It is Obama who introduced the right-wing talking points about the solving the (nonexistent) "crisis" in Social Security. For him to bring that into the campaign allowed the Republicans to demagogue the issue on which they were decisively defeated just two years ago. Then he made the stupid statement that somehow his health care plan can achieve universal coverage of Americans without mandates. When Paul Krugman called him on this piece of idiocy, Obama attacked Paul Krugman.
I chalked this up to Obama's effort to portray himself as someone who would reach across the aisle to the Republicans and work with them. That has been his "Kumbaya" politics, or "Why can't we all get along?" Such an attitude is clear idiocy, as the Republicans will never work with Democrats in good faith. Reach out a hand to a Republican and he will strip off your rings and wrist watch before you can get the hand back - if you get anything back except a bloody stump. Republicans are the Party of hatred, war, corruption and a warped and non-Christ-like God. I chalked The Kumbaya politics up to Obama's inexperience in national level politics. But Digby doesn't think it's a mistake. Instead she thinks it's a clear plan to win the nomination.
Here's Digby's description of Obama's politics.
Running to the right on health care and social security combined with the anti-gay gospel singer, taking Robert Novak smears at face value, repeating Jeff Gerth lies and now going after Paul Krugman, leads me to the niggling awareness that this is a conscious, if subtle, strategy. Any one of those things could be an accident, and perhaps some of them are. But taken as a whole, conscious or not, liberal fighters in the partisan wars are being sistah soljahed. Unlike the big issue of Iraq where being on the right side is being on the left side, these little digs and policy positioning are all sweet spots for the Village --- and sore spots for the base.Is Obama doing a "Sistah Soljah" moment on the Democratic left wing base?
Perhaps that's the smart move. It has long been known by just about everyone who matters that the rank and file activists of the Democratic party are a huge liability. And anyway, where are we going to go? Mike Huckabee? Ron Paul? We have no choice. So, no harm no foul. Running to the right of even Hillary Clinton on health care and social security and using GOP talking points and symbolism is probably all upside. It may be the best way to insure a win in the fall. But I can't say that it looks like either a transformative inspirational politics or a willingness to fight the conservatives and win on the merits.
Like many other Democrats outside the Washington beltway, I have concluded that America's greatest enemies, far above the relatively minor (but very very real) dangers of anti-American terrorists, are the politicians and members of the Republican Party. The create enemies where there were none before, then abandon the U.S. Constitution in order to fight those very enemies they have created. Then the Republican base consists largely of Dominionists who wish to similarly abandon the Constitution and instead create a strange America that is controlled by Biblical law rather than the Constitution and the Common Law. This is an effort to recreate America in an older, racist and anti-immigrant form. The widespread effort to teach the sanitized version of Creationism called Intelligent Design in science classes in public school is just one manifestation of this organizational insanity. Their idea that government should not function and their efforts to make sure that happens is another manifestation of their insanity.
OK. So the Republican Party is an insane organization representing millions of dangerous warmongers, bigots and theocrats who are happy to see others die or be injured in behalf of their beliefs and fantasies. Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership in Washington has proven itself to be not too much better. The fact that the Democratic Congressional leadership was briefed on the process of torturing prisoners and only one of the Democrats even bothered to write a (classified) letter expressing an objection is one piece of evidence that the Democratic Leadership is as bought and paid for in many ways as the Republicans with their K-Street Project are.
Then there is the manner in which the Washington political media carefully avoids discussing thing like Giuliani's many financial and political misdeeds, but instead writes hit pieces against Democratic candidates shows that the media, too, refuses to acknowledge that there are a lot of us out here who find good reason not to trust them. The heavy doses of blatantly partisan anti-Gore journalism in 2000 allowed that Presidential election to become so close that Bush could steal it. They performed a similar function for the Republicans in 2004.
In short, this Presidential campaign has taken on an appearance of mainstream America against the religious and anti-government extremists as well as against the entire culture of Washington, D.C.
Now, looking at all that, consider also that George Bush and the Congressional Republicans have so totally discredited the Republican Party, and the current Republican candidates for the nomination of the Republican Party for President are so lame, both individually and as a group, that the Democratic nomination for President will essentially be the election for President. OK. Never say never. But there is no candidate for the Republican nomination that even the republicans can unify on, and general election voters aren't likely to disagree with the Republican primary voters.
Has Obama decided to run to the right of both Edwards and Hillary to get the nomination? Is he willing to abandon the "dirty fucking hippie" Democratic left wing in order to please the Washington establishment and the Washington Press corps and avoid the beating that Gore and Kerry took from the Press Corps?
Because that's what a strategy of doing a "Sistah Soljah" against the Democratic Leftwing amounts to. Because let's face it. Obama isn't my favorite Democrat for President, (I prefer both Edwards and Richardson over Obama or Hillary. Senators don't make good executives.) but there isn't a Republican living who I would vote for over him if he gets the Democratic nomination. But if this is Obama's strategy, and he does win in the Fall, he certainly won't take with him a strong mandate to dismantle the conservative legacy he will find blocking him when he enters office. He'll be sacrificing short term gain for long term pain.
With the front-loaded primary season, we'll all know soon, probably before the end of February.
2 comments:
Let's have Obama and Hillary provide a list of top campaign staff by gender, race, ethnicity and religion
Why? The issue with Obama is his political pronouncments, and he is responsible for those. Obama and Hillary each selected their staffs and the only responsibility is the final output approved by the candidate.
That said, I'd guess that you were demonstrating your political party preference by excluding the Republicans from that request.
As a political-wonk-wanabee, I'd love to see the names and full resumes of all top (how is that defined?) staff members for all candidates for nomination in both parties. I'd be looking for diversity of views (Rudy's all-NeoCon foreign policy advisors scares me almost as much as Rudy himself.) and then comparing the candidate statements with the resumes of the staff members.
Post a Comment