Obama "Risky?" On What Planet?
A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that while Barack Obama retains a cozy lead against McCain, a significant number of Americans view Obama as a “risky” choice for the presidency due to his inexperience. A Rasmussen poll shows a similar discomfort, with an increase of 4% (now at 45%) of Americans who have started to think this way since the beginning of his international sojourn.
Risky? Inexperienced? On this planet?
The United States Senator from the state of Arizona, John McCain, has shown that he is profoundly clueless of what is happening in Iraq. In a recent interview on CBS, he showed that he is unaware of the timeline of events of the so-called surge, he is oblivious to the fact that a key Iraqi leader, Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, had been killed, and he does not necessarily understand the fundamental difference between the Sunni and Shiites.
Unlike McCain, Obama and his plan for withdrawal has been embraced by Iraqi leadership and he has shown, most likely due to not only his intelligence but his membership on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to have a solid and impressive understanding of the intricacies of the war in Iraq. So, who is the “risky” choice? Who do we want to continue to navigate the complex world of Middle East politics?
On the next point, hang with me a minute. In a too-long political science/history academic career, one truth that I learned was that in revolutionary countries, those insurgents who ultimately succeeded had, before winning power, constructed a profoundly effective government-in-waiting, a sort of pseudo bureaucracy, so that they were prepared once taking over a government.
Let’s apply that idea to John McCain. His recently departed chief economic advisor Phil Gramm chastised Americans suffering from high food/health care/gas prices and historic foreclosure rates for being just a bunch of "whiners." Further, McCain’s foreign policy staff is a loose collection of folks with no particular assignment other than spouting their own opinions.
In contrast, Obama has surrounded himself with an impressive group of highly organized advisors. A recent New York Times article described his foreign policy team as a “300-person foreign policy campaign bureaucracy, organized like a mini State Department.” The 300 people are organized into teams that handle different geographic and policy areas and are given specific tasks according to their areas of expertise. The advisors include Madeleine Albright, Samantha Power and Anthony Lake. No lightweights, to be sure.
So, who is riskier? A man whose advisor called America a group of whiners and whose foreign policy team operates without direction? Or someone who has already shown an ability to form a highly competent governmental structure?
Now, I could go on. You probably have examples of your own.
Now, my final point. The task of dispelling the supposed “risky” factor cannot be on Obama alone. Democrats, far and wide, need to vanquish this distinctly untrue rumor. So, at your summer barbecues, during your child’s swimming lessons, around your actual water cooler, defend Obama -- and protect your country.
|
July 23, 2008 |
Kristin Teigen | Comments (78 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Admiral Naismith | Jul 24, 2008 7:55:59 AM
Kurt--it's always "risky" to have to clean up after a Republican Administration. If that was a criteria for rejecting Democrats, we would NEVER elect a Democrat, and the mess would pile up until America collapsed completely.
If McCain gets in, he will spend four years rattling steel balls and threatening to nuke whoever took the strawberries. Better to have a President who will at least roll up his sleeves and do his best to make a dent in the Bush disaster.
Posted by: Josh Reynolds | Jul 24, 2008 8:10:52 AM
Admiral
I have heard many folks talk about Obama's inexperience and liken it to Bush's inexperience. The question now becomes are we ready to turn the country over to a rookie again? We just went through 8 years of this. Bush was maybe one of the most unqualified presidents we have elected in decades, with regards to his previous experience coming in. I don't care if he was a Governor or not, if people understand Texas politics, the Lt Governor, and the Speaker of the House have more power than the Governor. The Texas Governor is basically a part time job that has veto power.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Jul 24, 2008 8:11:37 AM
The risk in Obama comes from the people behind him such as the morally-challenged Albright, Brzezinski and others we don't know about behind the curtain of Obama's rhetoric. Obama, however, is clearly the lesser risk when compared with McCain whose mental stability is questionable. Admiral N. has it right: "If McCain gets in, he will spend four years rattling steel balls and threatening to nuke whoever took the strawberries." (For the younger generation this refers to "The Caine Mutiny" a very popular book by Herman Wouk and the movie, starring Humprhey Bogart, from 1954.)
Posted by: Douglas K | Jul 24, 2008 8:17:05 AM
To quell the rising concern over "risk" Obama and followers need to address these issues with fact and substance rather than hope.
Obama's campaign web site is filled with fact and substance on just about every issue that's out there. He's put his substantive positions out there for the entire world to see, and he discusses his policies in Q&A and at just about every campaign stop.
If Obama's political opponents throw out baseless charges that he's running on nothing more than vague promises of "hope" and "change," there's not much he can do about that. Nor is there anything he can do about people who aren't paying attention and can't be bothered to spend two minutes checking out his web site.
Posted by: ORDemocrat | Jul 24, 2008 8:48:59 AM
Obama is a risky candidate for POTUS due to his lack of experience just like GW Bush was/is. His policies are still undefined and vague. Even at this point in the campaign, it's almost impossible to find an Obama supporter who actually knows the specifics of his future policies. Usually, when asked about the specifics, Obama supporters redirect you to his website (i.e. they have no idea what the specifics are either). Of course, it doesn't help that Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth and flip-flops regularly. So, protect your country, find out what a candidate stands for rather than simply giving blind loyalty to a media-driven icon. Perhaps, Obama is less riskier than McCain...that is up to you the voter to discern.
Posted by: mike w. | Jul 24, 2008 8:57:00 AM
A lot of these things are just to keep media interest alive and stir up the pot. Why is it that the polls of record always show what seems in the air, and these agenda polls, with weighted or slanted questions, come out with this 70+ degrees off center stuff?
