Don't Sell Me Bipartisanship Today, Obama! (poll)

Since joining this community a few years ago I've occasionally been tempted to write a diary, only to decide someone else is covering the issue better.

I wouldn't have chosen for my first diary to be negative, but I just had an upsetting phone call from the Barack Obama campaign and have to share my frustration.

The caller started with something about "This recording is being recorded for quality assurance purposes."  I really hope it was, because it sure wasn't something I'd want going out to my potential supporters.

Disclaimer:  All bets are off if Gore enters the race - I'll go full out for his candidacy in a heartbeat.  But otherwise, I am totally persuadable.  I was extremely interested in hearing Obama's message.

The caller launched into a spiel about how the big problem in the country today is partisanship and that Obama is going to change that by being so bipartisan.  After a couple tries I was able to respond that I don't think that's our problem.  In fact, bipartisanship is what led to yesterday's appalling Supreme Court decision.

At least I tried to say that, but she just raised her voice, told me that was wrong and rushed on with the script.

I had to raise my voice to try to say that bipartisanship just means getting rolled by the right wing.  Yesterday is only the latest result of that sorry policy.   What we've really lacked until recently was strong, creative partisanship - and now a majority of voters agree with Democratic positions.

Or I would have said that, had she not repeatedly ratcheted the volume up so high that I finally hung up in disgust.

Will I judge Obama based on that call?  Of course not.  But I will listen to all he says with that in mind.  And be wary.

I want a DEMOCRATIC President, and so does the country.  Even this abomination of a war is not as important as the next few Supreme Court appointments.  There's no room for cozy bipartisanship at the cost of stepping up with the next Ruth Bader Ginsburg, of taking a stand to veto bad legislation, of submitting good, or filling the next Administration with honest, competent Democrats who will strongly support our principles.

I want a President who can compromise and bring people together, but won't back down from confrontation when it matters.  And there are going to be lots of times when it matters, if we're going to clean up the mess this gang is leaving us.

The art of government requires finding solutions that the majority will support.  But those solutions can be painted in vivid, true colors.  We won't find answers in a muddy, indistinct, "bipartisan" mush.

•  Bipartisan = Liebermanish. n/t

  by moodyx on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:05:53 AM PDT

  •  You can reach bipartisanship without compromising

    your ideological beliefs.

    Chief Justice John Marshall got more unanimous opinions than any other Chief Justice, he got everyone behind him and still got his way.

    I know the Senate is different, but if you have a strong enough personality and the ability to negotiate (which I believe Obama does), than bipartisanship does not mean selling out your constituency and compromising your beliefs.

    by Skulnick on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:15:30 AM PDT

    •  It depends what your beliefs are

      If you are for workers rights, raising the minimum wage, health care for everyone (rather than a massive subsidy for insurance companies), getting out of Iraq now..... you will never get these Republicans on your side, no matter how well you negotiate.

      And if you focus on negogiating to get them to our side, instead of energizing working people to kick the bums out, then you are getting a lot less than you could have had.

      by jct on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:40:59 AM PDT

      •  There is always a way

        As much as Republicans are anti-worker rights, minimum wage, health care and out of Iraq...there is always a way to get them either on to your side or to at least not obstruct the movement.

        Case in point: look at the 1993 Brady Bill. The Democrats controlled congress at the time, but they were able to get 54 Republicans to vote for the measure. How did they do this? One could argue by appealing to their love of Ronald Reagan by directly naming the act after Brady himself.

        There is always a way and those who believe there is not aren't trying hard enough.

        by Skulnick on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:53:03 AM PDT

        •  Yes

          Obama worked hard to garner Republican and law enforcement support for the crime bill in the Illinois state senate that included taped confessions for murder suspects and juveniles.

          Obama distinguishes himself from Edwards and Clinton by opposing the death penalty, as well as the authorization of the Iraq war. The AP reported today that Obama supported "a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tougher state restrictions on firearms" as a state lawmaker.

          As was stated in the diary, a bad phone caller is not a good way to analyze a candidate. Hopefully the campaign will become aware of this person and she will not make calls in the future.

          by TXdem on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:10:18 AM PDT

    •  What Would Tip Do?

