Daily Kos

Why Obama hasn't sealed the deal

Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:25:20 AM PDT

I see in this primary election a race where Democrats have a clear chance to nominate a winning candidate, Barack Obama, who represents a clean break from the old style of Democratic politics that has brought us 2 heartbreaking defeats against George W. Bush, a narrow victory over Ross Perot and G.H.W. Bush and 2 landslide defeats at the hands of Ronald Reagan (sorry, I mentioned Reagan- time to get the vapors!).

But I also see why Democratic voters aren't yet sold on Obama and it has to do with the party's continued efforts to shoot itself in the foot every four years. Please join me behind the jump to see what I have cooked up...

The way I see it, the biggest problem Obama is experiencing is his unwillingness to cater to the base in the way most Democratic primary candidates do- rhetorical red meat. We saw in this election where a conservative DLC-style Democrat from the south with a moderate voting record transformed himself into a progressive fighter for the working class and convinced many Democrats to back him despite a Senate record was that was to the right of Hillary Clinton. Meanwhile, Barack Obama, who has a consistent record of liberal votes draws fire from Democratic circles because some view him as some sort of right wing plant- a wolf in sheep's clothing. I think these people are as deluded as those who believe the email smears about Obama's "Muslim" background. At first I didn't get why they couldn't see in Obama what I saw.

But after some time, and reading the recent diaries posted here concerning George Lakoff's discussion of the difference between the rhetoric of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama it clicked why many Democratic voters prefer to go with Clinton, the candidate who in my opinion has a greater chance at experiencing the same result as John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale- losing the White House to the GOP- a result that we all know we can't afford to have happen again.

Unfortunately, I think too many Democratic primary voters are so frustrated by the Bush administration and Congressional Democrats' failures to push back against the excesses of the past 7 years. They want a candidate who will toss around fiery rhetoric and promise to be the most liberal. Sadly, I think you have to look at American history and realize that far too often the Democratic tendency to win elections by promising programs to appease individual constituencies comes across to most voters as the same old style. What too many Democrats also fail to realize is that MOST Americans voted for George W. Bush twice, his father once and Ronald Reagan twice. The same old way of campaigning does NOT work. It's time to try something new.

To this end and to relieve myself of the frustration in seeing a Democratic Party once again set to commit electoral suicide by nominating a candidate who is hated by the media and mistrusted by the masses, I have decided to use my skills as a cartoonist to say what words can't express.

Red_meat_baby_food

Tags: 2008, political cartoon (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 45 comments

  •  Tips? (12+ / 0-)

    The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.

    •  You are so full of crap (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Rolfyboy6, DrKate

      It is people like you that will cost us the election again.  When are you people ever going to wake up.

    •  Hope don't pay the mortgage (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      HarveyMilk, swissffun, River103

      send the kid to college, or provide health care.

      •  But it does win elections. (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Joe Willy, there will be blood

        And our former president of the Harvard Law Review with the Senate's most liberal voting record will deliver great policy when he wins.

        •  Yeah, and then what? (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Nelsons, River103

          Who's going to be revealed? What's going to get done? I guess we can hope, huh?

          •  hmm (0+ / 0-)

            I expect that his huge ability to turn out new voters will give us an even stronger majority in both houses, and you'll see a progressive agenda with a focus in economic justice, good energy policy, and health care reform will be at the forefront. Obama, who is already reasonably talented at finding compromises, will use his incredible rhetoric to make Republicans who oppose good policy look like asses.

            Look at how much mileage Bush has gotten out of framing the debate on everything; out of all those frustrating press conferences and all those media headlines that conveyed his talking points. That's why there's still 30% backing him; it isn't that they're idiots, it's just that he framed their view of world events for them, and viewed through his lens, he's been doing the right thing.

          •  Look at GWB (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Joe Willy

            The guy is a moron and has been able to push though a ton of crap he wanted.

            It doesn't take a genius to be president.  It also doesn't take a genius to know that Hillary is the only chance the republicans have at winning.