Posted by: Kristin | Jul 24, 2008 9:05:25 AM
Perhaps nothing irritates me more than people who cry out for specifics/details/facts who aren't willing to do their own research.
ORDemocrat (Democrat? Sure!) If you want to know what Obama stands for and his incredibly detailed plans, don't expect to be hand-fed...do your homework.
Until you do, if you have a specific question about his policies, why don't you ASK it, rather than slamming Obama supporters, most of which know far more than you seem to think.
Posted by: Buckman Res | Jul 24, 2008 9:27:08 AM
I think the concerns lie not only in BHO’s lack of governmental and legislative experience but in a perceived lack of life experience. To say his resume is thin for someone seeking the most powerful office in the world would be putting it mildly.
His poor performance in debates against Hillary speaks to his limitations in pressure situations. These are genuine areas he will have to address if he is going to win over independent voters.
Posted by: Admiral Naismith | Jul 24, 2008 9:33:23 AM
I have heard many folks talk about Obama's inexperience and liken it to Bush's inexperience.
Well, then, the argument answers itself. Bush's reign does prove that inexperience is no bar to a President doing exactly what he wants to do, and getting the intended results.
The difference is that Obama intends to make America a better place, not shrink it to the point where it can be drowned in the bathtub. And he has an inspired nation behind him.
Posted by: Chris #12 | Jul 24, 2008 10:13:09 AM
If you live on the planet called Afghanistan, an Obama presidency is very risky.
Posted by: John Calhoun | Jul 24, 2008 10:18:55 AM
Obama is so much better prepared, mentally, emotionally, and experience-wise than McCain. Think about the backgrounds and what their fundamental training was. Consider that Bush is still the cheerleader who always found ways to avoid the hard thinking that he was as a youth.
McCain spent his younger years ignoring his education (bottom of his class) and focusing on his fighter pilot training. That is a background where you learn to make split second decisions without thought, based totally on trained reactions. The focus is how to kill your opponents and survive by fighting. I can't think of a worse background for a President who has to analyze carefully and negotiate with many conflicting parties.
Obama took his training in the streets trying to bring people together and form coalitions to better people's lives. He became a top student and thoughtful analyst, digging deep into complex problems (head of Harvard Law Review).
You can look at almost anyone and what they learned and did in their 20's reflects how they act and think in their later life. (In McCain's case, later-later life.)
Posted by: ORDemocrat | Jul 24, 2008 10:21:41 AM
Kristin,
I've done my homework on Barack Obama. Have you? Unfortunately, much of America has not. Still waiting for an Obama supporter to be able to articulate his plans for America.
Posted by: Kristin | Jul 24, 2008 10:29:45 AM
ORDemocrat,
Of course I have and it's quite an assumption that "much of America" has not. Patronizing much? And what specific plan would you like articulated? Why don't you be specific? Detailed? Like you want everyone else to be?
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Jul 24, 2008 10:46:38 AM
McCain's experience hasn't been much help in keeping him from making one blunder after the other. Experience is overrated when it includes habitual malpractice.
Posted by: carla axtman | Jul 24, 2008 10:51:02 AM
Just out of curiosity...
How much of 'America' has done indepth policy research on either McCain or Obama? I doubt many. So the idea that this "risk" is all about Obama is stupid, at best.
Americans aren't going to vote for McCain or Obama because they're enamored with their policies. They're going to vote for someone that appeals to their gut and seems the least like George W. Bush..who people are very unhappy with, in general.
Posted by: Brienne | Jul 24, 2008 10:57:02 AM
I was originally a Clinton supporter, but since she conceded I am putting my support behind Obama. Obama's experience includes being a state senator and U.S. senator. Let's take a quick glance at some of our past presidents and their "experience" before obtaining the highest office, and then re-look at Obama and decide if he has enough experience. It's worth noting that most Representative, Senate, or Governor terms seem to have only been one term. Only Gerald Ford had many years (1949-73) as a Rep. My favorite is Eisenhower, who had one year as the 1st Supreme Allied Commander in Europe before becoming president. And now, what would we do without our Interstate system?
Franklin D. Roosevelt
NY Senator and Governor
Harry Truman
Missouri Senator, VP
Dwight D. Eisenhower
1st Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, 1951-52
John F. Kennedy
Massachusetts Rep and Senator
Lyndon B. Johnson
Too much to list - lots of political positions
Richard Nixon
California Rep and Senator, VP
Gerald Ford
Michigan Rep (1949-73), VP
Jimmy Carter
Georgia Senator and Governor
Ronald Reagan
California Governor
George H.W. Bush
Too much to list - lots of political positions
Bill Clinton
Arkansas Attorney General and Governor
George H. Bush
Texas Governor
In conclusion, I think Obama's right up there with the past 80 years of Presidents in terms of political experience.
Posted by: Lenny Anderson | Jul 24, 2008 11:23:04 AM
Believe me, anyone who can rise up thru the politics of south side Chicago is ready for Iran, the middle east, etc. See the current New Yorker for plenty of details. Obama is ready.
Posted by: RichW | Jul 24, 2008 11:55:09 AM
Risk? I don't think so, but consider this. Our country was built upon risk. Our capitalistic system requires risk, with the greater risk earning the greater reward.
Obama as POTUS will face a myriad of problems, mostly created by the borrow and spend Republicans. It will be a daunting task, but Obama is smart and energetic. He also knows how to surround himself with brilliant minds (regardless of their party affiliation). The last president who was smart, energetic, and surround himself with brilliant minds was Bill Clinton. We had it pretty good during those 8 years.
Posted by: Harry Kershner | Jul 24, 2008 11:56:14 AM
As usual, I agree with Chris #12: "If you live on the planet called Afghanistan, an Obama presidency is very risky."