      Tip O'Neill always comes to mind when I think of bipartisanship.  

      Tip used to say that everyone should be friendly "after six o'clock," but before 6 there were issues on which to disagree. That disagreement is natural and normal between two different political philosophies.  It's not necessarily bad.

      Since when did not being partisan become a virtue?

      by mini mum on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:36:02 AM PDT

•  Can I ask why everyone seems to hate Ginsburg?

  She's not the most liberal Court member, but she's close to it.

  by tigercourse on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:07:17 AM PDT

  •  You are right, the diarist

    does not need to be dumping on her.

    by Mae on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:11:00 AM PDT

  •  Not Me!

    (Sorry, this ended up lower in the thread, I was trying to respond to you.)

    That's not what I was saying at all.  I hope the next President nominates someone nearly as good.

    Her opposing position to yesterday's opinion was brilliant.

    by VA Gal on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:14:23 AM PDT

    •  Ginsburg was suggested by

      Orrin Hatch.

      Your historical bipartisanship for the day.

      by Newsie8200 on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:19:21 AM PDT

    •  I read it as as you meant it

      and as you wrote it. It took a little parsing, but not much. You were saying that bipartisanship shouldn't prevent the next President from nominating someone like her.

      by Dvd Avins on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:19:47 AM PDT

•  Obama stumbles

  because he has less experience than the other dems who have run. He is enormously popular, charismatic and intelligent, but I am not sure his messages are spot on. Edwards to me has the clearest message about the economic injustices in this country and why Dems need to take over.

  by Mae on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:09:53 AM PDT

  •  Obama doesn't have experience...

    ...but Edwards does?

    They're running different campaigns, that's all... they have different emphases.  Edwards's emphasis is on economic injustice, Obama's is on the climate in Washington that leads to nothing being done.  In my opinion, we can't have meaningful change without both of these things happening; without economic justice change in Washington is pointless, but without change in Washington any efforts against economic injustice will be met by the same small-minded partisanship that's stymied other attempts at change.

    This is why I'm an Obama supporter... I think President Obama could and would take many of John Edwards's ideas to heart and make them a reality; Edwards would make an excellent Cabinet secretary, perhaps Labor.  I don't think President Edwards could heal the divide in Washington and the "my team" divide among the American people like Obama could.  

    With Obama, I think we'd also get the best of Edwards; with Edwards, while he'd be one hell of a President, I don't think we'd get the best of Obama -- that ability to get some of the most rabid "my team" Republicans to look past the petty bullcrap and take him in good faith.

    by mistersite on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:06:06 AM PDT

    •  Obama's life work has been social justice

      From his time as a community organizer and as a lawyer and state legislator, Obama has fought for the powerless.

      Edwards made millions as a trial lawyer helping a few people. Not that that's a bad thing. But it doesn't match Obama's life choices, the opposite of the Edwards supporters' spin.

      by TXdem on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:15:45 AM PDT

    •  Obama lacks experience

      in a presidential campaign and Edwards has it.

      by Mae on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 02:16:06 PM PDT

  •  Sigh

    Edwards = 1 term senator
    Obama = 1 term senator + several years in state gov.

    Math is hard.

    by clonecone on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:47:15 AM PDT

  •  Obama stumbles because he is real

    He is not a politican and will never be.  Edwards has been running for President for years, his vision is make sure I say what the people want to hear.

    by Lady Bird Johnson on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:26:26 AM PDT

•  I don't even answer polls on the phone.

  I am not going to give any of them a hint about what I think so they can go back and work on their messages!

  by Silverbird on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:10:13 AM PDT

•  Not Me!

  That's not what I was saying at all.  I hope the next President nominates someone nearly as good.

  Her opposing position to yesterday's opinion was brilliant.

  by VA Gal on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:12:30 AM PDT

•  Obamas politics

  One cannot help but admire Barack Obama and his views on politics.  He has it exactly right on where this country needs to go in the future to think boldly and move beyond "small politics."

  However, I'm afraid that this message is getting muddled in George W. Bush's America.  And I think Obama is focused on a late-general, after-winning-the-election message of unity.  But he has to win the primary first.

