Sen. Barack Obama: Liberal lion or pandering poltroon?

[thatcrazycajun]

My friend (redaxe), in an exchange on Tom Smith (filkertom)'s LJ page re the approval (at long, long last) of the emergency contraceptive Plan B for over-the-counter purchase by adults 18 and over, got me into a discussion of the Democratic Party's prospects for a Presidential candidate in 2008. He seems to feel that former U.S. Senator, Vice President and spectacularly failed 2000 nominee Al Gore could try again in '08 and actually win, largely on the strength of his presentation in the much-lauded new documentary film An Inconvenient Truth. I have maintained since December of 2000 that Gore cost himself the election far more than Ralph Nader or anyone else did, by his repeated image makeovers, his lack of charisma and passion on the stump and his choice of "Holy Joe" Lieberman as a running mate, among many other failings. I posited that in the age of televised coronations masquerading as party conventions and sound-bite/attack-ad fusillades posing as campaigns, Presidential elections (all elections, really) are much more won by the one who can rouse the non-voting, apathetic masses from their slumber (we still have a voting-eligible population the vast majority of which can't even be bothered to register, much less show up at the polls on Election Day, and that majority grows every cycle) than by the one with the best ideas.

(And before you ask, yes, I have seen the movie and I stand by my assessment; nothing I saw convinced me that outside of the helpful influence of a friendly filmed audience and a skilled director and cinematographer, Gore could do any better than he did the first time. The only time in the whole film he showed any genuine emotion was when talking about his kid in the hospital; otherwise, he makes Ben "Bueller?" Stein look exciting and dynamic.)

I suggested that a much better choice than Gore (who couldn't even get his fellow Tennesseans to vote for him in sufficient numbers to beat Bush in his home state) or Sen. Hillary Clinton (who arouses spittle-spewing hatred in fully half the country like no Democrat I've seen since FDR or...well, her husband) would be someone like freshman Sen. Barack Obama, who electrified the party's 2004 Boston convention attendees in his keynote address as no one has since Gov. Mario Cuomo (NY) two decades earlier. My pal seems to consider Obama a "panderer" who "lacks the courage of his convictions." I can't find anything in the media or hs history as outlined on Wikipedia to indicate either of these characteristics. Indeed, he has stood on principle numerous times in his first term, and is holding firm in his refusal to consider running for President himself in '08 despite the blandishments of an awful lot of influential fellow Dems who think he could win. That doesn't sound to me like a lack of conviction.

Anyhoo, it seems to me the discussion has gotten involved enough that we should let Tom have his page back and move it here. What do y'all think? Is my friend right about Obama? Who do YOU think should be the Democratic Presidential candidate in '08? Who do you think absolutely should not? Whom do you think the nominee will face on the GOP side? Redaxe suggests that rocker Bruce Springsteen or comedian Jon Stewart would be able to hit people where they live hard enough to get them to vote for him. I'd vote for the Boss in a hot picosecond, though I'm not sure the Daily Show host has enough gravitas (he is a comedian, after all). Let's have at it!

Comments

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

How to handicap the election of '08 will depend a lot on how things in '06 go.

If the Dems win majorities in one or both Houses, then the party is likely to push much more to the progressive/left. In particular, watch if Ned Lamont wins in CN, Donna Edwards in the 4th District of MD (running in a tight primary race against long-term incumbent Al Wynn). OTOH, also watch Harold Ford in TN and Webb in VA. Ford and Webb are far more typical of the approach of the Democratic Leadership Council, which has advocated a shift centerward since the late 1980s (Leiberman and Clinton are both DLC members, to give you a feel for their philosophy).

If Lamont and Edwards lose, but Ford and Webb win, the DLC and other mainstream party leaders will argue that they are right that general elections can only be won by "moderate" candidates. If Lamont and Edwards win, but Ford and Webb do not, it will be taken as evidence by party leaders that the country is ready for a more radical change in direction and that condidates who claim to be centrists are percieved as standing for nothing. If all of them win, we will see campaigns along both lines.

Also up for grabs is how the Democratic Party remains organized after the election. If the Dems fail to retake the House, it will be seen as the fault of Dean and he will be forced out. If his "50 state strategy" succeeds, he will be very difficult to force from the leadership.

As for Obama. People seem rather pissed about his statements on religion. This is apparently what is viewed as "pandering." I did not read it that way.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

I just lost an entire post in reply.

Short form: The religion thing isn't really pandering, except insofar as Barack continues to acknowledge the right-wing frame of the issue as "religion vs. secularism"; he was speaking with ministers and churchgoers about the role of religion in America, and it was mostly a fair speech. But when he states that one cannot be a secularist without entirely dropping all religion, he's shoveling male bovine extrement.