"...[Obama's] obvious shift on the 'surge' operations in Iraq (underlined by deleting criticisms of it from his website last week) is strengthening his call for 'redeployment' from Iraq to Afghanistan. His current strategy could be summed up as: de-escalate the war in Iraq, escalate it in Afghanistan, and talk to Iran. On Iran, his offer of talks was coupled with an alarming, Bush-style threat. 'I’ll do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.'...It is worth noting that the term withdrawal, let alone a full unconditional withdrawal that will satisfy most of the Iraqi people, has never been part of Obama’s vocabulary."
--Sami Ramadani, No U-Turn. Obama’s Stance on Iraq Is Chillingly Consistent
Obama's website states: “He would reserve the right to intervene militarily, with our international partners, to suppress potential genocidal violence within Iraq.” Consider the word, "potential". Don't you get it yet?
The difference between McCain and Obama on "experience" is a red herring. What we should be focusing on, as usual with the two anti-democratic parties, is the similarity between them. That's if we care about "purity" issues like justice and unending war.
Posted by: ws | Jul 24, 2008 12:19:02 PM
That a presidential candidate hasn't had years and years of experience isn't as much of a concern to as whether a candidate is a quick study, or in other words, how quick they are to catch on to a situation that needs attention. That's what I'm looking for signs of from McCain and Obama.
With that in mind, observations expressed in Buckman Res's comment(9:27 am) about Obama debating Hillary, are a concern to me, as are other examples of his skills, such as how Obama handled the Rev Wright dilemma. I hope Obama works out, cause there's no way I'm voting for McCain.
I'll readily admit I'm not one of those people that have avidly studied Obama's website and acquired an in depth knowledge of his position on issues or who he's assembled for an advisory staff. I'm gradually gradually picking up details about those things as we go along.
Posted by: Harry Kershner | Jul 24, 2008 12:42:45 PM
"In the New York Times on 14 July, in an article spun to appear as if he is ending the war in Iraq, Obama demanded more war in Afghanistan and, in effect, an invasion of Pakistan. He wants more combat troops, more helicopters, more bombs. Bush may be on his way out, but the Republicans have built an ideological machine that transcends the loss of electoral power - because their collaborators are, as the American writer Mike Whitney put it succinctly, 'bait-and-switch' Democrats, of whom Obama is the prince." (John Pilger, Obama, The Prince Of Bait-And-Switch)
Posted by: paul g. | Jul 24, 2008 2:34:29 PM
Brienne, I am a big Obama supporter and the "experience" factor just doesn't count much for me.
But I have to challenge your claim that Obama is "right up there" with presidents from the last 80 years. His prior political experience is less than every single president on your list, including George Bush.
I don't think we get anywhere by trying to hide the truth. This is an election where judgment and demeanor matter most, not "experience" as traditionally measured.
By traditional measures, Obama is pretty inexperienced. That's the facts, no need to try to deny them.
Posted by: genop | Jul 24, 2008 2:39:31 PM
A couple days ago, I watched as Barrack showed his experience in fielding detailed questions about his Iraq war policies. The media asked some toughies and Barrack (off the cuff) answered them all in detail. He did not try to avoid any questions with non-sensical answers. When the going got tough, he did not signal his handler to conclude the press conference. He stood in there and explained simply his positions. The only criticisms I heard from pundits Included; 1. he said "Israel" when he meant the "US" (a case of mis-speak which did not confuse because the substitution was so apparent); and, 2. criticism about refusal to admit the surge worked, to which he explained his broader perspective than the General on the ground.
It is arguable whether the surge worked in light of the shift in violence from Iraq to Afghanistan and the growth of terrorist safe havens in Pakistan.
Like a mostly empty water bottle, when you pressure one section, the water flows to the less pressured sections. As the violence dropped off in Iraq, it increased in Afghanistan with larger pockets of terrorists locating in Pakistan.
Why shouldn't the whole of the Middle East be considered when deciding strategy in one region? There are after all, strong interconnections between regions. The surge is and was short sighted and only worked to quell violence in one region of the Mid-East. I agree with Barrack's wider view of the whole of the Middle East when considering strategy in the region. In other words if success in Iraq is at the expense of failure in Afghanistan does that mean the surge worked? Am I the only one here who finds Obama's refusal to honor the surge justified?
Obama just cruised right by huge risk in giving a wide-open press conference on international affairs. Through my "hope colored" glasses I thought I witnessed a home run. Silly me.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Jul 24, 2008 2:59:52 PM
Our country was built upon risk. Our capitalistic system requires risk, with the greater risk earning the greater reward.
Nice theory but full of holes. Theoretically, the military-industrial complex takes risks and earns correspondingly great rewards, but the reality is that it is our men and women below flag rank that run the greatest risks and all too often pay the ultimate price.
Other major corporations run risks, but if they are big enough the government will bail them out.
The last president who was smart, energetic, and surround himself with brilliant minds was Bill Clinton. We had it pretty good during those 8 years.
Another nice myth. Clinton went along with some "brilliant minds" (Alan Greenspan, for one) and now we are paying for some of their policies. Worse still are the estimated half million Iraqi children who died while the Clintons, Albright, et al, presided over the U.N.-imposed sanctions on Iraq.
Posted by: Kristin | Jul 24, 2008 3:03:51 PM
Genop,
No, you're not the only one who likes Obama's refusal to honor the surge. When Obama gave his response about it, it showed that he not only had an intricate knowledge of the details on the ground, but he was not willing to bend himself to a soundbite. Thanks for pointing that out so well.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 24, 2008 3:10:01 PM
His prior political experience is less than every single president on your list, including George Bush.
