Isn't Obama Supposed to be Different?

[SDW2001]

This question has occurred to me in recent weeks as I've watched events unfold. Is Obama running a different kind of campaign? Is he truly dispensing with the politics of old?

Issue by issue:

1. Race: Obama's candidacy has been hailed as the post-racial candidacy. Not only did a black man get the nomination, but being black wasn't an issue. That's how far we'd come. Obama would seek to unite the nation, racially speaking.

Reality: Obama has run anything but a post-racial candidacy. He's played the race card on his own party (read: Bill Clinton). He's made constant references to his race. "Republicans will try to scare you, tell you he's got a funny name...did I mention he's black"? and "He doesn't look like the Presidents on the those dollar bills" come to mind (the latter was repeated on at least three separate occasions. Obama, who Gave A Speech About Race Relations, is using the every turn. His wife has joined in on at least two occasions, requesting "more whit epeople" in front of the camera at a campaign event, and complaining about (and recalling publicly) race relations at Harvard.

2. Hope: Obama's message of Hope goes unquestioned. Even McCain and Palin accept that this is a tenant of his campaign. But how is Obama running an optimistic, hopeful campaign? The entire message from Obama is that Americans must do with less. They must eat less, drive less, heat their homes less and expect less. Americans cannot survive without national healthcare and a host of federal programs. Obama's acceptance speech clearly demonstrated this attitude. He mocked the GOP for suggesting that people pull themselves up by their bootstraps, pay for their own healthcare and make ends meet on their own. He doesn't feel (or didn't feel until recently) that we could make it work in Iraq. What is it that Obama is hopeful and optimistic about?

3. Change(TM): The word change has essentially replaced Obama's very name at campaign events. Thousands carried "Change" signs in Denver, obviously unaware of how ridiculous they looked. Beyond the usual "what kind of change?" attacks from his opponents, one must ask: is anything he's proposing that different from the Democratic agenda of the last 40 years? He's called for more socialism. He's used the typical Democratic scare tactics on voters, talking about the GOP's plans to take away their healthcare and social security checks (even if not directly). He's proposed billions if not trillions in new spending. He's not even mentioned earmarks that I recall. He's proposed raising taxes. He wants to talk to insane dictators and play Let's Make A Deal, ala Madeline Albright. He's a dyed-in-the-wool liberal who is running as a centrist. Change? I think not.

4. Open Goverment: This has been a complaint of the left for some time. Obama's campaign frequently speculated on McCain's VP choice being "the next Dick Cheney." But what about Obama? Obama has refused to answer questions about his background, dismissing as old school politics. His relationships with J. Wright and Bill Ayers? "They're going to try and make something of my associations and attribute their comments to me!" What, exactly did he do as a community organizer? "I helped steel workers! Change!" Criticize Obama on anything in his background or even a polciy he holds? ""You're making race an issue!"" or a 6 minute "nuanced" explanation follows. How can we trust him to do away with the so called culture of secrecy if we're not allowed to talk about who he IS?

This is by no means an exhaustive list. But whether one supports him or not, I think claiming that he's "different" (or "special" as his wife has said) is a bit dubious in the least.

[hardeeharhar]

That was pretty weak, SDW, but I applaud your resolve...

[BRussell]

All I know is that he sure is different from the people who have run our government since 2000.

[FormerLurker]

http://constanttrek.typepad.com/photos/picardie/strawman.JPG

The end.

A Straw-Woman with big bales for breasts?

You SEXIST!

[Gilsch]

:lol:

Awesome pic. Thanks.

[addabox]

Really, we've dropped below the "worth rebutting" threshold here, and on PO that's quite an accomplishment.

I suggest that next time the OP focus his energies, eschewing the "I thought Obama was supposed to be kewl and yet I find him to be not kewl at all" format in favor of the "How likely is it that Obama will have his enemies murdered like the Clintons did?" line of thought.

Once the Clintons are involved, hilarity inevitably ensues.

