Come up with better reasons or shut up.
As a lover of the hard nosed game of politics I can look across the landscape today with some curiosity. In fact, with my candidate out of the race, I shall be able to nurture a certain detachment. Not a deep one - as I really do not want Senator Obama to win for a variety of reasons. But I left the Democratic party this week and feel a liberating sense of independence. Without giving up on my passions - I can watch this particular version of the game from the bleachers - at least for a while.
That said - let me state that the Obama out reach to Clinton voters is lacking and wrongheaded. I am not in the business of helping the Obamites. But reading comments on various blogs today I am left with this: they still don't get it. Not that I want to coach the long time rival team - but the entire play for the most fervent of Clinton supporters (like me) is ass backwards.
There is a thrust - all of the sudden, I might add - toward a argument for Clinton voters to switch to Obama based on policy. If this were the problem we had with Obama everyone would be falling in line already. Some are. Many are not.
Except for his foolish betrayal of healthcare for all (not most) he and Clinton are not all that distinguishable.
The problem is Obama. Clinton supporters came to her initially because of her experience. We liked her. We did not - in large part - become fervently committed to her until the media and Obama's campaign began to trash her. Obamites, quit pretending this trashing did not happen. It did. Anyone who spent 32 seconds on Kos-co or watching MSNBC knows you were ugly and relentless in your vilification. Stop lying about it. It is insulting. Our passion for Hillary arose out of her response to this hatchet job. She went from being the best person for the job - to the fierce leader of a huge part of the Democratic Party.
Policy is not the issue. Cue: Obamites going nuts. "How can you say this??? Supreme Court etc etc" This is an ironic response to say the least. You guys have not voted, rallied, and donated to Obama based on policy - ever. But now you want us to. Almost to a person the commitment to Obama has been put in terms of personality. Even some people I admire have been rendered speechless when asked to say something about Obama, the man, that was not shallow and seemingly based on that person's projection - not facts on the ground.
If the interaction did not turn ugly - which was often the case - the whole exercise became like listening to someone I barely knew rattle on for an hour about their new boyfriend.
Putting what we know about his past aside for a moment - why don't you appeal to Clinton voters based on what you find so suitable in this man? I am not kidding. I am filling in a gap I see in the play for Clinton voters. Honestly - in over a year I have yet to hear WHY HIM? answered in phraseology beyond Tiger Beat enthusiasms. And I ask. I can give you a stalwart defense of Senator Clinton based on her life - not her policy papers. You ought to be able to do this. Attempting - and failing - to have asbestos removed from a housing project twenty years ago and calling it "Community Organizing" is not going to work. Even if he was a brilliant organizer this is still not a particularly good reason. I write with anger and sarcasm a lot on this blog. But I mean this: When you say "hope" "change" and I say "is that all there is?" I actually want an answer.
As the dust settles it is entirely possible that some Clinton voters will re-look at Obama. As the year went on it became clear that Clinton voters wanted meat and potatoes answers. All the massaging by the media after Iowa did not change that in some states Obama must have in November. Sell him. This will be hard. Even with all those wins, there is little evidence that Obama convinced any voters beyond those who "consume" politics on the most basic level. In fact, Obama, the man, has not been sold. Obama, the myth, has been. It worked in caucuses and a few primaries. It will not work on the most committed Clinton voters.
My other suggestion is that you stop trying to swing Clinton voters back entirely.
The unfortunate Donna Brazile said "We don't need them". This may be true. Something like 50% of Americans don't vote at all in general elections Even 15% of those folks - in select states - can win the election for Obama. I'd focus on them. The downside here is that they don't vote for a reason. They don't want to. Also, this was the thrust of Dean's campaign in 2004 and it failed miserably. One person I know who worked for Dean in Iowa told me that after he came in third that night the angry governor came into the office and screamed "Fuck the grass roots!" Dean confused the "grass roots" with "new voters". New voters are never the root of any old party. Grass roots organizing is done to get as large a portion of the candidate's natural base to the polls. Aside from Black Americans who support him for non economic reasons, working class voters are not Obama's natural base.
Obama certainly has the money and organization to expand his base with heretofore non voters. This is a wiser bet - though a high risk one. Obama faded down the stretch. His negatives are at 58% among Democrats. He may be forced to go and get new voters. This will take a presentation of the man that goes beyond slogans.