  Democrats are naturally upset with what "bi-partisanship" has gotten us.  We want to show America what Democrats stand for and why we need more than one man to fix this country.

  I think Obama needs to define his candidacy in terms of party branding.  It will help him, and it will help Dems down ticket so he can have the allies for his battles in the WH.

  And "bipartisanship" is a two-way street.  I think Sen. Webb's SOTU rebuttle was the best resposne to gridlock.  "We will show [him] the way."  Say youll work together, but show you stand on principle.

  by BWasikIUgrad on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:12:39 AM PDT

  •  You're exactly right

    Obama will draw strong contrasts with the Republican nominee. Look at his persistent critiques of McCain as the model. The goal is to reach as many people with your message, and a big part of doing that is using language that is strong and fair. He prefaced his Iraq criticism by saying he respects McCain's service and motives, but questions his judgement.

    And talk of him selling out is utter bull****! He is the only serious candidate to have publicly opposed the war!

    His message is getting through. Look at the independents in the recent ABC/WaPo poll, asked who they would not vote for:

    Romney: 53%
    Clinton: 51
    McCain: 41
    Edwards: 39
    Giuliani: 35
    Obama: 29

    To be in a position to effect change, we need consent from the broad middle of the public. Obama can reach them and persuade them to support progressive change.

    by TXdem on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:57:36 AM PDT

•  Bipartisanship can be good...

  depending on the outcome.

  Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy have worked on numerous pieces of legislation. So have Edwards and McCain.

  McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform... gee, Feingold's still pretty partisan.

  The Coburn-Obama bill was supported by the netroots.

  Lindsey Graham and Hillary Clinton worked together on expanding medical benefits for National Guardsman.

  Richardson was just on a bipartisan trip to North Korea.  

  Should I go on?  

  People here wrongly equate bipartisanship with Joe Lieberman.  Lieberman isn't bipartisan. He's just a sell out.  Ted Kennedy has worked with numerous Republicans on many pieces of legislation... he's still a liberal lion.

  If you equate bipartisanship with Lieberman, then, you've got no idea what bipartisanship is about.  

  by Newsie8200 on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:17:15 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, but in that case

    we seem to have more than enough bipartisanship right now, so Obama's diagnosis is wrong.  But in context, what he seems to be saying is that we need to seek bipartisanship on particularly contentious issues-- i.e., the ones that make the deep philosophical and foundational differences between the parties painfully obvious.  For bipartisanship to be even remotely desirable, though, the premises and goals of government have to be shared, and there are many issues today for which that is simply not the case, so bipartisanship is a useless end in itself.  When-- if-- the GOP manages to wrest control away from the lunatics and criminals, and somehow remembers the notions of responsibility, prudence, diplomacy, public service, honesty, etc., bipartisanship on these issues will be a worthy goal.  But it ain't happening yet, and at best it will barely have begun by January 2009, so we need to hold our ground for the foreseeable future.

    That's why I'd rather see Obama as VP; his stated vision at this point just can't be implemented, no matter how charismatic he is.  Maybe in eight years it will be safe to start.

    by latts on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:45:37 AM PDT

  •  It can also be very bad...

    see:

    Iraq War
    Patriot Act

    for two of many examples.

    by Night Owl on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:07:10 AM PDT

  •  Good, or just a necessary evil?

    I'm sure (most) Republicans actually believe in what they're doing, but there's no getting around the fact that their agenda, unfettered, leads to a place no one in their right mind wants to be. Abortion ban. War with Iran. Permanent occupation of Iraq. Tax breaks for the rich. What's good about any of this?

    by moodyx on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 02:02:17 PM PDT

•  That's a stupid phone script for calls

  to Democrats.

  Are you registered as an independent, by any chance?  

  I am not a big fan of his bipartisanship talk myself.

  by Geekesque on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:26:01 AM PDT

  •  No, I'm on a bunch of donors' lists

    That's part of what surprised me; I was waiting for a strong persuasive money pitch.

    by VA Gal on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:33:30 AM PDT

    •  As an Obama supporter, I hope one of their people

      is reading this thread.