That's not true, Paul. At least, not if you're talking about number of years of service in elected office.
George W. Bush was Governor of Texas for six years. Barack Obama will have been a U.S. Senator for four years, plus eight years as a state legislator.
I suppose one could make a qualitative argument, but that wouldn't seem to hold up for Bush either - given that the Governor of Texas is only the 5th or 6th most powerful statewide elected official in Texas.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Jul 24, 2008 4:04:36 PM
This is a non-Z-Sustainer link to John Pilger's article referenced by Harry K. above. Read, weep, and withdraw from your Obama-induced euphoria.
Posted by: RichW | Jul 24, 2008 4:35:42 PM
So Bill, what is your set of solutions and why aren't they prominent on the national scene as an alternative to Obama. Do you have your own light or do you just curse the darkness.
I surmise you are on the far left. I apologize if my assumption is wrong.
I used to be on the far left myself - SDS & Chicago convention protester. However the more I associated with the far left, the more I saw people without positive vision, and worse, people with great misanthropy and personal demons in their lives - wife abuse, drugs, criminality, infidelity. In other words they were no more enlightened or perfect than the rest of humanity. In my old age, i am more pragmatic. Sh*t happens! Sometimes there is nothing we can do about it. Sometime we need to rally the troops if we have any chance of doing something positive about it. The polarizing extremes have never provided good solutions in my estimation. Why, because ego-centricities get in the way of clear solutions.
Obama may be steeped in euphoria, but comapred to all the alternative presidential nominees, including Nader, he is the only one that inspires me. (And I am not dumb!)
Posted by: Susan Watkins | Jul 24, 2008 4:57:17 PM
Maybe a build up of the military in Afghanistan is for the purpose of attacking Iran from the Afghan side. Invading Iran from Iraq as well as from Afghanistan would destroy Iran.
Posted by: Harry Kershner | Jul 24, 2008 5:33:31 PM
Re "...without positive vision, and worse, ...with great misanthropy and personal demons in their lives - wife abuse, drugs, criminality, infidelity":
According to RichW, he "used to be 'far left'", and therefore he used drugs, committed crimes, and cheated on his wife, whom he beat. Glad to hear you stopped all that misanthropy, RichW, when you became a supporter of candidates and parties who are war-mongering anti-Arab/anti-Persian racists and Bush-lite fascist-apologists. Take pity on those of us who lack the courage to make the transition.
Posted by: paul g. | Jul 24, 2008 9:30:19 PM
Kari,
Agreed on GW Bush, although he did win election as governor in the second most populous state. Point is, on that list, GW Bush is the only argument. For the rest, Senator Obama does have a pretty short resume, by traditional standards.
May be a strength, may be a weakness, but I'm not going to pretend it's not there.
Posted by: Kristin | Jul 25, 2008 10:13:33 AM
Paul,
I think a key part of your statement is "by traditional standards." Considering that he didn't come from a well-established family, he did not have automatic entre into the upper echelons of the military, the diplomatic corps, or other such institutions.
As anyone who has done grassroots organzing knows, though, it provides a level of experience that is desperately lacking in the higher ranks of government.
While his work as an anti-poverty organizer doesn't fit the standard politician resume, I am very thankful that we will finally have someone in the Oval Office who has spent so much time with the people who are often the hardest hit by a faltering economy and government cut-backs.
I think this experience should be valued as much if not more as any other item on a presidential candidate's resume.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Jul 25, 2008 10:47:00 AM
Instead of experience how about measuring by life experience?
Obama years in Indonesia saw him living at ground level, far outside the sphere inhabited by American and European expats. His mother woke him several hours before school and totured him every day before he went out to school.
Junior high and high school in the only truly multi-cultural sate in the US, Hawaii. College in California, hwere he sampled the various flavors of what passed for campus activism, and found them to be trite, self-referential, and ultimately non-productive.
Then off to the tree years of community organizing in a city being run by a shiny new African American Machine, which he ultimately judged as currupt and ineffective.
Off to Africa, where he delved into the many facets of post colonial home rule, ith theoretical socialism, the get along with the old masters corporatism, the endemic corruption, and his father and family's place in all this. Then back to Harvard, The Review, and interaction with various relatives and community members who were pursuing their own peace through conversion to Islam or Back to Africa movements, and found none of this to be his cup of tea either.
All the while reading the great theorists, both African American and European. An entire life in pursuit of solutions and hard nosed appraisals of the successes and failures of earlier efforts.
That's relevant Experience.
Posted by: RichW | Jul 25, 2008 11:01:29 AM
Thank you for the personal attack, Harry.
But you didn't answer the question, perhaps due to your imperfect reading of my post. Tell me who is the alternative candidate to Obama that can inspire the country to elect him/her in November?
Posted by: Harry Kershner | Jul 25, 2008 11:57:44 AM
RichW: You're welcome, but don't you think your own attack on those of us who were leftists in the sixties deserves a response? You sure can dish it out, but you can't take it, can you?
Your question(s) were not asked of me (You apparently don't even read your own posts); they were directed at Bill, who is quite capable of speaking for himself. (And I want to say to Bill that I respect your principled position on Nader, even if I disagree about the "safe-state" strategy.)
I've been posting answers to similar questions here for years. Here's a short recapitulation:
(1.) If the DP were "progressive", as most DP regressives claim, it would first of all stop showing contempt for democracy. You would select candidates who represent the progressive base of your party rather than those who support corporate and military hegemony, like Obama. And you would act on what the overwhelming percentage of your membership wants, e.g., impeachment of the war criminals Bush and Cheney; an end to occupation and terrorizing, etc.
