Will the Real Barack Obama Please Stand Up
I thought I had Barack Obama figured out. I thought he was no more liberal than Hillary Clinton but far more likely to bridge the divides in this nation. But, if that’s what I am seeing, why are America’s leftists seeing something entirely different? A day after Obama gets the MoveOn.org arch-liberal seal of approval, there’s this Christopher Hayes piece in The Nation, encouraging the left to rally behind Obama.
What struck me hardest was the way Hayes tries to write-off Obama’s conciliatory tone in the exact same way I and other independents have tried to justify Obama’s liberal record.
But he places more rhetorical emphasis on a politics of “unity” that, read uncharitably, seems to fetishize bipartisanship as an end in itself and reinforce lame and deceptive myths that the parties are equally responsible for the “bickering” and “divisiveness” in Washington. It appears sometimes that his diagnosis of what’s wrong with politics is the way it is conducted rather than for whom.
In its totality, though, Obama’s rhetoric tells a story of politics that is distinct from both the one told by Beltway devotees of bipartisanship and comity and from the progressive activists’ story of a ceaseless battle between the forces of progress and those of reaction. If it differs from what I like to hear, it is also unfailingly targeted at building the coalition that is the raison d’être of Obama’s candidacy.
In Obama, Hayes sees the progressives’ Reagan, a man so rhetorically gifted that he can bring along lots of people who would otherwise never agree with the agenda. Hayes believes Obama’s persuasion is honest (remember, progressives think the rest of us just need to be educated and we’ll all renounce our capitalist, imperialist, cultural chauvinist ways), but there’s a fine line between changing minds and tricking voters.
So who is Barack Obama? Is he a man who will bring us all to the table and, in effect, temper the worst urges of the left and right OR is he a man who will promote a leftist agenda while patting the rest of us on the heads and saying he really does care what we think? We can only guess. And that’s incredibly frustrating.
For now, I give up trying to decipher this man. I still think he’s a better choice for Democrats than Hillary Clinton, if only because she represents so much that is wrong with modern politics. But there’s little chance I’ll vote in the Democratic primary when it gets here in March. If Obama pulls off the improbable upset, we’ll have the much brighter lights of the general election to shine on him. Then, maybe we can base our judgments on who he actually is rather than who we hope (or fear) he is.
Cross-posted at Maverick Views.
I could write a book on what is happening with Obama and one day I actually might.
To put this in a historical nutshell.
Barak Obama is the anti George W. Bush. The Anti Hillary Rodham Clinton. The anti Left. The anti Right and the Anti Far left.
In a nutshell his message does not have to contain substance because of one simple fact. He opposes the war and by default everyone who falls into the Anti category is in his boat.
Game over man. Game over.
Opps that should have read the anti far right not the anti far left.
In your hunger for a Saviour and a father, you are deceiving yourself to believe in something in Senator Obama that just isn’t there. Senator Obama literally voted against several moderate legislation. Legislation like this one: He voted against legislation that would require Doctors to help partial late term abortion babies if the abortion wasn’t successful and yet the baby wasn’t completely killed but in fact was still alive. In other words, he advocated that the baby were to be finished off instead of getting help. That’s inhumane.I So, instead of being deceived about his pretty face, do your research. A persons record, regardless of what little it is, does in fact paint a picture. But only if you want to see it.
I’m reminded of the campaign logo that one of the guys at Stubborn Facts (Tully, I think?) created for Obama: a Rorschach test inkblot.
I’ve had an epiphany, I think, lately, about Obama, and I’m curious as to whether anyone else thinks this makes sense. It seems to me that he is actually interested in uniting the Democratic party, not the country- but as you point out, ASC, lefties tend to think that once the left prevails, everyone else will see the wisdom of their plans (so perhaps he really believes that those goals are one in the same, because if he unites the left then the right will eventually have to fall in line.)
Think about it- when he says we all have to give a bit, but then in the same speech talks about how awful Republicans have been- isn’t he really asking everyone on the left to give a bit, to unite against their common enemy, the right? Particularly lately I’ve gotten that message from him, like in his response to Bush’s SOTU, for example.