[SDW2001]

Gentlemen, is this actually your position? It's not even worth responding to? One must wonder if you have a response. Obviously I don't support this man, but that is not the issue here. I'm not engaging in the manufactured controversy of the day. I'm not referencing the"lipstick/pig" comment, nor Flag Pin-gate, nor "Obama is a Secret Muslim." I am not saying Obama is a bad person.

I am simply trying to point out that, in my opinion, he is not in any way running a "different" kind of campaign. He's not proposing anything different than what has been proposed. He's not dispensing with the politics of the past...he's embracing them. And frankly...that's OK with me. He doesn't have to do any of those things. But, neither he or the analysts that cover him should claim he's doing them.

[Jubelum]

I am simply trying to point out that, in my opinion, he is not in any way running a "different" kind of campaign. He's not proposing anything different than what has been proposed. He's not dispensing with the politics of the past...he's embracing them. And frankly...that's OK with me. He doesn't have to do any of those things. But, neither he or the analysts that cover him should claim he's doing them.

There is nothing "different" about Obama. Many of us have been saying that for months now. It's the same big government schtick. Being pushed by the same old DNC machine that has served everyone since Carter. There is nothing new to "raise taxes on the rich" and "pay more for education" and "Republicans are going to kill old people and starve children" and "vote for us, we'll give you stuff." Obama is only "change" insofar as he is "change, back to the left wing version of big government." Now, is there anything new about McGoober? No, not really. I find his "change" garbage to be shameless pandering and, as McCain did in the spring, a case of "meeee tooooo" politics.


The only one that is not neck-deep in Washington Beltway BS is Sarah Palin... and look at the love that has been so gracefully lavished on her. It's been such a pleasure to see all of this unfold. We're all getting a full whiff of the soul of the Democratic Party when it is desperate for power. I'm all for the rip and tear on Palin. It's blowing up in Obama's face. Ouch. McCain, for all of his codger-ocity, has introduced Obama to the "experience door." Then he has been watching as it is opened repeatedly into the nose of the Obama campaign.

I really think the lipstick thing demonstrates one thing... how Barack Obama should not be let out in front of a camera without a tele-prompter. Either he made an inappropriate gaffe, which all politicians do... (Dunkin Donuts, anyone?) or he thought through this before saying it and is fully liable for the heat he is getting for such an allusion. So, he either engages his mouth without considering the words about to emerge (lack of judgement and poise) or he plans grenades like this to rev up the KOSers (friendly-fire grenades that make folks... I dunno... "bitter.")

Imagine if this had been said about Hillary Clinton by John McCain. I wonder how that would have turned out.

[hardeeharhar]

Imagine if this had been said about Hillary Clinton by John McCain. I wonder how that would have turned out.
:lol:

He did:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR8IhMMhe8w

and there was no outrage... because Clinton probably understood basic English... just saying...

[@_@ Artman]

:lol:

He did:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR8IhMMhe8w

and there was no outrage... because Clinton probably understood basic English... just saying...

Heh. He must have gotten it from his former adviser (http://www.amazon.com/Lipstick-Pig-Winning-No-Spin-Someone/dp/0743271165/) or hell, even Dick Cheney (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=DjwVEeq7JiQ&e).

So...when are the debates? :grumble:

[franksargent]

http://samsara.tuditi.delo.si/files/2007/02/lipstick.gif

[Bergermeister]

:lol:

He did:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR8IhMMhe8w

and there was no outrage... because Clinton probably understood basic English... just saying...

Thanks for the wonderful link! I will give you a cookie.



How are the Borg going to respond to this one? Continue repeating it?

I think the ad must be withdrawn.

[BRussell]

Gentlemen, is this actually your position? It's not even worth responding to? One must wonder if you have a response. Obviously I don't support this man, but that is not the issue here. I'm not engaging in the manufactured controversy of the day. I'm not referencing the"lipstick/pig" comment, nor Flag Pin-gate, nor "Obama is a Secret Muslim." I am not saying Obama is a bad person.