            If we run Hillary, she will lose to McCain, and lose big.  "And then what" as you said?

            http://www.timesonline.co.uk/...

      •  It is the sine qua non of all action. (0+ / 0-)

        like, duh.

        as Thoreau once said: "art is all of a boat but the wood".

        Hope is all of a mortgage but the contract.

        "In my youth, it was said that what was too silly to be said may be sung. In modern economics it may be put into mathematics." -- Ronald Coase

        by julatten on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:40:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  My, how poetic. (0+ / 0-)

          Where's the programs and the jobs?

          •  well, I won't (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Joe Willy

            patronize you by pointing you to websites where programs are laid out, and job totals forecast.

            I'll just say that, of course, hope alone cannot achieve these things.  But it can, it does, it will reduce the friction against them.

            Think about it.  Loans and credit (mortgages, college payments) are nothing -- nothing -- if not a statement of hope that one day, you will be better off -- at least enough so to have made the investment worthwhile.

            The wonky details are of course there.  But spirit seems to matter.

            "In my youth, it was said that what was too silly to be said may be sung. In modern economics it may be put into mathematics." -- Ronald Coase

            by julatten on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:47:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I've read all the website and all the .pdfs (0+ / 0-)

              They sure don't have any wonky details.  Have a hope sandwich.

              •  Oh come now. (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Joe Willy

                It's been apparent since the days of his 30-page New Yorker interview in 04 that the man is a wonkfest.  Both Obama and Clinton can draw up 10-point bulleted programs to address anything from subprime mortgages to my cat's digestive health.  Neither lack.

                But Clinton is not serving me a hope sandwich along with.  And I'm hungry.

                "In my youth, it was said that what was too silly to be said may be sung. In modern economics it may be put into mathematics." -- Ronald Coase

                by julatten on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:52:34 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm sure they can theoretically wonk it up (0+ / 0-)

                  but will either of them actually commit to anything other than more of the same economic bandaids like bailing out the huge banks, mortgage companies, bond issuers, and bond insurers from their own folly and then call that a fix despite there being no liquidity in housing afterward.  Will either of them geto ver the idea that even more of the same is the fix on Health Insurance?

                  Frankly, I don't see the will to do more than fold to the center in either of them.   Potential Herbert Hoovers.

                  •  Fair enough. (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    Joe Willy

                    Actually, I agree.  I'm way to the left of either of them.

                    But what I do see in Obama is the potential to move beyond overwhelmingly divisive narrative.  This is a very specific achievement, an important one.  I'm not saying it's gonna cure cancer, but it'll do something very important even as he folds to the center just as she would.

                    Folding to the center is one problem.  Triangulating and dividing is another.  Neither address the first, but Obama can fix the second.

                    "In my youth, it was said that what was too silly to be said may be sung. In modern economics it may be put into mathematics." -- Ronald Coase

                    by julatten on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:52:24 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not sure you want to compare (0+ / 0-)

      what Obama's trying to feed the wailing nation to infant formula.

    •  100% Agree you said it all (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Joe Willy

      I have a hard time talking to hard core religious people.

      It's just so crystal clear that what they believe (earth=6000 years, noahs flood=real, Jesus acts on their prayers etc) is totally false.

      I feel the same way about Hillary supporters.  It could not be more clear that she will have an impossible task to beat McCain.  I live in a very blue state, and I haven't met 1 single independent, not 1 SINGLE PERSON (and I talk to a lot of people about politics) who would vote for Hillary.

      McCain they like (of course).  Hillary??  WHAT?  Are you kidding??  Never!  

      Call it whatever you want, maybe half the country is sexist, but half the country hates her, and a lot of that group is independents and even some democrats.

      Why on earth would we pick Hillary over Barack?  WHY???  Because her healthcare plan is slightly different?  Because she has more "experience" (at being a first lady)?  Because Bill would help out with stuff in the WH??

      None of that will matter when McCain crushes her.

      If we as Democrats are stupid enough to pick Hillary, I will have to stop getting involved in politics, both in volunteering and donations.  I can stand being on a losing team that is fighting smart and hard.  I can't stand being on one that it's own worst enemy.