      A presidential nominee is not only in line for the president, but also serves as the party's champion and standard-bearer.

      He's gotta show he's willing to take on that role.

      by Geekesque on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:35:36 AM PDT

      •  Introducing him to the public

        as not a partisan first was important.

        But clearly Obama is the most liberal candidate among the top three, and also connects very well with moderates--the perfect combination.

        And he has taken on the role of a party leader, being the most effective campaigner for Democrats in 2006, as well as being near the top in party fundraising.

        Obama will make being a liberal cool again.

        by TXdem on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:06:54 AM PDT

  •  And an untrained volunteer...

    combines to turn off an undecided voter.  Such are the problems with ratcheting up an operation from scratch.

    Hopefully they get it figured out on the volunteer front, but I would also like to see him reconsider the 'bi-partisan' messaging.

    by Night Owl on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:30:52 AM PDT

    •  It's my audacious hope that he'll start

      overtly embracing the Democratic label and downplaying the bipartisan angle.  I suspect he's got a long-term game plan.  

      by Geekesque on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:44:06 AM PDT

      •  Hope so too...

        but I fear he's following Bill Clinton's '92 script so closely (Audacity of Hope/Boy from a place called Hope) and doing so well, that he won't see a need to change the game plan anytime soon.

        As an old Deaniac, Obama's commitment to bi-partisan rhetoric is a serious problem for me, and a big factor keeping me from getting excited about the guy.

        by Night Owl on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:53:26 AM PDT

        •  Obama is no Clinton.

          Say what you will about Obama, I can't imagine him pulling a Ricky Ray Rector like Bill did.

          by Geekesque on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:05:50 AM PDT

          •  He may not be...

            but you wouldn't know it from his campaigning.

            I worked for the party during the '92 election and I got to tell you, the similarity in Obama's messaging, strategies, and tactics is giving me a real case of deja vu.

            by Night Owl on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:14:06 AM PDT

            •  There are very few new themes in presidential

              campaigns.

              "Change" is the oldest.  Edwards's finger-in-your-eye populism is part of a century-old tradition.  Etc. etc.

              by Geekesque on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:16:58 AM PDT

              •  True.

                But Clinton was the first Presidential candidate in recent memory to actively run against base of his own party (Strom Thurmond's and Teddy Roosevelt's losing campaigns notwithstanding).

                It's very early, but from where I sit Obama seems to be flirting a little too close with a Sista' Souljah strategy for my taste.

                by Night Owl on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:26:33 AM PDT

          •  Ricky Ray Rector

            You are right about that.

            I am confident Obama would never pull something so craven.

            by Night Owl on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:16:08 AM PDT

•  I'm pretty confused.

  Obama, unlike many Democrats, voted against confirming Roberts and Alito. He also released a strong statement condemning the court ruling. Now he's Joe Lieberman because he thinks bipartisanship can be a good thing? It doesn't have to mean getting steamrolled by the right wing. Sure, it can mean that, but it's not inevitable.

  by brklyngrl on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:28:51 AM PDT

  •  The Script

    It would have been far better for his campaign if the caller had been ready to quote points like yours, instead of yelling at me.

    It probably was the worst Democratic pitch I've gotten.

    by VA Gal on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:38:11 AM PDT

    •  funny ...

      ... how volunteer labor can easily become unprofessional all of a sudden, eh?

      by wystler on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:48:34 AM PDT

    •  Well I absolutely

      agree with that.

      by brklyngrl on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:54:48 AM PDT

      •  I think the message should be more like

        Obama knows how to work bipartiasanly (is that a word?  sorry) without compromising his principles. I certainly don't support callers talking over you. That's just plain rude.  

        by brklyngrl on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:00:21 AM PDT

    •  VA Gal

      Did you happen to get the name of the caller?  If so and you do not plan to notify the campaign, please let me know because I will.  May I add, I would do the same for any of our impressive candidates.

      by pamelabrown on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:45:28 AM PDT

      •  I didn't

        I'm sure she didn't give her name.  And I have no reason to believe she was a volunteer caller and not from a paid calling operation.