(2.) My positions, like Nader's, are centrist/progressive positions, not "far left": Political Issues that Matter for 2008. If you haven't actually read this already, you're no better than the Republicans who haven't read Obama's positions.
(3.) If you really ever had been "far left", you would already know that those of us to your left want justice, peace and democracy, and we want candidates who exemplify those standards.
(4.) Even if there were no people in America who were representative of those standards (and my experience is that there are several on every street corner), you should not accept candidates who, every four years, run on militaristic, corporatist platforms, e.g., Obama, Kerry and Gore.
Re: your "Sh*t happens!" - Isn't this Rumsfeld's position? Now I understand why Obama inspires you.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Jul 25, 2008 12:11:13 PM
I surmise you are on the far left. I apologize if my assumption is wrong.
Your assumption is entirely wrong. I often find myself in disagreement with people on the far left. I am an independent which means that I follow certain principles and not party programs or ideologues. I cling to the apparently now quaint concept of all people having a right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and justice. I also happen to believe in the law and the Constitution. That may mean that there are times when I appear to be on the "left," but it also puts me in line on some occasions with some people on the "right."
Your apology is accepted.
I may have to go off line for a few days so don't jump to other conclusions if I don't respond to other comments.
Posted by: paul g. | Jul 25, 2008 1:07:57 PM
Kristin
I completely agree. That's why a list like the one above comparing Obama to past presidents is not only inaccurate, but into the GOP framing of this issue.
Harry
I don't think there is any evidence out there, at least from the polling data that I have seen, showing that the base of the Democratic party (defined either as those who self-describe as activist, contributors, and certainly not those who describe as adherents or regular voters), adopt many of the positions you describe.
By any reasonable ideological measure, Nader is far left. You are right to argue that self-described centrists may have little sense of what issues animate the left, but by the same token, your self-described leftist orientation does not put you in a particularly good position to make claims about what the mainstream base of the party believes.
Posted by: RichW | Jul 25, 2008 1:10:10 PM
Harry,
Did I attack all the lefties of the sixties? No, I merely pointed out the hypocrisy of many who were for "justice" but didn't practice what they preached. And as I further explained, they were no different than the rest of humanity. They did not meet my expectations. Tell me how the vandalism of those who broke store windows and even looted those stores during the '68 Chicago protest advanced the cause of justice.
You responded with a snarky personal attack. I never attacked you personally. I can take whatever you throw at me because it is meaningless to me. I was sincere when I thanked you for the personal attack because it proved my point.
Even Rummie can be right on something sometime.
My point remains. Show me a VIABLE alternative to Obama and I'll vote for him or her. Nader is NOT viable,and yes I have read his positions. He just has not captured the hearts and minds of voteres enough for us to take his candidacy as nothing more than a protest. Sometimes protests do change the world, but in his case his is dismissed as ineffective by a vast majority.
I have said before "Obama - warts and all" because no one else even comes close to inspiring me. In 1992 I strode down to my polling place (before vote-by-mail) with energy to vote for Clinton. With all of his warts, I am not sorry I did. Obama may never be able to live up to the hype of his campaign. I am sure, as President he will falter on one or another issues. But it comes down to him being our great hope. No one else comes close.
Posted by: Harry Kershner | Jul 25, 2008 1:45:05 PM
paul g said, "I don't think there is any evidence out there...showing that the base of the Democratic party...adopt many of the positions you describe."
How about impeachment of the war criminals Bush and Cheney (75-80%)? How about an end to the occupation of Iraq? How about a crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare? How about single payer, universal health care? How about cutting the bloated Pentagon budget? How about even-handed treatment of the Palestinians and Israelis?
There is plenty of data out there that shows that not only the membership of the DP is far to the left of the DP elites, but a majority/plurality of the country. And that is the true center of political thought in the U.S.
Here's what David Sirota says:
"As the Associated Press claimed in a typical description, Obama's shifts are designed 'to appeal to the center of the electorate.'
However, empirical data prove 'the center of the electorate' is exactly the opposite:
-- Polls by Quinnipiac University and the Mellman Group found majorities support warrant requirements for wiretaps and oppose immunity for companies that released private consumer information without such warrants.
-- Surveys by Fortune magazine, CNN and the Wall Street Journal report that most Americans oppose NAFTA-style trade policies.
-- For years, major polls have consistently shown Americans want a firm timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. As just one of many examples, five separate USA Today surveys since 2007 have shown majorities want the president to 'set a timetable for removing troops from
Iraq and to stick to that timetable regardless of what is going on in Iraq.'
So, the undebatable evidence tells us precisely where the center of public opinion is. Yet when a presidential candidate moves away from the center, we are told he is moving toward it. What gives?"
(In search of the American 'center')
Most BO posters wouldn't know "the left" if it bit them on the ass. Nader and I seem to be "far left" to you only because you're so far to the right that any real centrist would seem left.
Nader believes in restrained capitalism, peace and justice. If you think that is "far left", you need to go back to school.
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Jul 25, 2008 1:52:08 PM
Let's unbold all the far vs very very far left shouting.
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Jul 25, 2008 1:57:45 PM
Try again
Posted by: Harry Kershner | Jul 25, 2008 3:25:11 PM
RichW: Especially since I know that your definition of "far left" is far to the right of my definition, I see your comment as casting aspersions on many fine people who I knew in the sixties.
Let's take your words and substitute "gays" for "far left", as in, "...the more I associated with the gays, the more I saw people without positive vision, and worse, people with great misanthropy and personal demons in their lives - spouse abuse, drugs, criminality, infidelity." Understand now?