The two specific places where Barack DOES pander are when he (along with Sens. Hillary and Kerry) supported W's trade deal with Oman, and in failing to filibuster now-Justice Alito. (He asserted, correctly, that the only way to ensure your judges are appointed is to be elected as a majority; he seems, however, to fail to acknowledge the validity of the filibuster as a tool for the minority to oppose the majority when the majority is out of control or seriously wrong.)

Jon Stewart has gravitas. See what he did to Tucker Carlson, whose intent was to humilate Stewart, for example. Note that Mr. Bowtie is now looking for work (in addition to trying to find his rear end with both hands, as he never could do).

I'm no Hilary fan. She has a built-in 35% vote against. That's a bad start.

On the other hand, you see a very different Al Gore than I do. I see a man whose arguments are well-founded, who presents them well, and is compelling. Must be that long-standing LA-TN rivalry over music :-)

Hey, check out how well Mario Cuomo's presidential bid went! :-D

Me, I'm for Gore-Vilsack (see also; my principal beefs with him overall is his declaration of English as Iowa's official language and his support of creating Retirement Savings Accounts toward privatizing Social Security) (and check out Our Ten Words, which is what caught my eye from Vilsack in the first place). Too bad it's not four years down the line; Obama might have gotten himself together (and a full term in the Senate can't hurt) or we might see someone like Jon Corzine (Gov., NJ) run, after he's turned his state's economy around. But with luck we'll have a decent incumbent, and those guys will have to wait four more years.

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

Perhaps it is just me, but I would not have filabustered Alito. I have a very specific idea as to how the constitution is supposed to work and what level of deference you give when.

I was about to explain why, but I have no intention of reopening the substance on the Alito debate. But I cannot view Obama's decision not to filabuster as pandering.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

*nods*

At some point, when you have time and the inclination, I'd like to hear your explanation as to why you'd not have filibustered Alito, and to have you define the criteria a candidate would have to hold for you to favor a filibuster.

For now, though, I can agree to disagree, and will continue to cite that as one of my criteria for using the word "pandering" for Obama's behavior to date.

[darrenzieger.livejournal.com]

Well, my dream ticket would be Gore Vidal/Noam Chomsky, but back in the real world...

I'm hoping to see Russ Feingold emerge as a serious contender. As far as I can discern, he's the least full-of-shit Democrat we've got. I'm also hoping that Obama will display some more spine once he's better established, but I'm not holding my breath in either case.

The real root of the problem is the DNC, a bunch of shit-eating, cowardly mental midgets who have spent the last 25 years trying to beat the Republicans by joining them. The DNC will never get behind a genuine progressive -- even if they take back the legislative branch. They've allowed the right wing to define the terms of the debate, and have no idea how to take it back.

Then, of course, there's the little matter of the Dems being beholden to the same corporate interests as the Repugs.

The only way there will be any meaningful change in how Congress behaves, regardless of which party is in charge, is campaign finance reform -- not the band-aid proposed by McCain/Feingold, but a complete overhaul of the system.

Make it illegal for politicians to receive -- and lobbyists to offer -- money or favors of any kind. And publicly finance all elections, so that politicians don't have to make Faustian bargains just to run for office. In short, remove money and perks entirely from the process. Force lobbyists to sell their ideas based on their actaul merits.

To make up for the loss of perks, if necessary, double or triple, or hell, add an extra zero to Congressional salaries. The benefits to society as a whole will more than make up for it.

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

>>The real root of the problem is the DNC, a bunch of shit-eating, cowardly mental midgets who have spent the last 25 years trying to beat the Republicans by joining them. The DNC will never get behind a genuine progressive -- even if they take back the legislative branch. They've allowed the right wing to define the terms of the debate, and have no idea how to take it back.<<

Yer preachin' to the choir here, brother. One of my biggest problems with Gore is that he, like Lieberman and Clinton, is a "centrist" Democratic Leadership Council type -- in other words, "Republican Lite." The chief conviction of DLCers is that true progressives of the sort you and I and the others posting here would like to see win simply can't (at least, not in the general election as opposed to party primaries), and haven't been able to since at least the Reagan era. Unfortunately, they may well be right; the GOP has just gotten too good at ginning up votes from the huge numbers of conservatives and evangelicals who basically want to repeal the 1960s, as well as the more middle-of-the-road types who are made uncomfortable by hard-left positions on policy.

>>Make it illegal for politicians to receive -- and lobbyists to offer -- money or favors of any kind. And publicly finance all elections, so that politicians don't have to make Faustian bargains just to run for office. In short, remove money and perks entirely from the process. Force lobbyists to sell their ideas based on their actaul merits.<<

Playing devil's advocate here: And how do you answer the George Wills of the world, who insist that "money = speech" and that any such radical reform as you propose is an unconstitutional infringement on First Amendment rights of parties and candidates? Just wondering...