      Hopefully, if Hillary is the nominee, Barack will reject the VP spot and instead just wait 4 years to run against McCain again.

  •  I think there has been too much (0+ / 0-)

    red meat from him already, indirectly.  
    I actually voted for Hillary Clinton in the Move-On poll so he wouldn't get that endorsement, which I don't think helps him.  Also being ranked the #1 liberal by National Journal was not helpful.

    The Clintons are corrupt selfish race baiting zero character scumbags. I'd rather be run over by a tractor-trailer than willfully vote for any Clinton again.

    by IhateBush on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:32:12 AM PDT

  •  Have to see beyond it (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Joe Willy, Descrates, FrostyKotex

    We have to see the fact that Obama - as his scorecards show - is a progressive, and his rhetoric is geared towards wide appeal. He is running a GE campaign now, and the fact that he can pull in Republicans in the primary is a huge positive sign for a November win.

    I can't help but remember the mailings the GOP was sending out years ago warning that they needed to raise money "*NOW*" to stop Hillary's run at the white house. If the mere specter of HRC back then was a good fundraising tool, how much more will she mobilize the right now?

    Hillary has always portrayed herself as the fighter. And man, it has appeal - because frankly, we'd like to punch the Bush administration in the face, and rightfully so. But I could see Gore losing. He came off as wooden, and GWB came off as your neighbor, and had a way of smirking, as if to say, "Hah, this guy doesn't get us real people." It worked.

    But the fact that Bush beat Kerry was shocking. Was it because Kerry wouldn't fight hard enough? Maybe. But Bush was already an apocalyptically bad President, and he won. (Complaints about Ohio notwithstanding)

    I'm not only afraid of losing the white house - again - with HRC, I'm afraid of losing the Senate and giving back a bunch of gains in the House, as the "HRC is the enemy" hatred motivates disenchanted Republicans off their couches as they think, "Well, anything is better than her."

    •  That may be part of my problem with Obama. (0+ / 0-)

      He's running a GE election now, doing all kinds of dogwhistling for righties that is making me doubt his true liberalism.

        •  sadly (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Kevvboy

          Because I thought Feingold's lone vote against the PATRIOT act was at least as good as Obama's 2003 speech against the War. Not that I'm sad to have Obama out, but I thought Feingold was on the road to the white house; he seems to have common sense when it deserts everyone else.

      •  I don't know about that (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Joe Willy

        Dogwhistling? I think his messaging on hope and unity is just strong enough that it covers up on his policy.

        "We coach little league in the blue states, and we have gay friends in the red states."

        Obama's unabashedly progressive, he's just very good at keeping on message, and his message isn't confrontational, it's progress but with open arms.

        •  "We have gay friends in the red states (0+ / 0-)

          but we don't mind throwing them under the bus when we need to dogwhistle up some support from gay-hating socially conservative ministers."

          •  that's one interpretation (0+ / 0-)

            But my interpretation is that Obama will accept help from the "other side" to push his agenda. I don't think he expected McLurkin to rant on stage, and getting someone like McLurkin working for Obama's agenda is the first step toward curing him of his homophobia.

            People said the same thing about Obama being invited to the AIDS conference; they railed about his agenda.

            It would have been politically expedient to cancel McLurkin or denounce him after that fact, but he didn't. If Obama wanted to be politically expedient, he would have denounced him after the fact. I think the whole thing was unfortunate in a way; but I don't think Obama was throwing anyone under the bus. He remains pro-gay-rights and will push that agenda.

            I'm sure you could say the same about don't-ask-don't-tell; I don't think anyone expected that, and I don't doubt that Clinton would have done more if he could.

  •  I can't figure out (0+ / 0-)

    whether to insulted or just annoyed.

    "These are times of moral enormity, when cool reasonableness is a more pathological and unrealistic state than hysteria." -- Martin Peretz

    by prodigal on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:34:04 AM PDT

  •  What? (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Sagittarius

    Obama is bringing voters to the voting booth in record numbers.