Fourteen percent of the population believe Nader is the best candidate, even though only six percent say they'll vote for him. This is with a virtually complete MSM blackout of his campaign. (Someone on BO keeps asserting that Nader is not campaigning!)
What would happen if we had a real series of debates with candidates that ran the gamut from Ron Paul to Nader? Here's what I think would happen: people would be informed about real alternatives. The more McBama would tread the right-wing "center", the more people would understand that only the "alternative" candidates offer "change". Would that mean that a progressive government would be elected? The future is unwritten.
Posted by: RichW | Jul 25, 2008 4:26:40 PM
"RichW: Especially since I know that your definition of "far left" is far to the right of my definition, I see your comment as casting aspersions on many fine people who I knew in the sixties."
Pardon me but you know nothing of the sort. Yes, I do cast aspersions on the criminals and misanthrops who claimed to be for justice. I also recognize there were many fine people (who also scorned the miscreants, if only privately).
We probably have more in common than you think. All I am saying is that Nader is not an alternative to Obama because Nader has zero chance of winning. When Nader was blamed for Gore's loss in Florida, Naderites countered, correctly so, that Gore failed to win Fla on his own. Thesame can be said for Nader's campaign. He doesn't have the critical mass to be an effective candidate. Lets see if he even gets anything close to that 6% in November.
Blame the MSM? Now you sound like the Freepers. But even so, a viable candidate knows how to manage the media. Nader was somewhat effective in 2000 but has now lost that touch. He is now the Harold Stassen of the 21st Century. Compare this with Obama who virtually came out of nowhere when the MSM was stating that Hillary had a lock on the nomination. There is not a choice from center to far left. It is Obama over McCain for all of us. Anyone else is chaff.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Jul 25, 2008 4:37:35 PM
Harry,
Nader has essentially a social democratic program. It isn't "far left" in the sense of being revolutionary. It is on the left end of the effective political spectrum in the U.S. (i.e. you can find a few elected members of Congress who more or less agree with him).
It isn't true that your evidence is "undebatable." The question is, how do we look at differing responses to differing wordings of poll questions.
Your interpretive rule is that if a poll question produces results that correspond to your own view, that is the question that reflects "true" public opinion. That's an unfounded interpretive rule. There's no reason to say that the different questions that produce different results are any less "true."
The thing is, most Americans don't have strong ideological positions. They haven't thought through positions from various angles to come to the kind of view you'd regard as principled. So if you pose questions from different angles, they give different answers.
The right wing can cite polls that support their positions on various things.
It also is the case that when polled on items in the Bill of Rights without having them identified as such, and particularly if framed in terms like "regardless of their effects on national security," you can get majorities against most of our civil liberties.
I notice that the Nader issue page actually does not address Iraq or Afghanistan at all, which is fairly remarkable.
The conclusion I draw from the variability of polls is that persuasion and argument matter. Name-calling isn't an effective mode for that.
Posted by: marv | Jul 25, 2008 5:42:46 PM
What never ceases to amaze me is the extent to which a few
folks will go to justify a fear of Obama. He has shown a
strong capacity to play politics at the level required; he
is affiliated with the Chicago school of Milton Friedman's
disaster capitalism..Bush's continuation of what Reagan
started and Clinton continued is not in any danger. The
military budget is growing vastly out of proportion to any
need and there is no ability to stop it. Who is fearing
the loss of the Republic? Guess if you have enough guns
it doesn't matter. There will never be a country that
achieves what we could have become. How tragic.
Posted by: Patriot | Jul 25, 2008 9:14:31 PM
You guys are all funny. You have no idea what you stand for. Mr Bush is the most unpopular President EVER and Obama is ahead of the Republican candidate by what an average of 3 percent? If Obama wins it will because of switching one MAYBE 2 states. I honestly feel sorry for you guys.
You are STAYING TEH COURSE just as you accuse Bush of doing. I mean i just read all your comments. We have one guy saying Carter was great on foreign policy. Ok idiot did you live during that era? you have some one else saying Obama is doing a great job explaining his positions. I know that might be what you hope for but come on, he obviously isnt or he would be doing better. And then you say that he cant do any more. HAHAHA yes we can yes we can yes we can. He can hope anything into existance why cant he just CHANGE all our minds?
Then we have one guy talking about hgow great Clinton was. It was not him, he was a bit busy if I remember, it was the peace we lived in, and the base of the economy set up by Reagan and Bush plus the internet boom that did that for him. And as far as experiance goes, I think it counts for a bit, but maybe not as much as some people out there, but I can still find it funny that a lady up there was saying Obama had just as much experiance as presidents for the last 80 years lol
Oh and i cant even really comment on the guy who said working on the south side of chicago "couldnt" be harder then takin on Iran. Really? Really? I hope Obama is at least not as nieve as you!
Posted by: Harry Kershner | Jul 26, 2008 12:07:29 PM
Chris L:
(1.) Nader is "to the left end" only if the usual suspects on BO and in DP/RP leadership are compared. Tell me which of Nader's issues are too "far left" for you. I've been asking this question on BO since Nader announced, and none of you will answer (because it will reveal how far to the right you are).
(2.) I never said that my evidence is "undebatable." It was David Sirota (who I believe is a Democrat) who said that; that's why I put quotation marks around what he said (" ").
(3.) When you say, "Your interpretive rule is that if a poll question produces results that correspond to your own view, that is the question that reflects 'true' public opinion," that is a strawman argument, and not worthy of you.
You have no idea what my "interpretive rule" is because you've never bothered to debate different poll outcomes; instead, you've attacked any reasonable analysis of poll data because it would place you in a position of having to acknowledge that most DP elites are far to the right of "center", and because it would also place you in a position of having to challenge people like Chomsky, Zinn, Klein, Bennis, Herman and Sirota, among many other true progressives.