I’m still undecided on Obama. Folks do have a penchant for filling in the blanks with their own hopes when a charismatic candidate arises. Whatever evidence I DO decide to use in forming my final voting opinion of Obama, I do know one thing. It won’t include any of the stuff that folks on the far left used to fill in their blanks. In other words, since I discount almost entirely the views of folks as left as moveon.whine, I’m not prepared to make an exception and believe that they are suddenly on target. Political endorsements are sort of like movie recommendations. Anyone can steer you really wrong to an awful choice you just can’t bear, even a trusted friend.
I think your finally seeing the true light that Is Obama CStanley.
While I think he has some desire to be a uniter what he really means is that he wants to unite the Left against the right. Right now the left is not united because Hillary and Bill stand in the way of his anti march to the throne.
You can see this clearly in speech after speech if you care to look. The distress I find is that he is asking Moderates and Independents and Republicans to vote for him so in reality they can then UNITE against themselves. Bizarre.
Obama is like the guy who votes for gun control and has a concealed handgun. He wants the other guy to give up his weapon. He votes to raise taxes on the people who he is trying to convice to vote for him. He votes for Abortion by asking those who oppose abortion to vote for him. He votes against Gay marriage by asking those who oppose gay marriage to vote for him.
How is this working? Because his entire candidacy is based not upon judgement at all but upon anger. The very anger he claims he wants to curtail is the anger he is using to his advantage.
The anti GWB, The Anti Hillary, The anti right, The anti Neocon, The antiwar.
Barak Obama does not stand FOR anything. He stands against many things but tries to convince you otherwise thru haughty rhetoric and colorful metaphors of hope and progress.
LOL, well, it’s not as though this is a radical departure from my previous opinion about him, abrisaham. I just feel that my view of him has crystallized after listening to some of his recent speeches which appear to be more anti-Republican, anti-Bush than some of his previous orations (at least the ones I’ve heard- though perhaps I just wasn’t paying as close attention before.)
Folks, the "real" Barack has been saying this since he got into office, and he wasn’t afraid to say it to the left-wing blogosphere either. To that point, I’d like to unearth a blog post he wrote over at Daily Kos in September 2005. The part I outline talks more about why he thinks tone is important, and I think it demonstrates how consistent he has been with his message, which is the exact opposite of talking pretty and trying to trick people. He wasn’t afraid to take the Kossacks to task for being the partisan enablers they are, while explaining his own approach to politics. <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/30/102745/165">He also had this to say for centrism:</a>
<blockquote>Let me be clear: I am not arguing that the Democrats should trim their sails and be more "centrist." In fact, I think the whole "centrist" versus "liberal" labels that continue to characterize the debate within the Democratic Party misses the mark. Too often, the "centrist" label seems to mean compromise for compromise sake, whereas on issues like health care, energy, education and tackling poverty, I don’t think Democrats have been bold enough. But I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don’t work very well. And further, it will require us to innovate and experiment with whatever ideas hold promise (including market- or faith-based ideas that originate from Republicans). Our goal should be to stick to our guns on those core values that make this country great, show a spirit of flexibility and sustained attention that can achieve those goals, and try to create the sort of serious, adult, consensus around our problems that can admit Democrats, Republicans and Independents of good will. This is more than just a matter of "framing," although clarity of language, thought, and heart are required. It’s a matter of actually having faith in the American people’s ability to hear a real and authentic debate about the issues that matter.Finally, I am not arguing that we "unilaterally disarm" in the face of Republican attacks, or bite our tongue when this Administration screws up. Whenever they are wrong, inept, or dishonest, we should say so clearly and repeatedly; and whenever they gear up their attack machine, we should respond quickly and forcefully. I am suggesting that the tone we take matters, and that truth, as best we know it, be the hallmark of our response. My dear friend Paul Simon used to consistently win the votes of much more conservative voters in Southern Illinois because he had mastered the art of "disagreeing without being disagreeable," and they trusted him to tell the truth. Similarly, one of Paul Wellstone’s greatest strengths was his ability to deliver a scathing rebuke of the Republicans without ever losing his sense of humor and affability. In fact, I would argue that the most powerful voices of change in the country, from Lincoln to King, have been those who can speak with the utmost conviction about the great issues of the day without ever belittling those who opposed them, and without denying the limits of their own perspectives.</blockquote>
Folks, tone matters. Many of you may not think so, many of you may think he’s just some skilled speaker trying to trick everybody with pretty words, but maybe you should dissect that feeling a little bit. Because is that due to the cynicism you’ve built up over the past 16 years or a real feeling that Barack is actually lying to you?The words I read then and the words I’m hearing now are the same. That matters, and it’s why I’m supporting him on Tuesday.