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

I am not convinced that a true progressive cannot win, or that the efforts of true progressives cannot push the party to a better result. As I have said many times, the boomers need to learn a little more history. The Republicans and the DLC keep preaching about the presidential election of 1972 and 1992. Me, I keep thinking back to 1932.

As for George Will and money=speech, my quick answers are:

1) The doctrine giving corporations and other artificial entities full first amendment rights is relatively recent (the critical case is Belloti in 1970). It is wrongly decided and should be reversed (yeah, fat chance).

2) Similarly, cases that hold that money=speech are simply wrong. I recognize, however, that for both (1) and (2) above I am in the same class of people who think the court was wrong in upholding McCain-Feingold. I may be right, but so what?

3) So I move on to the principle that the government is allowed to infringe speech rights under certain circumstances. "Free speech" yields to other concerns on more than one occassion. I shall not give a lengthy exposition on the complexities of First Amendment doctrine here. But I believe there is a sufficient record in support of the government's compelling interest to protect the integrity of the election process to justify further regulation.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

The real root of the problem is the DNC, a bunch of shit-eating, cowardly mental midgets who have spent the last 25 years trying to beat the Republicans by joining them.

You betcha.

Howard Dean has the answer, I think. Building a grassroots network; getting people on the ground in every state. Learning to and PRACTICING talking to the locals.

I just hope it produces results, or we're going to see more of the same for the next however many years it takes for the Republican crooks to completely exterminate the Democrats in all but name.

[scruffycritter.livejournal.com]

Actually, the real answer is going to be a new third party.

I think we're going to see the moderate Republicans who know the GOP isn't truly conservative - "Yeah, we want govt out of your face....unless try to turn off yer brain damaged wife's feeding tube" or fiscally "Lets pay for a two wars with tax cuts" reponsible.

Combined with

Fed Up Democrats with backbone.

Basically if the senators who prevented the Nuclear Option from getting used (except for Byrd and Liberman) united under a new party banner, the sane people might have a shot of holding sway in Congress.

Basically my slate is something like:

James Jeffords
Chuck Robb
Mark Warner
John Warner
Bob Kerrey
John Kerry
Warren Rudman
Joe Biden
Jesse Ventura
John McCain
Olympia Snow
George Mitchell

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

It's possible. The fact that a non-charismatic whacko with no articulated ideological platform like Ross Perot was able to get a significant perecentage of the popular vote in 1992 and that a non-charismatic leader like Ralph Nader was able to capture a measurable percentage of the popular vote in 2000 indicates, to my mind, an electorate prepared for change. In both 2004 and 2006, new registrants are motivated more by a desire to defeat the incumbent than to maintain the status quo.

What is lacking is a solid ideological framework and, ideally, a charismatic leader. We need an Upton Sinclair or a Huey Long, capable of galvanizing enough of the public to put the fear of real defeat into the existing parties.

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

>>We need an Upton Sinclair or a Huey Long, capable of galvanizing enough of the public to put the fear of real defeat into the existing parties.<<

Or at least a more progressive Bill Clinton, minus the overactive libido and regrettable accomodationist tendencies.

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

Do keep in mind that it was 16 years from the Goldwater disaster that triggered the investment in the modern conservative movement to the "Reagan revolution," and another 14 years after that to create the current Republican majorities in Congress.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

I am very keeping that in mind. I fear, though, that the Democratic Party leadership is going to be short-sighted, and absent measurable gains this cycle, displace Dean, teminate his foresighted program, and return to their losing policies. Hence, I root for those gains now, knowing that they're really only the beginning and there's still a great deal of work to do. (And what really needs doing is returning the electorate to a point where real bipartisanship is possible; where a vote for a policy or program proposed by the opposing party is not necessarily called or considered "treason" (quoted to indicate not equivalent to actual treason, per definition); where "conservative" doesn't suggest "fascist", as to too much a degree it now does, "liberal" doesn't mean "laughable", and "moderate" isn't slightly to the right of Ronald Reagan. That project will take a very, very long time, and starts by halting the push of the vocal ultraright minority to conform the country to its vision.)

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

Russ Fiengold would be good.

[patoadam]

And publicly finance all elections

I agree.

In my Congressional district, the Republican incumbent (John Doolittle) has raised several million dollars, including $600,000 from Native American gambling interests and several hundred thousand dollars from oil companies. The Democratic challenger (Charlie Brown) had only raised about $350,000 as of a few weeks ago. It's just not a level playing field. And the amount of money involved provides a huge incentive for elected officials to vote the way the lobbyists want.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

Manny took Constitutional Law from Obama at UChicago law school and liked him. As did the rest of the law school; he was respected as a teacher across the range of political opinion (which, at Chicago, is wide). That's enough to make me lean a little on his side, though beyond that I don't know any more than you do; I've vaguely followed him since his Senate campaign but not seriously enough to have details.