        She did say it was being taped, so maybe they should just listen for the yeller?

        by VA Gal on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:53:05 AM PDT

        •  Thanks for getting back to me ;) eom.

          by pamelabrown on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:19:19 AM PDT

•  you want a partison democrat that

  can sell democratic policies to the country and thats Obama, even if Hillary somehow won a narrow general election,, she's already proven to not nbe able to sell "a big idea" with her healthcare reform, Obama is like Reagan in terms of tone, but is a real democrat, we shouldn't be afraid to try to bring others to our point of view.

  by nevadadem on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:35:42 AM PDT

•  Partisanship

  gave us Alito, an unchecked president, and the Gonzalez Attorney scandal.  

  Partisanship gave us two groups of Americans who talk past each other regarding a woman's right to reproductive health.

  I wish that that the choice and anti-choice crowd would stop yelling at each other and actually sit down and talk.  You can do that without giving up your principals.

  by Yoshimi on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:46:40 AM PDT

•  Bipartisanship

  Actually this is what draws me to him.

  His bipartisanship is explained well in Obsidian Wings:

  His legislation is often proposed with Republican co-sponsorship, which brings me to another point: he is bipartisan in a good way. According to me, bad bipartisanship is the kind practiced by Joe Lieberman. Bad bipartisans are so eager to establish credentials for moderation and reasonableness that they go out of their way to criticize their (supposed) ideological allies and praise their (supposed) opponents. They also compromise on principle, and when their opponents don't reciprocate, they compromise some more, until over time their positions become indistinguishable from those on the other side.

  This isn't what Obama does. Obama tries to find people, both Democrats and Republicans, who actually care about a particular issue enough to try to get the policy right, and then he works with them. This does not involve compromising on principle. It does, however, involve preferring getting legislation passed to having a spectacular battle.

  by LV Pol Girl on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:48:24 AM PDT

•  Useless Diary

  You now see how brainwashed the netroots have become.

  You hate so much, you can't even think straight.

  Here's a history lesson.  Many things, like say the civil rights laws were passed by bi-partinship.

  Here's another little lesson.  No charge.  You do know the Dems don't have the votes to override a veto.  Really, I'm not kidding.  So if you want to do things like get the troops out.  You would need votes from Republicans.

  Obama is smart enough to know this.  Someday you will be.

  So feel lucky,  VA?  I will give you word for word what Obama said before the war.  Then you post what Edwards and Hillary said.  Then tell me who was bipartisan.

  Deal, or no deal?  Don't answer.  You won't.

  I'll give you a hint.  They were cheerleaders.  They had Bush kneepads on. Till the polls showed the war wasn't popular.  Then, the old flip-flop.

  So they sent hundreds of thousands to their death on a lie.  And this is ok.  But you feel the need to attack Obama.

  Obama President. No Iraq war.  Hillary and Edwards?

  Well just post what they said. K

  Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq
  | October 02, 2002
  Against Going to War in Iraq
  October 2, 2002

  Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

  My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

  After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

  What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

  What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

  But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

  So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

  Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

  Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

  The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

  by sillyparty on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:04:26 AM PDT

  •  Useless comment

    The diarist is giving the Obama campaign important information on the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of their ground operation.

    As far as the rest of your post goes, put it in a diary if you want to make a speech.

    by Night Owl on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:34:43 AM PDT

•  Bipartisanship

  This is what turned me off the Obama campaign. He seems to believe the problem with politics is partisanship, presumably on both sides. I strongly disagree with him.

  by Miri on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:10:57 AM PDT

  •  It's simply not the case

    If you want to understand Obama's career and philosophy, partisan blogs are not the best place to facilitate it.

    Take a 1995 story from the Chicage Reader instead.

    "The right wing talks about this but they keep appealing to that old individualistic bootstrap myth: get a job, get rich, and get out. Instead of investing in our neighborhoods, that's what has always happened. Our goal must be to help people get a sense of building something larger.

    "The political debate is now so skewed, so limited, so distorted," said Obama. "People are hungry for community; they miss it. They are hungry for change.

