dagblog - Comments for "What Happened to Obama?"

The best contender in 1968

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 17:38:12 +0000

In reply to "How is it the Republicans

The best contender in 1968 got shot. Should I use that as the example on why not to challenge a sitting president? Yes, RFK was a positive example.

And should we blame Gene McCarthy for the lack of election success over 24 years? Perhaps Carter and his sweaters, Thomas Eagleton and his electroshock, and Michael Dukakis and his puny self climbing into tanks had some responsibility?

As to your final paragraph, people don't usually challenge the incumbent, which is why it took an outsider, McCarthy, to do it in 1968. Once LBJ was out, RFK rolled in, much to McCarthy's dismay. While we can't prove that RFK would have won, it's pretty obvious he was well electable.

Bernie Sanders however is an old man, and Al Franken is a bit new. That doesn't exclude them, but makes it difficult to gather up support.

Oh, I thought we were still

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 17:30:03 +0000

In reply to come out swinging If there

Oh, I thought we were still talking about "growing a pair" ;-)

You wrote: It wasn't that

tmccarthy0 — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 15:01:25 +0000

In reply to That we are in the midst of

You wrote:

It wasn't that he didn't tell a story. He just didn't tell one that exactly aligned with some people view on the way forward. Even in these words one can see the Obama we have seen over the past two years, the Obama of the debt ceiling deal.

The reason people do not see a story or a narrative isn't because none was offered. Rather it is because it doesn't reduce things down to the simple us and them. When Bush made his now infamous comment "you're either with us or you're against us" he was touching on the theme of the narrative most people it seems want to hear, just as long as their side are the ones wearing the white hats.

That is exactly correct, well said Trope. The Us v Them narrative, is destroying us, but I guess this is what people really want. You are correct this is simply not his narrative, but that many people seems to want that narrative and only that narrative, where FDR tried to hold us together, this particular narrative seeks to drive us apart. Soon we will have simply no attachment to being that one nation, to being Americans, we will be nothing more than regions, hell bent on reinforcing our differences rather than what holds us together as a nation. Oh well, if we are to balkanize, I am going to hope for the Callenbach model.

come out swinging If there

Elusive Trope — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 14:13:28 +0000

In reply to From your comment above, I

come out swinging

If there was one thing about Obama rhetoric from the beginning of his campaign, it was that this was not the approach he was going to take. Maybe if the economic crisis had happened sooner, Clinton would have been given the nod instead of Obama. But a lot of the momentum and support his campaign had came from those who were tired of politicians who came out swinging and looking not to take any prisoners. Because whether one wants to hold the idea that he would be swinging for the little guy, swinging away in DC, especially in the past decade, is inevitable and thoroughly partisan.

"How is it the Republicans

brewmn — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 14:10:23 +0000

In reply to I know it was a different

"How is it the Republicans have no problem imagining Rick Perry coming off the bench to challenge, while as far back as springtime we'd declared the Democratic choice absolute and untouchable?"

Is this the first election season you've ever paid attention to? The rap on Republicans is that they nominate the guy who's "next in line" for the presidency, and that the party leaders dictate who the nominee will be. Not to mention, someone entering the primary season "late" (with only fifteen months to go before the election!) is much different in the context of a crowded field of people seeking the nomination for the first time, as opposed to challenging a sitting president from your own party.

I also find it interesting that you cite 1968 as a positive example of a primary challenge to a sitting president. You do know that the president who got elected in 1968 was not a Democrat, don't you? And that Republicans held the presidency for twenty of the next twenty-four years?

Finally, a question for all of you agitating for a primary challenge to Obama: if a primary challenge will be so good for the progressive cause, why are the usual suspects mentioned as exemplars of progressivism, e.g. Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, or Sherrod Brown, not even entertaining the notion? Could it be that your political heroes know something you don't?

That we are in the midst of

Elusive Trope — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:50:36 +0000

In reply to Incredible piece Genghis.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost, jobs shed, businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly, our schools fail too many -- and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable, but no less profound, is a sapping of confidence across our land; a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this America: They will be met.

....

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short, for they have forgotten what this country has already done, what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage. What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched. But this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control. The nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity, on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart -- not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

It wasn't that he didn't tell a story. He just didn't tell one that exactly aligned with some people view on the way forward. Even in these words one can see the Obama we have seen over the past two years, the Obama of the debt ceiling deal.

The reason people do not see a story or a narrative isn't because none was offered. Rather it is because it doesn't reduce things down to the simple us and them. When Bush made his now infamous comment "you're either with us or you're against us" he was touching on the theme of the narrative most people it seems want to hear, just as long as their side are the ones wearing the white hats.

I absolutely agree with you

Bruce Levine — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:15:36 +0000

In reply to Not to mention what a

I absolutely agree with you that there is real reason to be concerned about Obama's short coat-tails, particularly with so many more Democratic Senate seats open next year.

Not to mention what a

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:08:01 +0000

In reply to I know it was a different

Not to mention what a challenge could do for Democratic candidates further down the ticket who really have a lean platform to shout about at the moment. "We didn't cut Social Security and Medicare! (yet)"

I know it was a different

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:06:46 +0000

In reply to But you have to be in it to

I know it was a different time, but in mid-March 1968, Gene McCarthy poked LBJ with a stick and LBJ popped. Shortly after, Robert Kennedy entered the race and by early June, RFK was the winner of the primary season, to go up against Humphrey, who didn't compete, at the convention in July.

How is it the Republicans have no problem imagining Rick Perry coming off the bench to challenge, while as far back as springtime we'd declared the Democratic choice absolute and untouchable?

The point is simply, if someone can come out and kick Obama's ass, he/she kicks it, and takes over. At that point, whoever the candidate is can do little worse than Obama would.

If Obama wins, and the other's fans feel they made their point, and he's a little bit gracious, then he likely has better support than he would have.

Right now a lot of people are disgusted with Obama. For them, it can only get better, whether it's a different candidate or a humbled, responsive Obama. So a primary challenge does not necessarily harm him - it could pop a boil.

But you have to be in it to

Bruce Levine — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:43:22 +0000

In reply to If you don't try to win you

But you have to be in it to win it Oleeb. And so far as I can tell, Obama is the only one in it. Perhaps somehow he will have a challenger from his left. I've written elsewhere that I believe that would be the death-knell for the Democratic Party in 2012. But even if I'm wrong I don't think we'll have the opportunity to test that hypothesis, and so the issue for all of us is what we're going to do with the hand we've been dealt.

I held my nose in 2008 and supported Obama. I was bitter about the primary fight and fed up with much of what I thought was both naive and othering. But I supported Obama as much as if not more than I supported any other candidate in my lifetime. And I'm glad I did.

That doesn't mean that you don't keep pushing the guy, and pushing folks like me, but you don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Politics is like life, and in life and politics, shit happens and you either deal with it or you don't.