    I'm getting tired of all these cynical, negative, can't do, diaries.

  •  I wish he would stand for something (0+ / 0-)

    Anything, really.

    He flip-flops on Iraq, on single payer, on universal coverage, on social security, on legalizing marijuana (how did he step in that one?), on nuclear power, on coal to liquid, etc. etc.

  •  Interesting take (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Joe Willy

    I don't exactly know what to say about most of these commenters.  I'm a little disturbed, actually.  I don't think there is a single worthwhile comment here yet--particularly from the Clinton crowd.

    Out of the night that covers me, Black as the Pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be For my unconquerable soul.

    by Descrates on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:40:08 AM PDT

  •  I love this cartoon -- well done! (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Joe Willy, QuestionableSanity

    nice woodcut style too.

    "In my youth, it was said that what was too silly to be said may be sung. In modern economics it may be put into mathematics." -- Ronald Coase

    by julatten on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:42:23 AM PDT

  •  Considering that Gore (0+ / 0-)

    won the popular vote and the SC determined who would be pres, and Kerry may have won without the shenanigans in Ohio, the very basis of your argument falls apart.

    HRC doesn't deliver much red meat either.

    But I like your cartoon.

    Bush's presidency is now inextricably yoked to the policies of aggression and subjugation. Mike Whitney

    by dfarrah on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:47:04 AM PDT

    •  Thanks (0+ / 0-)

      Some would argue that simply having the votes so close allows the Rethugs to steal the elections. It's a bit harder to steal millions of votes than a thousand or so. Had Kerry or Gore run better campaigns and swung one or two small purple states the results may have been different- even better if they had been able to engineer landslide wins which is something most of us have never seen a Democratic candidate do in our lifetime but see as possible in the wake of Bush and the corrupt GOP Congress.

      I'd also say that Clinton takes more overt jabs at Bush and that simply her style is a sort of red meat to liberals. Clinton follows the traditional Democratic style of going through a litany of programs that appeal to different constituencies which itself is a form of progressive dog whistle campaigning. We just tend to not see it as such. Obama's rhetoric is on a "higher" plane and doesn't tend to have the "list" mentality that too many Democrats campaign with.

      •  IMO, commenters ought to (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Joe Willy, Kevvboy

        qualify their comments, saying "win by an unstealable margin," rather than reinforcing the notion that GWB won.

        The integrity [or lack of integrity] of our voting system is a very sore spot for me.

        Bush's presidency is now inextricably yoked to the policies of aggression and subjugation. Mike Whitney

        by dfarrah on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:08:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  it doesn't matter (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Joe Willy

      if Gore or Kerry actually won by a small margin.

      This is a year we can win big with Obama or lose big with Hillary.

      The argument doesn't fall apart, it is crystal clear.

      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/...

      The Dems are their own worst enemy.

  •  Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. n/t (0+ / 0-)

    People with hatred in their hearts never live up to their full potential. It's very sad.

    by Nelsons on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:53:34 AM PDT

  •  I Think You're Underestimating The Vegetarian.... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Joe Willy

    ....vote within the Democratic base.

    Help Make One In A Million Possible - A Documentary Feature Film About Asperger's.

    by tkmattson on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:54:40 AM PDT

  •  It's all there (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Zach Alexander

    He's a complex character and you won't get everything you want in soundbites.  So far not one of his most important speeches has been covered by a major network.

    Have you read any of his books?

    How about the policy positions available on his website?

    Oh, the reason he's not "sealed the deal" is because Hillary has name recognition and the compressed primary schedule plays to her advantage, allowing Obama's superior ground game less time to do its thing.

    ---
    Guns don't kill people. Giant mutant insects kill people.

    by VelvetElvis on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:13:22 AM PDT

  •  Because Dems will always screw it up (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Joe Willy

    If history is any indication, we will pick Hillary, who will of course get crushed by McCain:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/...

    Please Hillary supporters, don't be the modern day Nader-2000 supporters.

Permalink | 45 comments