Obama Keeps My Vote: On the Politics of Fear

There has been a lot of discussion about Obama's campaign faltering, and his failure to bring together a progressive coalition and act as a progressive candidate.

And he has fallen in my view as of late, and I have said he is now in a 3 way tie with Edwards, and Dodd for my vote.

But there were several points last night during the debate in which I was reminded of why I have endorsed him up to this point.

I want to give one example and analysis over the jump.

During a discussion on Hillary's Iran vote, and potential action against Iran, Obama said the following:

We have been governed by fear for the last six years, and this president has used the fear of terrorism to launch a war that should have never been authorized. We are seeing the same pattern now. We are seeing the Republican nominees do the same thing. And it is very important for us to draw a clear line and say we are not going to be governed by fear....

We cannot continue to do is operate as if we are the weakest nation in the world instead of the strongest one, because that's not who we are. And that's not what America has been about historically, and it is starting to warp our domestic policies, as well. We haven't even talked about civil liberties and the impact of that politics of fear, what that has done to us in terms of undermining basic civil liberties in this country, what it has done in terms of our reputation around the world.
http://www.nytimes.com/...

I think for a very long time Bush has had much of this country mentally cowering in the corner, afraid to challenge him and to challenge his level of aggression.

We need to scrub down our collective thinking on this matter and realize how powerful fear is as a weapon against critical thinking, and patriotic dissent.

I think we need leaders who can articulate the need to rebel against the politics of fear, and who can articulate the complexities of it.

Fear is a tactic for the weak. Fear warps our actions abroad and our actions here at home.

Obama was the only one I saw giving full voice to these complexities and connections.

•  Nice rhetoric

  The quote you cite makes very valid points that are not heard enough. I'd like Obama even more if he was galvanizing opposition to this kind of stuff in the Senate.

  by Demi Moaned on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 03:54:55 AM PDT

  •  Agree. This is a major campaign issue.

    But it is also one that needs work right now!

    by Owllwoman on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 04:16:29 AM PDT

•  Great debate performance by Obama

  I know that alot of people were excited by the zingers that Edwards got in on Clinton.  He did a great job helping to bring the true Clinton to light in a forceful way.  But, I also think that Obama's approach was perfect.  

  In my opinion he answered the question that the pundits have been asking for the past month or two...How is he going to get out of the corner his Politics of Hope painted him into?  He showed it beautifully last night.  

  He showed how he can calmly and strategically demonstrate not only the differences in he & Clinton's positions; but also highlights his qualifications for the Presidency.  He showed that he doesn't have to fend off the pundits calling him a hypocrite or unfairly attacking Clinton.  He proved that all he needs is his record against hers...that's enough to make the point he needs to make.

  Forgive the rambling...it's EARLY in the morning.  

  by C Mac on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 04:16:26 AM PDT

  •  I agree. Edwards in a way helped Barack so did

    Dodd when he said that fifty percent won’t vote for was striking because it dented in one full swoop, her reliance on national Poll to claim her inevitability.

    Richardson turned himself into nonentity and his pandering to Hillary did not help him or her.

    Biden, even though he is going no way destroyed Giuliani.

    Good Deabate overall.

    by ameri on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 05:35:16 AM PDT

  •  YES!!! Reminds Me, Too!!!

    His soaring rhetoric, grounded in the bedrock principles upon which this country was founded, remind me of a modern-day MLK.  Go, Barack!!!

    by serrano on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 05:38:31 AM PDT

  •  There seemed to be a double-teaming thing

    happening and it really worked!

    by casperr on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 06:01:40 AM PDT

•  Obama's poor delivery overwhelmed his "message"

  by Trix on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 04:24:26 AM PDT

  •  Obama's poor delivery overwhelmed his message?

    I respectfully disagree. Obama’s delivery was perfect for the occasion. Obama showed that delivery is more than parroting out canned answers in a slick manner. It also means a portrayal of ones demeanor, thoughtfulness and honesty.

    Obama showed that he was thoughtful by reframing the question/point that Tim Russets was trying to make/convey, appeared sincere, honest and as a regular guy.