I am simply trying to point out that, in my opinion, he is not in any way running a "different" kind of campaign. He's not proposing anything different than what has been proposed. He's not dispensing with the politics of the past...he's embracing them. And frankly...that's OK with me. He doesn't have to do any of those things. But, neither he or the analysts that cover him should claim he's doing them. I don't think anyone is going to disagree with you. He's a liberal Democrat, no surprises. The "Change" mantra refers to change from the current crop of Republicans in the government, not change from All That Has Come Before.

[Bergermeister]

As I don't live in the US, I can't see the daily news...

Has the media shown the video of McCain? Hopefully, it will shut him up for good, as this is really beginning to get out of hand.

I'm still laughing my head off. This clown wants to be president?

[SpamSandwich]

I am simply trying to point out that, in my opinion, he is not in any way running a "different" kind of campaign. He's not proposing anything different than what has been proposed. He's not dispensing with the politics of the past...he's embracing them. And frankly...that's OK with me. He doesn't have to do any of those things. But, neither he or the analysts that cover him should claim he's doing them.

What in the world do you expect from anyone involved in the political system? Politics is politics is politics. He's neither an armed revolutionary, nor a god among men.

You think it's wise to bring up such a minor point for scrutiny the same week we get contrived outrage from McCain over the "lipstick" comment? Please.

It's all the same to me.

[@_@ Artman]

McCain Once Blamed Palin’s ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ for Bridge Collapse in Minnesota (http://vodpod.com/watch/1000421-daily-kos-mccain-once-blamed-palins-bridge-for-the-mn-collapse?pod=shayne01) :no:

[Bergermeister]

It just gets better.

[trumptman]

The change also related to the artist formerly know as the politics of personal destruction and the ability to work in a bipartisan manner.

[SpamSandwich]

McCain Once Blamed Palin’s ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ for Bridge Collapse in Minnesota (http://vodpod.com/watch/1000421-daily-kos-mccain-once-blamed-palins-bridge-for-the-mn-collapse?pod=shayne01) :no:

Ladies and gentlemen, "the common-sense conservative". :lol:

[SDW2001]

What in the world do you expect from anyone involved in the political system? Politics is politics is politics. He's neither an armed revolutionary, nor a god among men.

You think it's wise to bring up such a minor point for scrutiny the same week we get contrived outrage from McCain over the "lipstick" comment? Please.

It's all the same to me.

The entire point is he is running as someone who is NOT part of the political system as it has existed before. He's running as someone who different...who champions hope and unity and has new ideas for Change™.

As for lipstick, let me boil this down:

1. Obama did not mean Palin was a pig.

2. #1 doesn't matter, because it was an incredibly stupid thing to say.

3. McCain has taken advantage of the situation. Well...paint me red and call me a wagon. Imagine that.

4. The damage is done. The McCain video won't matter.


So why did one elicit a reaction while other has just been discovered? Why was one so incredibly dumb? Several reasons.

First, there was no pre-existing "lipstick" narrative when McCain made his comment. No one even dreamed that he meant Hillary was a pig, not even McCain's worst enemies. But with Obama's comment, "lipstick" was a buzz word as it pertained to Palin. No, I don't think for a second he meant it that way, but that again doesn't matter.

Secondly, The GOP had already done a good job of pointing out all of the personal attacks on Palin prior to Obama's comment. Obama had already suffered damage (even if some was collateral) from this. In other words, it was a terrible climate in which to make that gaffe. If this was isolated, it wouldn't have mattered as much. It's like throwing lighter fluid on a lit charcoal grill and wondering why it explodes. "Hey, that never happened before!" Obama said. But that's because the climate was different. Obama's numbers are dropping, and his campaign and surrogates are going on the attack. There has been a lot of reaction to things like the US Weekly cover, Oprah, lefty blogs, etc. That's not really Obama's fault, but the circumstances are what they are.

So in the end Obama is going to take a big hit on this. He already has. Oh, and one more thing: Let's not pretend Obama hasn't played the mock outrage card before. Really.

[SDW2001]

I don't think anyone is going to disagree with you. He's a liberal Democrat, no surprises. The "Change" mantra refers to change from the current crop of Republicans in the government, not change from All That Has Come Before.