    "What if a politician were to see his job as that of an organizer," he wondered, "as part teacher and part advocate, one who does not sell voters short but who educates them about the real choices before them? As an elected public official, for instance, I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer. We would come together to form concrete economic development strategies, take advantage of existing laws and structures, and create bridges and bonds within all sectors of the community. We must form grass-root structures that would hold me and other elected officials more accountable for their actions.

    "The right wing, the Christian right, has done a good job of building these organizations of accountability, much better than the left or progressive forces have. But it's always easier to organize around intolerance, narrow-mindedness, and false nostalgia. And they also have hijacked the higher moral ground with this language of family values and moral responsibility.

    "Now we have to take this same language--these same values that are encouraged within our families--of looking out for one another, of sharing, of sacrificing for each other--and apply them to a larger society. Let's talk about creating a society, not just individual families, based on these values. Right now we have a society that talks about the irresponsibility of teens getting pregnant, not the irresponsibility of a society that fails to educate them to aspire for more."

    by TXdem on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:26:39 AM PDT

•  Gore is going to let Obama, Hillary, and Edwards

  fight it out and make the public totally sick of them, then he's going to ride in like the White Knight.

  by FXUS61 on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:17:48 AM PDT

•  His brand of bipartisanship could backfire

  and make him look weak, which would hurt him among voters.

  On the one hand, I agree that politics are broken and need to be fixed.

  On the other, however, blaming both Democrats and Republicans for what ails the system because of partisanship turns me off.  I want whoever wins the nomination to be an effective ambassador for the Democratic Party and to be able to clearly state what makes Democrats the better party to occupy the White House.  I don't want voters to be left wondering.

  Yesterday's NYTimes noted both Clinton and Obama are now playing catch-up with Edwards on policy ideas.  I think everyone is interested to see how they will respond to Edwards' health care proposal, how will voters feel about a candidate who probably won't say anything until he absolutely has to?

  I'm still waiting for Obama to surprise me.  The question is, how long?

  by mini mum on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:21:13 AM PDT

  •  You're right

    I guess part of what sets my back up is the false equivalence.  Sounds too much like the "Fair and Balanced" jive that we always seem to get the worse of.

    Sure Democrats can game the system for political gain.  But Republicans who hate government do all they can to make sure it doesn't work.  See I told you - government bad, bad...

    And, to be clear, I think it's great that we have such a strong field of candidates who will debate vital issues like healthcare.  Hopefully the resulting nominee will come out of the primary season all the stronger.

    The polls say that a majority of voters are paying close attention already - that's clearly because they want a change from what we've got.

    (Have to give you a Recommend for the Mary McGrory quote.)

    by VA Gal on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:46:04 AM PDT

    •  False equivalence, or

      I usually refer to it as "running against the Democratic Party."

      Thanks; Mary Gloria was an institution.

      by mini mum on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:09:34 AM PDT

  •  Like Edwards in 2003?

    Edwards first announced his run for the presidency in 1-03, although he had been laying the groundword for 2 years by that time, he campaigned mostly on biography until 1-04, in other words waiting until he absolutely had to before saying very specific, and now he's had 8 years (6 in the Senate and 2 since) to come up with a health care proposal.  Did Edwards have a specific, detailed health care proposal leading to universal health care or single payor health care in January, or February, or March, or April of 2003?  I don't think so.  So, all this angst over Obama not having specific, detailed plans on this or that yet is foolish.  

    All the Democratic candidates are more or less in the same place on most domestic issues.  Given a list of 10 domestic issues, they may prioritize them somewhat differently.  Given a specific domestic issue, they may all have the same fundamental goal, but have differences on how to achieve that goal.  So, for Democratic voters to be worrying about one of these Democratic candidates because of the minituae of their domestic policy positions I find to be a waste of time.  And all of these "policy proposals" are nothing more than starting points, no candidate's plan for health care or energy or the environment or education or poverty or jobs or taxes or whatever is going to become law exactly as he/she proposes it.  And in the Senate, you need 60 votes to get anything done, so unless the Democrats manage to get a 60 seat majority and are able to keep all 60 together on votes on any of these issues, you're going to need some bipartisanship.  And I don't know what you mean by Obama's "brand of bipartisanship".  As differentiated from what other "brand of bipartisanship"?

