Obama's message a "hard sell" to an angry Democratic Party

A hush fell over the crowd as Sen. Barack Obama crossed the field, his white shirt glowing in the sun, waves of cornstalks rustling behind him. Once inside the open barn on the county fairgrounds here, he offered a message as uplifting as the backdrop, promising a new era of consensus instead of partisan divide.

The audience of Iowa Democrats seemed receptive. But when it came time for questions, it was clear that at least some members of the crowd had not escaped the partisan mind-set that Obama said he wanted to overcome. What did he think about President Bush's veto of a children's health insurance bill? What, another person asked, did he make of the Bush administration's alleged denigration of science? What would he do to prevent Republicans from taking advantage of election flaws like the one in Florida in 2000, in which the questioner said "it's not over till your brother counts the votes"?

As Obama positions himself for the stretch run for the Democratic presidential nomination, his call for a "new kind of politics" faces a broad test in his own party, and not just of whether it makes any criticism of his chief rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), seem hypocritical. As the pointed questions he received here suggest, it may be that his summons to "turn the page" past the country's red-blue polarization is not what many Democrats want to hear after seven years of mounting anger at Bush and the Republican-dominated government.

Obama faults a broken system in Washington for failures that many Democratic voters attribute simply to having the other side in power. By contrast, Clinton more directly exploits Democrats' feelings of resentment. She argues that the troubles of the past seven years -- the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina, the widening income gap -- are the result not of broken politics in Washington but of poor Republican governance, and she says that she would offer competent leadership to fix what has gone awry since her husband left the White House.

Obama is putting more emphasis on his early opposition to the Iraq war and seeking to draw a contrast with Clinton's support for the resolution authorizing it. Because Obama has mostly resisted attacking her by name, his critique extends to the entire Democratic establishment for not opposing the war.

In effect, this seems to lift some of the blame for the war from the Bush administration and place it on the backs of Democrats, an unlikely tack in a Democratic primary.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/16/AR2007101602267.html?hpid=topnews

Other than a few pockets in the blogosphere, are not in the mood to have Democrats going negative against other Democrats. I think most would like to put the focus on Bush...

believed that.

Obama feels the only message he can come up with in his idealistic world of self-promotion is...saddling the Democrats with the War and somehow (by an osmotic phenomenon of perhaps rubbing shoulders with Joe Lieberman) sell his unproven stellar abilities of working across the aisle with Republicans.

At this point in time, it would be a phenomenal prospect if Obama were to show up for an important vote never mind the empty promise of working across the aisle with Republicans.

Whats more, shouldn't the Dem majority become almost self sufficient this next election cycle replacing the seat of just about every obstructionist Republican? So, why is bipartisanship a primary element of his campaign platform?

I find Obama's speeches a tiresome, boring cavalcade of vague generalities heavy on promise light on delivery. Just as his ghostly appearances in the Senate represents the depth of his commitment to the frontlines of humanity.

they will not vote for Hillary. Like I said only 1 of the reasons.

Completely agree.

everyone: the repugs for being fucker and the dems for not impeaching, jailing them and ending the war. I come from a HUGELY red state and there was hope among the reddies that they would change things. dems have squandered a HUGE opportunity. I feel as rotten now as I did during the run up to the war. another lost opportunity to do right.

the Clinton dynasty, then I guess they deserve Hillary as a nominee.

But, if the Democrats choose Hillary after the national party got steamrolled by Bush on Iraq, I'll be saving my time and money for local candidates.

If Democrats believe the best we can do is a Restoration of the Clinton dynasty, then I guess they deserve Hillary as a nominee.

But, thanks for your creepy loyalty test. Shall I sign something blood pledging allegiance to the Clinton dynasty and their heirs?

I know. Sometimes it just pops out.

Then again, so is Hillary's foreign policy philosophy.

Then again, so is the whole "progressive"* movement.

Republican party under Nixon?

universal health care and ending the war in Iraq relevant to our discussion?

"so, who is your party running?"

And before you ask, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Communist Party.

This is a message board. You started a new thread and posted a topic. He posted in response to that topic, not directly in response to a post of yours within that thread.

It's not like you and that poster were having a private phone conversation and I'm the NSA spying on you, FFS!

:eyes:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But, if the Democrats choose Hillary after the national party got steamrolled by Bush on Iraq, I'll be saving my time and money for local candidates.

Cool. Unlike Wyld, I support this 100%.

The reason is simple. I know a lot about politics, including this little known fact: while voters don't always vote down a ballot, they nearly always vote up one.

In other words, if you convince someone to vote for the Democratic State House representative in your local area, chances are they'll go ahead and vote for the Democratic State Senator, Democratic Congressmen, Democratic Senator, Democratic Governor, and Democratic President.

It doesn't work that way in the reverse though. There are plenty of people who vote for the Democratic President, but don't vote for anyone else.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

"If Democrats believe the best we can do is a Restoration of the Clinton dynasty, then I guess they deserve Hillary as a nominee."

:shrug:

it's obviously a hard sell.