I could not disagree more. It has never meant solely that. Never. I can elaborate and support that view if you'd like.

[hardeeharhar]

I could not disagree more. It has never meant solely that. Never. I can elaborate and support that view if you'd like.
I agree. I think Obama was talking both policy and culture. Unfortunately, politics being politics he had to drop the culture argument. Interestingly, this took 16 months for him... Less than a week for McCain...

[BRussell]

I could not disagree more. It has never meant solely that. Never. I can elaborate and support that view if you'd like. Sure, please elaborate. But every politicians runs to some extent as an outsider who's going to come in and change things. That's not unique to Obama. Hell, McCain has been running that type of campaign at least as much as Obama has.

[Flounder]

:lol:

He did:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR8IhMMhe8w

and there was no outrage... because Clinton probably understood basic English... just saying...

I notice that no conservative has a reply to this.

[SDW2001]

I notice that no conservative has a reply to this.

I just addressed it in detail. Good lord.

[SDW2001]

Sure, please elaborate. But every politicians runs to some extent as an outsider who's going to come in and change things. That's not unique to Obama. Hell, McCain has been running that type of campaign at least as much as Obama has.

Hardeehar touched on it. He is not just running as someone who wants to change things. He is running as Teh Change!. A new kind of politics. Unity. Hope. Attracting younger voters in droves. Post-racialism. Remaking America (which he has said specifically). But he's not run that kind of campaign.

[SDW2001]

McCain Once Blamed Palin’s ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ for Bridge Collapse in Minnesota (http://vodpod.com/watch/1000421-daily-kos-mccain-once-blamed-palins-bridge-for-the-mn-collapse?pod=shayne01) :no:

Let me get this right:

You believe that we didn't have enough troops in New Orleans because they were deployed to Iraq. Right?

You believe that the money spent in Iraq could have been spent on Education, Health Care and helping the poor. Right?

and yet....

It's unreasonable to suggest that pork barrel money could have been spent on existing bridge repair, thereby possibly preventing the recent collapse?

OK then.

[BRussell]

Guys, I think he's just saying that it's funny that Palin was such a strong supporter of this thing when McCain was such a strong opponent, not that there's anything particularly wrong with what McCain said. But anyway it's completely off topic.

[tonton]

The only one that is not neck-deep in Washington Beltway BS is Sarah Palin... and look at the love that has been so gracefully lavished on her. It's been such a pleasure to see all of this unfold. We're all getting a full whiff of the soul of the Democratic Party when it is desperate for power. I'm all for the rip and tear on Palin. It's blowing up in Obama's face. Ouch. McCain, for all of his codger-ocity, has introduced Obama to the "experience door." Then he has been watching as it is opened repeatedly into the nose of the Obama campaign.

It's so ironic that you talk about your hatred of "big government" then go on to say the only "different" person is Sarah Palin.

{Ad hom deleted - JL}

Sarah Palin is for bigger government than any of the other three ticket holders. Why do you keep ignoring these facts against her record?

http://www.slate.com/id/2199357/?from=rss

The woman who made this complaint about big government taking your money is the governor of Alaska. Please take a moment to look at this U.S. Census chart showing federal-government expenditures, per capita, in the 50 states. You will observe that Alaska receives about $14,000 per citizen from the federal government. That's more than any other state, and a good $4,000 more than every other state except Virginia, Maryland, New Mexico, and North Dakota. The chart is from the Census Bureau's Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Fiscal Year 2005. I skipped over the 2006 report, the most recent one available, because Hurricane Katrina put Louisiana and Mississippi ahead of Alaska that year. But that's an anomaly. Alaska held the per-capita record for sucking on the federal teat in 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, and 2000. According to the nonprofit Tax Foundation, Alaska gets back $1.84 for every dollar it pays into the U.S. Treasury—even though Alaska enjoys a higher per-capita income than 34 of the 50 states. This is a state that preaches right-wing libertarianism while it practices middle-class socialism.