Because is that due to the cynicism you’ve built up over the past 16 years or a real feeling that Barack is actually lying to you?The words I read then and the words I’m hearing now are the same. That matters, and it’s why I’m supporting him on Tuesday.
Justin you come here. Politely and moderately make your plea to be moderate in tone and rhetoric and I reject that. Not because I don’t appreciate your style but because I reject what you are asking of me. You are not offering to change anything. You are asking me to change.
I reject that. Even though you ask nicely and with a moderate and civil tone. I reject it. I might reject it with an equally moderate and civil manner but I still reject it which leaves us in the end right back at the same impasse we have always had.
His message is about Giving things up. So where do I start. Which Liberal value do I give up to make the Republicans or the conservatives hang out with me?
The only thing that must be given up to embrace moderation is the desire to "get" the other side.
Moderates do not ask that anyone compromise on principle. They only ask that people not put vendettas in the way of progress.
It seems to me that he is actually interested in uniting the Democratic party, not the country- but as you point out, ASC, lefties tend to think that once the left prevails, everyone else will see the wisdom of their plans (so perhaps he really believes that those goals are one in the same, because if he unites the left then the right will eventually have to fall in line.)
Exactly. That is what Im seeing as well in Obama. He unites liberals. The far left and moderate liberals and then beliefs that he can convince the majority of Americans to support liberal legislation.
Obama is Frankenstein: He is devoted to fascism, socialism, communism, racism, sexism and classism which makes him the scariest monster ever!
I do believe Obama is sincere that he wants a moderate tone. He’s no firebrand and I would love it if politics could be more civil and less vitriolic. But as much as I admire grace, I cannot vote for someone who holds a significant number of opinions which differ from my own and who will fight for policies I don’t believe in. I could vote for Obama if I had proof that he will track towards the right side of the Democratic party. But I can’t vote for him, however transcendent his attitude may be, if he follows a path along the Democractic left flank.
Kranky Kritter may be right that MoveOn and The Nation might be making a mistake — that they see a leftist leader where there’s actually a centrist man. But I’ll let Obama convince me one way or the other. Should he win the nomination he’ll have plenty of time to repudiate the leftists and convince me he won’t just be moderate in tone but will be centrist/independent in action as well.
sashal: is he also a New England Patriots fan? Because, really, that’s where I’d draw the line.
Not sure about it, but I would like to know. Cause if he is Giants fan he is worse then Hitler
Alan, Sashal, Obama is a White Sox fan, you can read it here. I had to check to make sure it was the NYT and not the Onion, and I’m still doubting it.
Does it make him far-left fascist, Claudia ?
I think Justin nails it. For Obama "compromise" is a dirty word. So he offers an uncompromising vision that promises to run rough shod over those who disagree with him.
But he’ll have a smile on his face when he does it…so that makes it all better.
Obama IS the Daily Kos candidate. Obama IS the MoveOn.Org candidate. And he was their candidate from back when there were other choices among the Democrats.
Justin, there’s nothing in that quote that repudiates Christine’s point (which is exactly right). There are two reasons why someone might vote for Obama: because they realize he’s a very ordinary liberal who will push an ordinary liberal agenda and they support that, or because they’ve not yet figured that out. And it isn’t necessary to decide whether he’s deceiving us or if he’s actually deceived himself; what counts is (a) what he will do and (b) the gap between how he talks and (a). Bierce noted that a cynic is someone "whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be," and if the worst that can be said about those who are hostile to Obama is that they are cynical - that they insist on seeing through him instead of allowing themselves to be seduced by empty rhetoric - that is far from an insult.
yes, Rich, he is dangerous, I am worried we will see concentration camps a la Gitmo or a la M Malkin for all GOP members as soon as Obama elected..
Hmmm, I think no, I mean, he’d be a left-wing fascist if her were a RED sox candidate no?
Gawd, baseball humor, I don’t there’s anywhere I’m more out of my depth.
Rich, Clinton is the NOW candidate, Romney is the Santorum candidate, McCain is the LA Times candidate…no they are not. They are their own candidates, and you’ll find out a lot more about who they are by looking at what they say and what they do than who likes them best.
