is to continue to express the criticisms, but not let myself be blinded to the reasons he does deserve support.

I’m on deadline, so I can’t respond in proper detail.

I thought Edwards’ speech was a zillion times better than Obama’s, which got my eyes glazed after the first couple of hundred empty platitudes. Maybe there was some good stuff after I tuned out, but my style-over-substance-dar was running in the red.

Given the prospect that it may all be over after Super-Duper Tuesday, I’ll be asking the OFB just one question: do I get my choice of Kool-Aid flavors?

Thanks, sTiVo. As I keep saying, I can live with any of the three, with to me clear points to Edwards, because he can articulate the problem and demand some accountability, as opposed to The Phonebooth Theory with Obama.

That said, it seems like there are only two ways to affect them: One is to give money, especially to primary challengers, and the other is to inflict enough pain to get their attention. Since I have almost no money, I have to go with the pain option. Therefore, when Obama slides right, I try to inflict pain on him, and give him opportunities to move the Overton Window left, like this post, to make the pain go away. Obviously, I’m just a C-list blogger, but there several thousand of us, each with several thousand readers, so if the message is real, it will propagate and help achieve my goal. It’s just business. It has nothing to do with personalities or teh awesum. That may be hard for the OFB to understand.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

With you on continued pressure from the left. Avoid the nostrum that friends never criticize friends. Who else will tell you the truth you need to hear. But we also can’t afford to get so wound up in these criticisms that we turn friends into enemies.

There are too many inexeperienced Obamaphiles who think anyone who criticizes Obama MUST be doing it because they’re secretly shilling for Edwards or Clinton. That’s silly. They deserve to be called out, while still giving Obama his props. I think we all need to be able to do that.

*