When you say, "There's no reason to say that the different questions that produce different results are any less 'true'", that is nihilism. Social scientists say otherwise, and you either lack the knowledge necessary to evaluate different poll results, or you are just propagandizing when it suits your argument.
(4.) Your failure to find Nader's position on Iraq is dumbfounding to me. You need to read better. (You can omit the part about poll results if you want):
Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East:
"Nader/Gonzalez would reverse the current policy in the Middle East.
The current political strategy of pre-emptive war in the Middle East is a disaster for both the American people and the people of the Middle East. It has bloated the already wasteful military budget and has cost at present over 4,000 American lives, nearly 100,000 American injuries, and over a million Iraqi civilian lives, plus the destruction of their country.
Nader/Gonzalez propose a rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
A target of withdrawing troops in six months will be set.
Fifty-eight percent of Americans want troops withdrawn from Iraq and a January 2006 poll shows that 72 percent of American soldiers in the field in Iraq wanted the U.S. out of Iraq within six to twelve months."
(5.) Your "name calling" argument is unjustified. No one has been personally attacked on BO more than me. I don't complain about that; I just give as good as I receive.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Jul 27, 2008 12:58:47 AM
Harry,
I apologize for misreading Sirota's words as yours. I expect you're right that he's a Democrat -- either the DPO or the Multnomah Co. Democrats were promoting a recent visit by him on a book tour at Powell's. Both facts might suggest that the DP is more complicated than you allow.
You're right that I was wrong about them not addressing Iraq that and did a poor job navigating their site -- I didn't figure out that the items listed on the contrast checklist actually were links, and thus focused on the more clearly identified links below the checklist.
It might make sense for them to actually put the word Iraq in the link -- seeing "Middle East" policy whole is good, but I think is probably one of the areas where if they're really out to counter the propaganda situation they shouldn't assume that what's clear to them will be obvious to everyone they're trying to reach. Just my opinion, of course.
Their Iraq position is o.k., though interestingly not as strong as a resolution passed by the Democratic Party of Oregon, which mirrors the position of Iraq Veterans Against the War in also calling for reparations to Iraq. That resolution of course has no hope of influencing actual policy just by virtue of having the right stance. Even so with Nader/Gonzalez. See also a resolution on the UN in Iraq not unrelated to the Nader/Gonzalez position.
-------
Harry, Nader's positions are not "too far left for me." If I haven't said so clearly before, let me say so now. I agree with most of them, and on ones where I don't it's usually from the left (e.g. Nader's immigration position, not mentioned on his website [like abortion rights, women's rights more generally, and LGBT rights, guess he's still down on "gonadal politics"], his "Israel is the puppet-master" theory of U.S.-Israel relations, with which I know you also disagree).
When I voted for Nader in '96 as an anti-Clinton protest, I had no problem doing so as far as his positions go. He's basically running on a social democratic platform and that's pretty much what I am ideologically. The silences on civil rights issues beyond racial/ethnic affirmative action do bother me.
Nonetheless it is my belief that those views are on what I called before "the left end of the effective political spectrum" in the U.S. By that, I mean what people will actually vote for in sufficient numbers to elect someone or pass laws.
It is essentially because of the empirical facts of voting that I haven't tried to go deeper into polling with you. However, you have never offered a "reasonable analysis of poll data" that actually considers the whole range and argues why some polls should be accepted and others rejected when they differ, any more than I have -- I admit I have not either.
Why you think I'd challenge Phyllis Bennis I have no idea. I find her thinking lucid and useful; I even had the luck to get a chance to talk with her a bit at a Palestinian human rights conference in town a few years ago. My main political activity is in the anti-war movement working with people who mostly align with UFPJ, with whom she also works. I haven't read enough of David Sirota to have a view. I've heard Naomi Klein on the radio and what she has to say is interesting, though possibly putting too much emphasis on a neglected process within a larger system to redress the neglect -- I need to read her books but haven't.
Howard Zinn is a populist intellectual whose work in providing a standpoint for alternative perspectives to those dominant in high school textbooks I respect, but as a professional historian and former college teacher I have a set of issues with him that actually aren't political so much as resulting from having to struggle to get students to see that A People's History is neither biblical writ nor the last word in historical interpretation. I also have some concern he reproduces a tendency on the U.S. left to treat "resistance" itself as a "victory," even when the resistance is defeated, which doesn't really help us figure out how get out of the marginal position we're in, even if it may serve a necessary morale function. That concern is tempered, as with many of my criticisms of various things, by awareness that I don't have the answer either.
My reading of Chomsky and Hermann is inconsistent, partly because I find their prose tedious -- anti-intellectual of me I know, an example of my failures of principle since opposing anti-intellectualism might be the closest thing I have to a principle. I've heard Chomsky speak a number of times and much of what he had to say was of great interest. He was helpful to the anti-apartheid movement in New Haven / at Yale at one point in the 1980s in ways I respected. If Zinn has a bit of a rah-rah factor about him, Chomsky leads to pessimism, at least for me, and again seems to offer little guidance to action.
------
The empirical voting behavior that has confronted me my entire life is what makes me take the view of the range of polling data that I take. Which readings of which polls, particularly when taking issues in combination rather than serially, better predict actual actions?
At a certain level, there is a gap between my professed beliefs and my votes. You appear to infer that because of that gap, I don't really believe what I say I do. I suppose perhaps I am doing that with people who answer questions in the abstract in the ways you point out, yet vote very differently. So perhaps that makes you right, that I don't really believe what I say I do, since I don't act on it in my voting. But if you are right about the lack of genuineness of my professed views, why do you apply a different standard to the gap between the broader polling you cite in relation to broader voting?