At this point there are respectable people who endorse each candidate, and there are non-respectable people who endorse each candidate. Barring revelations by these people of fact I haven’t already read myself, neither thing has any effect on my opinion of the candidates themselves.
It’s probably also pertinent to this debate to raise something noted the other day - with regard to the "seat around the table" metaphor for listening to differing views, "[m]erely having everyone sit around the table - and being willing to listen to different points of view - isn’t in itself a sign of being a moderate, a centrist, a conciliator, or what have you. It means nothing if you’ll do that and then carry on and do what you were going to do anyway. When someone makes the claim that Obama will do the foregoing, it seems to me that what they’re really claiming is that he’ll not only listen to, but will moderate his positions based on, dissenting voices. And that’s where they come off the rails."
I tend to believe right now that Obama will not do the bidding of moveon, but if he becomes the D nominee and moveon starts spending their 527 billions during the general election campaign, "regular folks" may well tend to perceive it that way………and that will be his albatross.
true , casual observer, we all know who is behind moveon, radical fascists/liberal Soros, who hates bush and single handedly is capable to subvert the USA. So Obama might as well become the puppet of international fascism/liberalism movement and appeaser of islamofascists…
Moderates do not ask that anyone compromise on principle.
Principle is in fact something that cannot be compromised. And if you do compromise your principle then which side gives in?
Barak Obama is asking for everyone to compromise. Great Ill compromise. Ill let you have Guns on campus you let me have gay rights.
No….No…no. Thats because every major issue facing us today is rooted in deep seated principals that no amount of moderate tone is going to bypass these deep seated yes/no issues.
You can gimme a break sashal if I choose to believe all visable evidence that points to Obama being just another politican, and NOT to believe that the sun shines out of his backside.
I tend to believe right now that Obama will not do the bidding of moveon
That belief is based upon what evidence exactly?
(And before Justin posts another Obama statement that actually says the opposite of what Justin says it says…evidence has to point to what Obama has actually done, and not that you have a feeling in your big toe or that Obama makes you all fuzzy inside when he speaks.)
Take issues where there are big divisions and there is no indication that Obama will reach across the ailse. On immigration Obama is for the status quo on border security (his views are indistinguishable from Bush), is for amnesty (with a fine). On taxes you get the same old Democratic song and dance…raise taxes of the "rich" and the, presumably evil, oil and gas companies. In Obama’s section on attacking wasteful spending he tells us he will go after oil and gas companies (again) and Student Loan Lenders (those abstards) and "wasteful" Medicare spending. Anyone who believes Obama would reduce Medicare expenditures needs to seek professional help. AND I see nothing that even HINTS that he’d work with Republicans.
On Iraq Obama is lock step with the Daily Kos folks. The surge has produced no positive political progess so we should bring back troops asap. Yeah….
Where is this centrist and/or Moderate Obama I keep hearing about?
Seems like he’s a pretty nice guy who’s a liberal. But in today’s climate, being a decent sort creates lots of confusion and consternation- obviously. Trying to read the tea leaves on whether he’ll compromise probably depends on issues and context. It certainly did with Reagan. Sometimes he compromised (immigration, Social Security, the Anthony Kennedy nomination post-Bork). Many other times, he stood fast (Star Wars, medium range missle deployment in Europe, tax cuts, air controller strike).
Seems like Alan’s approach is the best- make the call based upon your view of substantive issues- yea or nay.
If you ask me, which of course nobody did :), the seemingly endless series of posts complete with endless commentators arguing over what Obama really stands for tells you all you need to know…
I agree with everybody. I think Barak Obama should be the VP nominee to John McCain and Hillary Clinton should ask Huckabee to be her running mate.
That would finish the deal, John McCain would die of old age in the White house, Hand the nomination to Obama and Obama then could be more centrist because hes a far left liberal whose a GOP president.
Yeah thats the ticket.
Rich, what are you talking about when you say this?
(And before Justin posts another Obama statement that actually says the opposite of what Justin says it says…evidence has to point to what Obama has actually done, and not that you have a feeling in your big toe or that Obama makes you all fuzzy inside when he speaks.)
Hmm, at least I now know that you’re not interested in having a substantive conversation. Anybody can read what I wrote and read what Obama said and see that they’re both perfectly in line.
Our goal should be to stick to our guns on those core values that make this country great, show a spirit of flexibility
I’ve read his speech that you posted here at least 3 times now. I can only come away with the same conclusion each time.
