Obama's message is downright repulsive, in my view, because the US is never going to be hippy-dippy, let's-sing-kumbayah Purple America. The Republican Leadership just doesn't work like that. They'll obstruct, block and play to the greater devils of people's nature as they climb back to a majority status sooner or later, as they paint the Democrats as do nothing Democrats - even if it won't be true. The window to create important change through a super majority is almost always small, and only comes from the type of bold leadership that rejects the fundamental notions of our opponents. Someone who stumps on how we need to reform social security now isn't the kind of person who'll do anything to create an actual, long-lasting progressive movement.
I went from not being excited about any of the candidates a few months ago, to being heart broken John Edwards isn't at least carrying on his message through
Posts
8 comments:
Do you really believe Obama's message is that the US will be "hippy-dippy?" I mean, really?
I think so. When I watch him speak, I feel like I should be eating a tub of Fluff with a spoon.
Ryan,
How did you not feel the exact same way when Governor Patrick was running? Talk about running on all fluff and no substance.
Honestly, Ari? Yes. A 'let's all just hold hands and work together' mentality, when confronted with people that want to rip our throats out, isn't a winning strategy. It's hippy dippy.
Bobo, Deval was a fundamentally different candidate than Obama in many ways. Of course, he wanted to reach across and build a bigger tent, but he - as a candidate - understood that it comes by truly challenging your opponents and standing strong to them, by rejecting their ideology and showing how ours is a better one. I wish he'd bring a little bit more of candidate Deval back to the Corner Office.
There's no one to reach across the aisle to in Mass. The Democrats have an overwhelming majority and are in total control. What have they done with it?
Ryan - Take a look back in your archives. I think you'll agree that Deval handled Healey's attacks in much the same way that Obama has been handling Clinton's. To the extent Patrick went negative, it was always, always, always, with the aim of going back to his positive "end of cynicism," message. Healey absolutely wanted to rip our Governor's throat out, and tried with that horrible garage ad. Now, obviously, Clinton hasn't lobbed anything like that at Obama, but check out the reaction -- people are sick of the negativity, they're sick of the cynicism, and they're sick of the old attack style of politics. One of the first reasons I got behind Deval was because he said that he wanted to "end the politics of bloodsport." (That's a direct quote.) The messages of the Patrick and Obama campaigns are as identical as you can possibly make a state vs. national campaign.
Like Ryan, I'm an Edwards supporter who is still on the fence.
I have serious trust issues with both Hillary and Barack. I think they are both skillful politicians who will fit in well with the existing Washington culture.
I may just vote for Edwards anyway. Heck, it's the primary. Let others decide. My head and heart hurt.
I don't think it's a bad decision to vote Edwards anyway, Anon. I dabbled with that idea, too. But ultimately I decided that Hillary has the more progressive plans on the table and, sadly for Obama, is more trustworthy. Her health care plan is actually very, very good... that alone warrants her a vote Obama, IMHO.
Post a Comment