If the "Democratic establishment" is comfortable with losing the election in 2008 because the Clinton machine has them by the balls, then the purge that follows will certainly do the party well. The arrogant MacAulliffes and Carvilles of the Party will be handed their walking papers.

We can allow that to happen or just take it to the streets now and stop the train before it wrecks the party again.

I have yet to see the Obama Campaign deliver on "ONE" promise!

Can you ever write a post of substance or are you just one of the common drivebys?

My guess is that they are holding off on the endorsement until the primary season gets closer.

There is a statement here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3612880&mesg_id=3612880

for the last 7 some years. no it`s all bush`s and the republicans fault what has happened to our country. hell since we have a majority we still are powerless against a president that 66% of the american public can`t stand. here i thought the democrats were running against each other not bush....

poor hillary i guess she`ll have to call bill to defend her

“She and her husband are very popular with Democratic voters,” Elmendorf said. “You have to be very careful.”

The best book on the misadventure in Iraq...

This war was a Bush operation from Day 1, it was planned and conceived by the right wing hawks from the day Gulf War I ended. The same folks who came to power with Bush 43. Congress and the IWR rate about one and a half pages... Hillary Clinton rates a paragraph (of praise strangely enough)...It didn't matter what the IWR vote was going to be, he was determined to go in...

Yet according to some on DU Democrats share equal blame...ridiculous...this is a Bush war plain and simple...

we`ll vote yes because he`s going to do it anyway and we will look bad? or maybe they should have done what a few did-vote no.

A novel concept I know...

That is the bottom line

eom

His first words were castigating Congress saying they've accomplished nothing.

n/t

Democrats, flush with the power of the presidency and both houses of Congress, decide to put aside the "bitter partisanship" and drop further investigation into Iran-Contra. Republicans return the favor, not by laying off Democrats, but by ratcheting up their attacks to take Congress and then destroy Bill Clinton. Instead of following Iran-Contra to its bitter end and permanently discrediting the Republican party, we "play nice" and end up suffering for it - losing Congress and eventually, the presidency.

Fuck that shit. The Republicans have shown they are not interested in this "new kind of politics." They must win, and win EVERYTHING. To them, compromise is a failure.

Jesus, when will we learn? You can't compromise with criminals. They will make you their accomplice, and rat you out to get themselves off the hook. (e.g. Iraq War)

"You can't compromise with criminals. They will make you their accomplice, and rat you out to get themselves off the hook."

as the most non-threatening of the top 3.

Maybe he plays to moderate republican voters?

than trying to create a solution. Obama is trying to create a lasting solution.

My repuglican parents are leaning towards Obama over all Republican and Democrat candidates, because he's at least trying to change things from the status quoue. Sadly, many people prefer the status quoue. (BTW, they hate Bush also)

in northwestern illinois that got fed up with the republicans shoving keyes and voted for obama..obama got more votes than kerry did in several counties out here.

Angry people are effective agents of change. There's no such thing as a "dispassionate" battle.

Bushnchcney have turned Americans into torturers who spy on their fellow citizens. It is the public's fury that can make the only means of escape -- impeachment -- a reality.

The Democratic establishment may like it when things get "personal," but ideas didn't do this to our country. "The system" didn't do it. PEOPLE DID. There are villains in this crisis. Our fury is rightly directed at those villains. It is "personal."

But anger is only productive when it is coupled with action and hope. There are heroes emerging who are fighting back, but tragically, the men and women we elect to act as our champions are refusing to fight. They are sapping hope. They are sowing the message of powerlessness. They are telling us "Don't be angry. Anger is bad."

Anger only "goes bad" when the angry believe themselves to be powerless. When hope sapped, anger turns to destructive bitterness, alienation, and apathy.

Democrats must learn to embrace, rather than reject and fear anger. They need to learn how to engage and channel it, instead of trying to SUPPRESS IT. If they don't learn these lessons, they will continue to push Americans into hopeless silence. They will continue to enable the fascists to thrive.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3604951&mesg_id=3610235

. . . of Bush AND Cheney for Torture (sorry Kucinich -- "Cheney only" for "lying us into war" doesn't cut it.).

Demonstrate commitment to our inviolate principles.

Fight for the Constitution and the People's Government (can't get much more inspiring than that).

Demostrate the fortitude required to fight the good fight, win or lose.

Show us that you know the meaning of an oath.

You have an unprecedented opportunity to channel the public's anger at bushncheney and re-engage those who have been silenced by the endless declarations of powerlessness raining down on them from the so-called Democratic "leadership."

Call on the House to act and IMMEDIATELY impeach. No investigation required.(1)

The Republican Party has surrendered to the "unitary" authoritarianism of bushncheney. Dividing the nation -- dividing the Enemies of the Constitution from its Defenders, could well be the only way back to "bipartisan" or "unified" governing.

Impeachment: It's not just the RIGHT thing to do; it is the WINNING thing to do.

If one of the current candidates, or someone new, started running on the "Impeach Them!" platform, we could see a vote on a Bill of Impeachment by Christman. (And what a great gift to the nation that would be!) We could see see bushnchcney removed -- or watch them resign and had the keys to Danforth or some other palatble Republican -- by New Year.