    Believe it or not that is what Americans are looking for in a President.

    by ameri on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 05:42:53 AM PDT

  •  Delivery? I want an Honest, thoughtful

    and respectfull answers.

    by ameri on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 06:27:50 AM PDT

    •  exactly

      enough with the msm's "analysis" of delivery, etc. no more obsessing over al gore's sighs or john kerry's "boringness" compared to bush's "regular guy who i'd like to drink a beer with" routine.

      how about SUBSTANCE in this election!?!

      by RSA TX on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 06:49:45 AM PDT

•  Despite room for improvement with Obama,

  his delivery, like Edwards, helps in a way.  Clinton's problem is that too many people don't and won't ever trust her.  She's too polished and slick.  

  The tires got kicked last night and a hubcap fell off.

  by chicago jeff on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 04:44:37 AM PDT

  •  Hillary

    If you kick anything for two hours straight, something usually falls off. But the great thing about Hillary is she stood there and took it, gave reasoned, thoughtful answers, and was still the strongest candidate at the end of the night.

    These other guys are in desperation mode and it showed.

    by NegSpin on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 05:37:51 AM PDT

    •  Things fell off after 5 minutes

      which was particularly surprising, seeing as she must have known that they were going to be on the offensive.

      If she can't keep it together after 2 questions in a primary debate, how is she going to handle the general?  Not as well as some people have expected, I think.

      by zenbowl on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 05:41:32 AM PDT

      •  The problem with Clinton is that

        in this metaphor, "kicking" = scrutiny.
        Clinton is a Delorean.

        by chicago jeff on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 03:15:55 PM PDT

•  If one thinks Obama has a lock on understanding

  Rethug manipulation of the fear factor, one has not been paying any attention to Dodd or Edwards, two candidates who really do "get it".

  by VolvoDrivingLiberal on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 05:12:35 AM PDT

•  Obama is wrong, unfortunately.

  Fear works. Its much more effective than either hope or the truth. What democrats have to learn how to do is exploit fears just as expertly as Republicans do, and then they will win.

  Right?

  If Democrats can scare enough people on trade, healthcare, and global warming, they may be able to overcome Republican fear exploiting on cultural issues, terrorism, and taxes.

  Mitt Romney said the other day "The Democrats want big brother running your lives."

  Democrats have to learn to say things like "The Republicans want to fire you and give your job to a Chinaman." Or possibly, "The Republicans want to dump their pollution in your childs sandbox." Or how about, "The Republicans want to throw your old parents out of the hospital and into the street to die cold and alone."

  Thats how you win these days. Obama im sure is learning that now.

  by brooklynbadboy on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 05:13:11 AM PDT

  •  Bill Clinton won on hope

    It's tempting to try to turn  it around by using their own tactics, but if done right, Hope trumps fear every time. Particularly if those engaging in the fear mongering have lost credibility. The republicans can say anything they want, 24% of the people will believe them if they are lying about it. Everyone else is onto them.

    by atlliberal on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 07:24:36 AM PDT

•  That comment rings quite hollow

  when you put it next to all the fearmongering GWOT crap that Obama put into his Foreign Affairs manifesto this past summer. Not to mention the fact that he was so paralyzed by fear of offending a few homophobes in South Carolina that he effectively tossed LGBT rights under the bus.

  Physician, heal thyself. Then you can presume to diagnose for me.

  by musing85 on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 06:23:29 AM PDT

  •  no fearmongering

    to deny the threat of terrorism is to deny reality.  where it goes wrong is using it excessively as a tool of manipulation for political/personal gain.

    by RSA TX on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 06:51:15 AM PDT

    •  Which is exactly what the piece in question did

      Used it excessively as a tool of manipulation for political/personal gain. That document could have been written by Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney, it was that awful.

      by musing85 on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 07:19:59 AM PDT

•  Obama started

  the debate TERRIBLY.. but you are right, he got much much better.  Bush has callously used 9/11 to piss on the constitution. All Democrats need to call him on this again and again.

  by max stirner on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 06:50:44 AM PDT

•  this is the REAL 'politics of hope'

  not some kind of bs hand-holding, sugar-coated, hugs and kisses, self-help guru, watered-down campaign speech that doesn't tell the truth, even if the truth means calling out candidates by name.

  by RSA TX on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 06:53:59 AM PDT

•  this is the REAL 'politics of hope'

  not some kind of bs hand-holding, sugar-coated, hugs and kisses, self-help guru, watered-down campaign speech that doesn't tell the truth, even if the truth means calling out candidates by name.

  by RSA TX on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 06:53:59 AM PDT