He wants us to stick to our guns while being flexible. I just want to know what the hell that means.
Abortion rights but be flexible. What does that mean? Only allow abortions on even days?
Gay rights but be flexible? What does that mean. Only allow women gay rights. Deny it to men?
Gun control? What does that mean?
Social safety nets. More money but be flexible after he says they have not been bold enough in this area.
No it is a flowery speech that says nothing except if I ask nice mabey I might get the GOP to concede to my wishes. Or perhaps and even more importantly to get the democrats to concede to the far left values that are really what I embrace anyways.
I have to agree with Rich I do not believe he is saying what you think he is Justin but that does not mean I dislike or disrespect your views I just dont see your viewpoint in the evidence and in fact the above speech continues to reinforce my belief that he is trying to unite the Democrats not the nation.
the above speech continues to reinforce my belief that he is trying to unite the Democrats not the nation. Because if this is true why is he posting this at the DAILY KOS. The far lefts hang out?? Why not post at the Captains Quarters, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, or any number of the moderate and independent and right websites. No he is speaking to the far left. His base. He is pleading with them to unite behind him and to force the democratic party to take his positions "core values" Your right tone matters. Thats why he started his campaign at the Daily Kos.
Justin, the quote that you posted says only that he wants to be nice to people he disagrees with while not compromising on any issue and never failing to "quickly and forcefully" point out when he disagrees with the opposition. So as long as all you’re saying that the quote means is that he’ll talk pretty to the opposition before ignoring them and doing what he wants, you can rejoin Rich that way, but I didn’t read your comment to stand for such a meagre proposition.
And it’s kind of interesting that having posted a quote where Obama criticizes people for belittling their political opponents that you implicitly belittle and dismiss those who oppose Obama - suggesting that we’re too cynical, for example. Don’t worry, he ignores it too, and so do all of his supporters. This fluffy rhetoric is meant for the ear not the eye. Looking too closely at it is to miss the point.
At the risk of beating a dead horse (since it’s more than obvious that the commenters in this thread have made their decisions) — this is taken from Justin’s quote of Obama above:
But I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don’t work very well. And further, it will require us to innovate and experiment with whatever ideas hold promise (including market- or faith-based ideas that originate from Republicans).
I’ve taken the further liberty of highlighting a couple of key phrases. This is part of what I see in Obama that’s different.
I’ve only encountered a very few people in my lifetime who think the poor must stay that way because they deserve it if they can’t raise themselves up. The vast majority of people understand that there are patterns and shapes to society, and much of that is outside our control. As a result, a great deal of domestic spending (regardless of which party is in control at the moment) is to improve conditions for that economic group, one way or another. But (as an example from above) typically, liberals have rejected any affiliation with faith-based initiatives as a vehicle, while Republicans have embraced them, at least to some degree.
What I hear from Obama is that there are shared goals among the various factions, and solutions don’t have to be those only embraced by the Democrats – that the Republicans also have some good ideas, and they should be acknowledged and incorporated into wider solutions.
Does that not sound at least a bit different to y’all? Because it does to me…
Justin what do you hear when Obama says:
Let me be clear: I am not arguing that the Democrats should trim their sails and be more "centrist." In fact, I think the whole "centrist" versus "liberal" labels that continue to characterize the debate within the Democratic Party misses the mark. Too often, the "centrist" label seems to mean compromise for compromise sake, whereas on issues like health care, energy, education and tackling poverty, I don’t think Democrats have been bold enough. But I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don’t work very well.
because *I* hear someone who says he will not compromise on principle…but oh he is willing to instead of putting money into existing programs…but money into brand NEW programs.
Gee, I wonder if that will cost us more or less in the end?
Or when he says:
Finally, I am not arguing that we "unilaterally disarm" in the face of Republican attacks, or bite our tongue when this Administration screws up. Whenever they are wrong, inept, or dishonest, we should say so clearly and repeatedly; and whenever they gear up their attack machine, we should respond quickly and forcefully.
Hmm…so when anyone dares criticize the Democrats its an "attack machine" but when the Democrats complain it is only in the highest noblest of manners.
Sounds like the same old BS to me.
I dont know why it sounds like anything else to you.
Rich said:
because *I* hear someone who says he will not compromise on principle…but oh he is willing to instead of putting money into existing programs…but money into brand NEW programs.
