Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Obama's Really Pissing Me Off

This kind of nonsense is just that, nonsense. While I don't like the DLC attitude, Bill Clinton did not singularly cause Democrats to lose seats - but he did help balance the budget and preside over a country where nearly every group of people were doing better than they had before. The funny thing is Barack's bipartisan nonsense is almost exactly like the DLC rhetoric that actually did hurt this country, except Barack's brining it to a whole new level. Barack's message and rhetoric doesn't sound like someone who's proud to be a Democrat at all - and this kind of mailing is right in line with that meme.

8 comments:

massmarrier said...

I think you need a change of horses, Left Ahead! buddy. You may note that MSM and analysts point to race, culture and age divisions caused by the two Dems.

Personally, I think the race thing is much overdone, although it is a factor.

Your fascination with and derision of Obama's bipartisan talk is a far less important issue to the general election. You may recall a certain TWPE using those words and calling himself the uniter when what he really did was steamroll and spit on the Dems and GOP centrists. Don't count on a President Obama making kissy face if the Republicans won't pucker too.

Even on her own promotional pages, Hillary is reduced almost entirely to references to legislation that was unable to gain enough bipartisan support to pass. As when she was first lady, she had good intentions.

I am a simple man from the land of the maple trees (Guantanamera Guajira Guantanamera). Short a supermajority in the Senate following the election, the President will need bipartisan support for anything domestic. Obama's admitting that up front is not necessarily a sin.

Anonymous said...

I hate Pepsi! Pepsi is gross. Coke is sooo much better. No! They DO NOT taste the same!

Ryan Adams said...

Mike, it's not that I disagree with you, but I think you miss a key thing. First, the Republicans are obstructionists. They'll block everything Obama puts forth. Second, when Democrats are bipartisan, they do things like agreeing to leave out food stamps and increased time for unemployment in a bill meant to stave off recession - and agreed to give out almost useless checks to the country. Even the Congressional Budget office, completely nonpartisan, thinks that's stupid.

Now, what we need to do is make people realize that Republicans are obstructionists. We need to make them lose. Obama's talk is certainly helping him, but it won't help coalesce a broader movement. It actually works against it, with a Democratic President admitting its democrats who are a part of the problem. Why would a republican leaner ever want to switch?

On the other hand, if we beat the Republicans to such an extent that we can pass our own damn bills, as Republicans have done for years - and have the cojones to stand up to republican obstructionism - we can create long-lasting important reform that the rest of the country will forever associate Democrats with. If we were to get through a solid universal health care plan through government, Democrats would be in majority for a long time coming. However, that's not going to happen if we have a President making nice with Republicans. They'll abuse us as they have for decades now. They just can't be worked with, or trusted.

Anonymous said...

How are those obstructionist Republicans able to keep this state from passing all those wonderful Democratice ideas. Oh right they aren't. This state is your labratory for total Democratic control, how's that working out.

massmarrier said...

Well, Ryan, I hold that we are in a moment, a national moment, when we can reasonably expect better than we have been getting from Congress.

It would be great for Dems to have a supermajority. The first thing they could do then was change that absurd 60-vote Senate filibuster rule, so that the GOP could not cripple the nation's lawmaking and appointment approval process as it has for so long.

Again, Hillary claims she can get things passed, but her record doesn't support that. She's a great proposer and law introducer instead.

If the public is as sick of TWPE's failures and policies as they tell researchers, this is the time when we can get cross-party coalitions on legislation. We wouldn't have a long time to do that and should take advantage.

Revenge on the naysayers and obstructionists might feel good, but not as good as passing progressive packages.

If the GOP lawmakers insist on poisoning legislation there's always the Lyndon Johnson heavy-handed approach. For that, Hillary has no past that suggests she could convince, cajole or threaten effectively.

I say Obama is starting with the right attitude.

Mark D. Snyder said...

I don't like this mailing. however, i think the bigger concern is hillary's insistance on winning even if superdelegates decide the election over the will of the people.

I also don't like hillary's negative and I have to say poorly constructed attack ads in Wisconsin. Obama and her have debated 18 times and there are two more to go. She's the one who agreed to debate on fox news. Gross.

Ryan Adams said...

None of them agreed to a debate on fox news. Edwards was the first to refuse, Obama and Hillary followed suit. At least that's how I remember it.

As far as Superdelegates are concerned, Obama would be doing the same thing if the situations were reversed. The problem isn't how Hillary plans on using the superdelegates, the problem is the fact that there are such a high number of superdelegates. I'm not necessarily against the idea of having them, but I certainly don't think they should determine the presidency... but this is the system we have now and it seems a little stupid to change it in the midst of the election.

Anonymous said...

Nothing has been accomplished since the beginning of our country's history with compromise over time. That's a fact. We will have to compromise as American's in order to survive as a prosperous country.
That you can count on.

About Ryan's Take