    In the end, I could care less about the details of all these policy proposals, I'm interested in whether a candidate supports or doesn't support things in a broad sense when it comes to domestic issues.  However, when it comes to national security and foreign policy matters, I'm looking for something much more, and neither Edwards or Obama has what I'm looking for. And unless Gore is sure he can carry his home state of Tennessee this time around, he should stay out of it.      

    by latinjum on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:57:40 AM PDT

    •  I didn't support Edwards in 2003

      Not that it matters in 2008

      by mini mum on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:05:22 AM PDT

  •  Diagnosis

    "On the one hand, I agree that politics are broken and need to be fixed."

    Problem is Obama's diagnosis.

    Politics are broken not because of partisanship but because the GOP has been hijacked by extremist forces.

    Bipartisanship is not going to fix this problem. We will need to take on the extremist forces and defeat them. That's the only way to create a less poisonous political climate.

    by Miri on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:58:13 AM PDT

    •  Point well taken n/t

      by mini mum on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:06:31 AM PDT

    •  Did you read my above comment?

      "The right wing talks about this but they keep appealing to that old individualistic bootstrap myth: get a job, get rich, and get out. Instead of investing in our neighborhoods, that's what has always happened. Our goal must be to help people get a sense of building something larger.

      "The political debate is now so skewed, so limited, so distorted," said Obama. "People are hungry for community; they miss it. They are hungry for change.

      "What if a politician were to see his job as that of an organizer," he wondered, "as part teacher and part advocate, one who does not sell voters short but who educates them about the real choices before them? As an elected public official, for instance, I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer. We would come together to form concrete economic development strategies, take advantage of existing laws and structures, and create bridges and bonds within all sectors of the community. We must form grass-root structures that would hold me and other elected officials more accountable for their actions.

      "The right wing, the Christian right, has done a good job of building these organizations of accountability, much better than the left or progressive forces have. But it's always easier to organize around intolerance, narrow-mindedness, and false nostalgia. And they also have hijacked the higher moral ground with this language of family values and moral responsibility.

      "Now we have to take this same language--these same values that are encouraged within our families--of looking out for one another, of sharing, of sacrificing for each other--and apply them to a larger society. Let's talk about creating a society, not just individual families, based on these values. Right now we have a society that talks about the irresponsibility of teens getting pregnant, not the irresponsibility of a society that fails to educate them to aspire for more."

      by TXdem on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:12:35 AM PDT

      •  Here is what I see in that passage

        Community over policy.

        How does that kind of politics get the uninsured health care?  You need at some point to implement a policy to make that happen.

        Here's an example that sets my teeth on edge:

        Right now we have a society that talks about the irresponsibility of teens getting pregnant, not the irresponsibility of a society that fails to educate them to aspire for more.

        The poorer a young woman is, the more likely she will become a mother.  Poverty and aspiring for a better life aren't mutually exclusive but this cries out for clarification, e.g., educate them how?  Better schools?  Better contraceptive education?  Aspire for what?

        by mini mum on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:44:06 AM PDT

        •  You're right

          We should expect specifics. And my posting this article was not to show that Obama has specifics, but that he views the right-wing worldview as failing to meet our challenges. So, clearly, he views its dominance as a big problem in our politics, which was your original question.

          I checked Obama's education page on his website. It lists three of his Senate bills. Obviously, there will be more to come as he fleshes out specific presidential policies. You can give an idea to the campaign through the "My Policy" segment on the side of the page.

          Clearly though, you can see what his policies will reflect--his philosophy that stresses strong communities over self-interest and that understands our interconnectedness.

          by TXdem on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 12:31:36 PM PDT

          •  Miri made the

            comment talking about Obama's misdiagnosing the problem, not mini mum. Apologies.

            by TXdem on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 12:36:00 PM PDT

•  Too Bipartisan?