Palin has not bucked this venerable tradition. It's been widely reported that even though Palin came out against the federally funded, $223 million "bridge to nowhere," a wasteful Alaska earmark (and one she'd supported before it created an uproar in Congress), Alaska ended up receiving the same amount of federal money as transportation funds to be spent at the state's own discretion. When Palin was mayor of Wasilla, she hired the former chief of staff to Sen. Ted Stevens, the recently indicted dean of the Alaska congressional delegation, to lobby for the town (pop. 6,700)—which, as a result, wound up receiving nearly $27 million in federal earmarks over four years. As governor, Palin just this past February sent Stevens a memo outlining $200 million in new funding requests. Granted, Palin enjoys inexplicably warm relations with the secessionist Alaska Independence Party, whose founder's anti-Americanism, Rosa Brooks points out in the Los Angeles Times, puts Rev. Jeremiah Wright in the shade. ("The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government," he told an interviewer in 1991—a year when Republicans controlled the White House and U.S. troops went into battle to free Kuwait from Iraqi occupation.) But there's little real danger that Alaska would ever choose to secede from the Lower 48. Independence would cost it too much in lost federal revenue.

A pit bull with lipstick? I'd describe Palin as a hog who recommends diet books while feeding at the trough.

[Jubelum]

It's so ironic that you talk about your hatred of "big government" then go on to say the only "different" person is Sarah Palin.

So very interesting... you've totally missed the reason that I clearly stated that makes her different. She's not DC. No more. No less. The rest of this is your projecting toward the position you anticipate that I'll take.


Why do you keep ignoring these facts against her record?

"Keep ignoring the facts" ? What the hell are you talking about? I've not posted for over a week prior to today, and I have not said much about Palin while I let all of you guys get the bile out. So please, wait until I take a position before you turn your Palin-panic toward The Jubelum. I've been rather quiet on the topic of Sarah Palin, very much glad to avoid wasting the time while you and grove and berger roll on... and on... and on. I've very much enjoyed the abject fear that Palin has instilled in a few people on this board. I mean, I agree with her on some things, disagree on others. She's not the top of the ticket anyway. The entire Dem machine and their echo pipes here in PO are flailing away in pure panic. I simply love it.

Watching the left hoisted on their own (and many) petards has been so very gratifying. Each day is like Christmas.

[FormerLurker]

Watching the left hoisted on their own (and many) petards has been so very gratifying. Each day is like Christmas.

Sounds like an emotional reaction to me.

How does THAT make you feel?
;)

[Bergermeister]

Palin is more DC than DC.

[Jubelum]

Sounds like an emotional reaction to me.

How does THAT make you feel?
;)

Oh, indeed... it is an emotional reaction. Euphoric even. I mean, what else would it be, a factual reaction? A "factual reaction" methinks would constitute a rebuttal. I think you are confusing "reactions" and "arguments" when used with "emotion."

[SDW2001]

Either Art got banned again or doesn't have an answer for my queries.

<crickets>

[jimmac]

There is nothing "different" about Obama.


Sheesh! They really will try anything now. " The democrats are the same as us so don't vote for them ".:lol::no::wow::rolleyes::lol:

[jimmac]

Either Art got banned again or doesn't have an answer for my queries.

<crickets>

There's just some things man wasn't meant to know I guess.;):lol:

[Frank777]

Does anyone know what this (http://governor.mo.gov/cgi-bin/coranto/viewnews.cgi?id=EkkkVFulkpOzXqGMaj&style=Default+News+Style&tmpl=newsitem) is all about?

[@_@ Artman]

Either Art got banned again or doesn't have an answer for my queries.

<crickets>

Well, once as his ban is lifted I'll answer them.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/Sync-crickets.jpg/622px-Sync-crickets.jpg

[hardeeharhar]

Does anyone know what this (http://governor.mo.gov/cgi-bin/coranto/viewnews.cgi?id=EkkkVFulkpOzXqGMaj&style=Default+News+Style&tmpl=newsitem) is all about?

If you do a google search, you will find this:

http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1

which is of course being tweaked into something it isn't...