But maybe I really do believe what I say, yet vote differently, and maybe you are right that the same is true in the gap between your preferred polls and how people vote. The question remains, why do people vote as they do and what could change that? I don't see you as offering persuasive answers, or really much in the way of answers at all.
Yet that gap has been what shapes the essentially defensive orientation of my actions in electoral politics. I have never really found an approach to advancing social democratic politics that has shown much promise. My greatest hopes were for the Labor Party for a period in the 1990s, because the LP had a strategy of medium-term organizing, not tied to immediate electoral cycles, backed by substantial material resources. Unfortunately the still-slim chances didn't work out, and circumstances prevented us carrying out that strategy effectively. No one now that I see offers anything comparable involving a medium-to-long term organizing strategy.
For a reasonably long period I belonged to DSA, but their "inside-outside" approach to the DP was based on a premise and hopeful reading of DP politics by Michael Harrington in the 1970s, before the DSOC-NAM merger, a reading that Reaganism rendered increasingly irrelevant. There was an abortive effort in the early '90s move DSA toward trying to be the core of something that might have been something like what Progressive Democrats of America seems to aim to be, though moving more quickly to a larger scale than PDA probably can, that at the time I played a minor role in obstructing, which I now regret. Maybe PDA has some possibilities.
The Nader/Gonzalez strategy, however, makes no sense to me as a way actually to advance social democratic politics. I don't think it is working or that it can work. Nor do I think that if I changed my actions that they would have any prospect of making it work better.
I don't criticize those to whom it does make sense -- if you look back on our discussions I don't believe you'll ever find me saying you should do what I do, or anything other than what you do, except in matters relating to debate and persuasion.
But you have never made any effort that I can remember to persuade me that I'm wrong, that working for N/G would really advance those politics, and enough so to justify abandoning my defensive concerns.
You have instead presented the issues essentially as ones of personal and ideological integrity, in which effectiveness is an irrelevant concern, mostly by way of inferring, imputing and accusing lack of such integrity in others, including me directly once in a while and indirectly within sweeping generalizations more frequently. This is such a poor approach to persuasion that it leads me to think and feel you don't really wish to persuade. Either that, or you don't think you can persuade, because you also actually don't think that mode of politics can be effective.
Your point about responding to other name-calling is fair comment up to a point, I suppose, but only up to a point.
It appears to me that you do not actually wish to persuade others, but rather to take opportunities to vent frustrations. Apart from my general skepticism of minor party or individual personality presidential electoral politics at the margins, with no realistic prospects, as a vehicle for advancing social democratic politics in current U.S. political circumstances, I am more specifically skeptical and uninterested in joining in such rhetorical strategies of accusation. I believe serious change requires movement building, and that such rhetorical strategies are antithetical to movement-building.
Further, I believe they give reasonable ideas a bad name, by unnecessary association with poor and alienating rhetorical strategy and tactics.
Posted by: Harry Kershner | Jul 27, 2008 1:08:32 PM
Chris L said, "You have instead presented the issues essentially as ones of personal and ideological integrity, in which effectiveness is an irrelevant concern, mostly by way of inferring, imputing and accusing lack of such integrity in others, including me directly once in a while and indirectly within sweeping generalizations more frequently. This is such a poor approach to persuasion that it leads me to think and feel you don't really wish to persuade."
Every time you guys deride values or integrity, you lose; politically, ethically, morally and spiritually. The right-wingers are right about one thing: Democrats lack a moral compass (so do Republicans, but that's another story).
We can walk and spit vitriol at the same time. There's plenty to be angry about, and my anger is no different than that of many past activists who were criticized similarly. I take what you and your DP compatriots say to me a lot less personally than you take what I have to say, and I see that fact as a window into our relative senses of guilt.
I DENY that "effectiveness is an irrelevant concern". Nothing I have said can reasonably be interpreted in that way. The question is what will be effective, and, since we agree that neither of us knows the answer, I don't understand your contention about my supposed indifference. Is effectiveness an irrelevant concern for you? If it isn't, then why do you think that supporting right-of-center hacks is a serious option?
I have posted copiously detailed arguments that are mostly ignored by the "progressives" who post to BO. Whether or not I "vent my frustrations" does not seem to matter to those who respond. DP loyalists and RP loyalists tend not to read anything that challenges their prejudices, and, even when they do read it, they find some "reason" to deride the truth.
My experience is that different people are persuaded by different things. You shouldn't be so sure that my style cannot be effective. As much as I prefer what you have to say over what most here have to say, your style, after all, has not changed the intellectual culture of the DP.
Most of my associates on the left mock me for even trying to reach Democrats, especially Democrats who post to BO. They say that you cannot be reasoned with. I sometimes agree.
None of us has prevented either the massive suffering we are causing throughout the world, nor the conditions for catastrophe that we now confront, so let's agree to disagree.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Jul 24, 2008 6:22:24 AM
Obama is "risky" in much the same vein as Carter. Should he win in November he inherits: a war wear public, spiraling fuel prices, a housing fiasco, economic downturn, crumbling higways, a fratured congress, an international community that doesn't know what they want from the US and an awakening Iran.
Like Jimmy Carter (the best former President we've ever had), Obama is "risky in that he is untested on the international stage, has little experience outside his home state, and has campaigned on hope for a better tomorrow and "change" without much to back it up.
Those are the problems the next president faces. I'm certain I've left many others out. To quell the rising concern over "risk" Obama and followers need to address these issues with fact and substance rather than hope.