  My reluctance to rush to Obama is purely political.  He adopted such a bipartisan philosophy in the last election that he managed to avoid campaigning for the Democratic candidate running against Joe Lieberman.  His resistance to actively working against his mentor Holy Joe (along with Hillary's I might add) helped ensure Lieberman's ability to lie his way through the campaign to victory.  Obama is certainly  a better choice for the Presidency than any Publican, but his decision to give Lieberman a pass has helped hamstring Democratic efforts in the Senate and consequently in Congress.  Obama's judgement was bad on a critical issue he could have affected, which moves other candidates higher in the preference list.

  by PrahaPartizan on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:29:08 AM PDT

  •  Obama's Judgement....

    So, Obama's judgement has moved other candidates "higher on your preference list".

    I'm sure you're over looking the other candidates' judgement on.....IRAQ!

    Tell me about Obama's poor judgement again? (hint: Remember Iraq)

    by fatcatnichols on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:42:24 AM PDT

    •  His list is blank

      The only Congressional Democrats who supported Lamont pre-primary were a few House members, Maxine Waters most prominent among them, if memory serves correct.

      by TXdem on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:47:11 AM PDT

  •  Stop with the delusions

    No U.S. Senator supported Lamont before the primary. This obsession with singling out Obama--starting with the false claim that he voted for the bankruptcy bill--needs to end.

    In truth, Barack Obama has been the best campaigner for fellow Democrats, bar none. Starting in 2004 before having been elected, he went around the country supporting candidates. In 2006, he attended massive rallies for Claire McCaskill, Harold Ford, Jim Webb and many others.

    by TXdem on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:44:31 AM PDT

    •  About that bankruptcy bill . . .

      Yes, I know Obama didn't vote for the final bill, which he knew was going to pass, but he did vote against an amendment that would have capped credit card interest at 30% and that amendment failed and then the bankruptcy bill that he knew was going to pass did pass and there was no cap on credit card interest in it.  And there was no reason for him to vote against this amendment, his effort should have been in getting this amendment passed.

      by latinjum on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:16:57 AM PDT

      •  Obama voted for all the amendments

        but one from looking at the senate roll calls. While the other Democratic amendments garnered between 30 and 46 votes (except for the Durbin amendment which passed), the one you cited received 24 votes, splitting the Democratic caucus down the middle. So your beef with Obama was that he didn't make it 25 with his vote and then magically create 26 more votes.

        Obviously, predatory lending is a problem. This would be a good question for Obama or his campaign staff, as to why he voted against this specific amendment. Assuming you're not interested in the facts, but rather in painting a negative caricature of Senator Obama, maybe I'll do it myself.

        by TXdem on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 12:12:26 PM PDT

  •  Lamont was on vacation.

    by clonecone on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:51:32 AM PDT

•  To be fair to the Senator

  This diary focuses on the Alito confirmation as an example of bad "bipartisanship", but I think that Obama did everything he could short of a doomed fillibuster.

  To be fair to the diarist, as an Obama supporter I agree that bipartisanship is not a noble end in itself.  

  by the green and bold cooperative on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:32:23 AM PDT

  •  No but getting

    positive, progressive legislation passed, i.e., results plus moving the Overton Window Left is a noble result.  This is why it would behoove us to give Obama the biggest national platform.  His talents are underused in the senate.

    by pamelabrown on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:52:55 AM PDT

•  Thanks for your post

  You've put your finger on my least favorite part of Obama's candidacy. I'm a partisan democrat. I don't warm to his post partisan posture. There is no problem with the politics of this country that will not be addressed by electing more Democrats.

  Still, something has to change in this country. We can't continue this near civil war between the parties. A lot of good will happen when the Republicans get defeated again and again. That will provide feedback to get Republicans back into reality. But it is worthwhile to have someone who can provide a door for people to come back to the reality based community. I think Obama will attract a lot of independents and Republicans and help deepen the political realignment without sacrificing any boldness of policy initiative.

  In a field of great candidates I see Obama as having the most potential to change the political culture of America and to change the way America is perceived in the world.

  by copithorne on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:15:01 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for your comment

    We can only hope that the coming election cycle will be such a debacle for Republicans that their extreme elements are weakened and the party begins to moderate.

    No matter how partisan a Democrat I am, a one party system is bad for the country.  I would just like the other party be something other than a total disaster.

    by VA Gal on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:49:59 AM PDT