Okay… So if "some existing policies and programs don’t work very well", you believe the better solution is to continue dumping money into them? That seems more fiscally responsible?
Rich and Simon and abrisaham, what can I say? I think the text pretty clearly demonstrates that the man has had the exact same position since 2005, and that’s one of unity and moderation. And yes, he’s very passionate about his policies, but he’s willing to admit that his ideology isn’t always right, and that he’s more than willing to look at the best ideas for America (as Polimom pointed out and bolded for you). So I do think it’s cynical to look at this and tell me that he’s a faker. Simon, if you think that’s belittling, then I apologize. It wasn’t my intention to try and tear you down, but did you earnestly have an open mind to a message of unity and moderation in the first place? Because it really doesn’t seem like it.
Justin just admit that you agree with his liberal policies and that because he talks nice it’s why you like him. I have read your blog long enough that I know you are for the most part liberal and your biggest thing is the war. And so it’s very logical that your pulling for Obama.
What is Obama uniting? Dems? Because I still don’t see what you see, his record just doesn’t back it up as much as you claim it does. I mean using Polimom’s example, that isn’t that unusual that Obama is ok with faith based programs (Kerry was too) and the market (DNC doesn’t have as much influence but still is part of the party). So I just don’t see what is different. Granted it doesn’t mean he isn’t going to unite people but I wouldn’t bet either way at this point.
I think it’s fine that you hold hope that he will be a unity but you shouldn’t insult people or tell them that they don’t want unity just because they don’t see what you see. Personally I actually know McCain works with the other side now and than and still gets independents and Dems. But he is too hawkish for you. That’s fine, it’s a difference of opinion. It doesn’t mean that I don’t think you aren’t willing to hear unity or moderation.
When I say he talks nice, I mean his message of hope, unity and non-divisiveness. It wasn’t meant to be a sarcastic phrase. sorry about that.
Everyones mind is made up here already. There is absolutely nothing that can be said by either side that will change a single opinion.
Thats why yesterday I stopped trying. I do believe that Obama is going to be the next president of the USA and I do believe that we are in for one of the most contentious times in the history of America because we are just going to replace one far right base with one far left base and not skip a beat in the shouting.
Just the name will change from BDS to ODS. Instead of HDS.
God Help us all.
Of course I do - but only when it comes from someone who has the faintest sliver of credibility that they mean it. And as I read it, the text you posted doesn’t evince a message of "unity and moderation," it evinces at most a commitment to using non-traditional means to accomplish liberal ends if the traditional liberal means aren’t doing so efficiently enough.
My main problem is quotes like this:
What I said was is that Ronald Reagan was a transformative political figure because he was able to get Democrats to vote against their economic interests to form a majority to push through their agenda, an agenda that I objected to. Because while I was working on those streets watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart. I was fighting these fights. I was fighting these fights. So — but I want to be clear. So I want to be clear. What I said had nothing to do with their policies. I spent a lifetime fighting a lifetime against Ronald Reagan’s policies. But what I did say is that we have to be thinking in the same transformative way about our Democratic agenda. We’ve got to appeal to independents and Republicans in order to build a working majority to move an agenda forward.
So Justin and others want center-right and conservatives to go against their interest to build a majority of something they shouldn’t agree with. Tone and style does matter but in my opinion policy still trumps that.
I think Obama wants to be a centrist, but his policies, as stated so far in his campaign, are decidedly liberal. Obama will have problems with that.
obama is a socialist and if elected he will work hard to control your life in any and every way a socialist can, from government mandated health care to freedom of speech.
So Justin and others want center-right and conservatives to go against their interest to build a majority of something they shouldn’t agree with. Tone and style does matter but in my opinion policy still trumps that.
Bob. Bingo. You hit the nail on the head. All those Reagan democrats are back now in the fold of the democratic party, broken and disillusioned at what transpired.
This is the contention of any that are watching this man. He has no interest in the GOP or being a moderate. Perhaps he is interested in talking nice but hell Ronnie did that and behind the scenes he was as tough as they get.
Those of you who are thinking that Obama is going to be your friend you have to think for one minute what he is saying and what he is asking.
He is asking you to give up your values and replace them with his. Its as simple as that. Thats why Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama because he understands that Hillary will be the moderate and Obama will try to take back the party for the old 60’s new deal democrats and reinstitute the welfare state that I thought we had rejected in the 90’s.