Whatever the outcome, those who join the impeachment parade will have broken their bonds of complicity. And those leading the parade would become true American heroes.


=================================
(1) bushnchcney commit their crimes in plain sight. They all know it, as Rep. Jane Harman -- not exactly a maverick -- pointed out last month (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20993592/">transcript).

is to bring more partisanship.

When America elected Bush we in a certain sense, got what we deserved.

If we elect Hillary, we will get what we deserve again. A partisan administration, favoring us over them. Then in 4 years, conservatives will get pissed and vote her out of office. Great strategy guys.

. . .IS the way to effectively fight the current brand of "partisanship."

The endless condemnations of "divisiveness," which go hand in hand with calls for anti-fascists to negotiate "bipartisan solutions" with fascists, are nothing more than calls to appease.

There is no "negotiating" with people who have proven, over, and over, and over that they will stop at NOTHING to advance their agenda. Bushnchcney have NO qualms about violating the Constitution and U.S. Code to achieve their aims. There are only two choices: Fight to vanquish (i.e., seek to impeach and remove, force an "up or down" vote on authoritarian power and torture) or surrender (refuse to accuse/impeach). So far, Democrats are opting for surrender. All the complaining about torture and spying in the world; all the talk of "standing up" or "restoring" in 2009 is hot air.

Sure, Americans yearn for the ideal of bipartisanship -- reasonable people working together to solve our common problems. But they aren't idiots. The last thing voters are looking for is compromise with the insanity. "Dividing the nation" -- dividing the fascists from the anti-fascists (a division that is proving to be about 75%/25%) -- is how we get back to functional government.

Americans didn't "get what they deserved" in 2000 or 2004. Bushnchcney did not gain the consent of the governed in free and fair election. The voter suppression (which no one denies) alone invalidated the elections in Florida and Ohio (at a minimum).

The voice of the people got through in 2006 because angry Americans exposed illegal suppression and fraudulent counts. They successfully implemented safeguards in enough places to reduce the magnitude of the stealing that Rove counted on in "the numbers" he claimed to have.

Democratic victories were driven by the public's anger at bushncheney and the corruption of the Republican Party. Post-election polling is clear. They weren't elected "on the issues" or to "get things done. "Anti-Bush. Anti-Republican" reasons topped the list of "major reasons," while "Pro-Democratic" reasons ranked at the bottom.¹ Democrats didn't win because they had "better candidates" (a major reason for only 27%). Their proposals on Health Care didn't do it (a major reason for 47%). Anger at Bush's war and his overall performance did it. (85% and 71% respectively). The anger at Bush even outranked Democratic "solutions" for Iraq by more than 20%.

The American people voted for all out opposition -- for partisanship -- period.

The Republican Party has surrendered to bushcheney -- unconstitutional authoritarian rule detached from even their lip serive to "values. Americans voted for Dess simply because they were the opposition. They voted for "division." They want out of Bush World² and Democrats said "Vote for us and we'll fight to stop them." Of course, impeachment is the only thing capable of stopping them (and before the election, 51% said they wanted impeachment to be a priority in the 110th Congress³). Tragically Democrats rendered themselves incapable of delivering on the promise the minute Pelosi declared impeachment off the table.

A powerful, partisan, "divisive" Democratic champion of the Constitution and the People's government in the White House would inspire the kind of hope that engages. Strong Democratic leaders willing to go for the BHAGs (big hairy audacious goals) would transform the public apathy fascists rely on to thrive into action and votes.

Tragically, Hillary IS NOT proving to be that kind of leader. Neither is Obama. Currently, NONE of the candidates fit the bill. But, at least with a Democrat we have a shot at getting through and pushing them to become true champions. Whoever wins the nomination, we must do our best to carry them over like a sack of cement. (Then the real work of shaping begins.)

=======================================

1. http://january6th.org/reasons-for-success.pdf">Reason for Democrats success


2. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2752103&mesg_id=2753090">58% of Americans want his Presidency over now


3. http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">Priorities for a Democratic Congress, Newsweek Poll, 10/21/06)

"In effect, this seems to lift some of the blame for the war from the Bush administration and place it on the backs of Democrats, an unlikely tack in a Democratic primary."

I have been saying this to DU'ers for at least 1 1/2 years probably over 2. And its absolutely a fact. Of course the media has helped a great deal as well.

politician in Washington to declare 'mission accomplished' a little too soon."
-- Barack Obama on Leno, going for a two-fer when asked if Hillary was "a shoo-in."

Excuse me, Mr. Obama, Mr. Honesty, exactly when did Hillary declare she'd won the nomination? I don't mind a politician calling an ant hill "a mountain" because politicians lie - that's what they do. But when you wrap yourself in the cloak of honesty and claim, "I'm not like those people,'" and then turn into one of them after you find yourself 25 points behind, that doesn't work.

So if you want to tell lies, that's OK,but you might want to knock off that "honesty" bullshit because you're clumsy at it.
bartcop

Ben David