I don't know who will win the election. I do know this: unless you can give me legitimate reasons why I should help elevate this man to the White House - I wish you'd just shut up.
That said - let me state that the Obama out reach to Clinton voters is lacking and wrongheaded. I am not in the business of helping the Obamites. But reading comments on various blogs today I am left with this: they still don't get it. Not that I want to coach the long time rival team - but the entire play for the most fervent of Clinton supporters (like me) is ass backwards.
There is a thrust - all of the sudden, I might add - toward a argument for Clinton voters to switch to Obama based on policy. If this were the problem we had with Obama everyone would be falling in line already. Some are. Many are not.
Except for his foolish betrayal of healthcare for all (not most) he and Clinton are not all that distinguishable.
The problem is Obama. Clinton supporters came to her initially because of her experience. We liked her. We did not - in large part - become fervently committed to her until the media and Obama's campaign began to trash her. Obamites, quit pretending this trashing did not happen. It did. Anyone who spent 32 seconds on Kos-co or watching MSNBC knows you were ugly and relentless in your vilification. Stop lying about it. It is insulting. Our passion for Hillary arose out of her response to this hatchet job. She went from being the best person for the job - to the fierce leader of a huge part of the Democratic Party.
Policy is not the issue. Cue: Obamites going nuts. "How can you say this??? Supreme Court etc etc" This is an ironic response to say the least. You guys have not voted, rallied, and donated to Obama based on policy - ever. But now you want us to. Almost to a person the commitment to Obama has been put in terms of personality. Even some people I admire have been rendered speechless when asked to say something about Obama, the man, that was not shallow and seemingly based on that person's projection - not facts on the ground.
If the interaction did not turn ugly - which was often the case - the whole exercise became like listening to someone I barely knew rattle on for an hour about their new boyfriend.
Putting what we know about his past aside for a moment - why don't you appeal to Clinton voters based on what you find so suitable in this man? I am not kidding. I am filling in a gap I see in the play for Clinton voters. Honestly - in over a year I have yet to hear WHY HIM? answered in phraseology beyond Tiger Beat enthusiasms. And I ask. I can give you a stalwart defense of Senator Clinton based on her life - not her policy papers. You ought to be able to do this. Attempting - and failing - to have asbestos removed from a housing project twenty years ago and calling it "Community Organizing" is not going to work. Even if he was a brilliant organizer this is still not a particularly good reason. I write with anger and sarcasm a lot on this blog. But I mean this: When you say "hope" "change" and I say "is that all there is?" I actually want an answer.
As the dust settles it is entirely possible that some Clinton voters will re-look at Obama. As the year went on it became clear that Clinton voters wanted meat and potatoes answers. All the massaging by the media after Iowa did not change that in some states Obama must have in November. Sell him. This will be hard. Even with all those wins, there is little evidence that Obama convinced any voters beyond those who "consume" politics on the most basic level. In fact, Obama, the man, has not been sold. Obama, the myth, has been. It worked in caucuses and a few primaries. It will not work on the most committed Clinton voters.
My other suggestion is that you stop trying to swing Clinton voters back entirely.
The unfortunate Donna Brazile said "We don't need them". This may be true. Something like 50% of Americans don't vote at all in general elections Even 15% of those folks - in select states - can win the election for Obama. I'd focus on them. The downside here is that they don't vote for a reason. They don't want to. Also, this was the thrust of Dean's campaign in 2004 and it failed miserably. One person I know who worked for Dean in Iowa told me that after he came in third that night the angry governor came into the office and screamed "Fuck the grass roots!" Dean confused the "grass roots" with "new voters". New voters are never the root of any old party. Grass roots organizing is done to get as large a portion of the candidate's natural base to the polls. Aside from Black Americans who support him for non economic reasons, working class voters are not Obama's natural base.
Obama certainly has the money and organization to expand his base with heretofore non voters. This is a wiser bet - though a high risk one. Obama faded down the stretch. His negatives are at 58% among Democrats. He may be forced to go and get new voters. This will take a presentation of the man that goes beyond slogans.
I don't know who will win the election. I do know this: unless you can give me legitimate reasons why I should help elevate this man to the White House - I wish you'd just shut up.
posted by J -SOM at
Saturday, June 07, 2008
PERMALINK
<< Home