Obama's post at dailykos 9/30/05: "Tone, Truth, and the Democratic Party"

[milkyway]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/30/102745/165/500/153069

<snip>

I am not drawing a facile equivalence here between progressive advocacy groups and right-wing advocacy groups. The consequences of their ideas are vastly different. Fighting on behalf of the poor and the vulnerable is not the same as fighting for homophobia and Halliburton. But to the degree that we brook no dissent within the Democratic Party, and demand fealty to the one, "true" progressive vision for the country, we risk the very thoughtfulness and openness to new ideas that are required to move this country forward. When we lash out at those who share our fundamental values because they have not met the criteria of every single item on our progressive "checklist," then we are essentially preventing them from thinking in new ways about problems. We are tying them up in a straightjacket and forcing them into a conversation only with the converted.

Beyond that, by applying such tests, we are hamstringing our ability to build a majority. We won't be able to transform the country with such a polarized electorate. Because the truth of the matter is this: Most of the issues this country faces are hard. They require tough choices, and they require sacrifice. The Bush Administration and the Republican Congress may have made the problems worse, but they won't go away after President Bush is gone. Unless we are open to new ideas, and not just new packaging, we won't change enough hearts and minds to initiate a serious energy or fiscal policy that calls for serious sacrifice. We won't have the popular support to craft a foreign policy that meets the challenges of globalization or terrorism while avoiding isolationism and protecting civil liberties. We certainly won't have a mandate to overhaul a health care policy that overcomes all the entrenched interests that are the legacy of a jerry-rigged health care system. And we won't have the broad political support, or the effective strategies, required to lift large numbers of our fellow citizens out of numbing poverty.

The bottom line is that our job is harder than the conservatives' job. After all, it's easy to articulate a belligerent foreign policy based solely on unilateral military action, a policy that sounds tough and acts dumb; it's harder to craft a foreign policy that's tough and smart. It's easy to dismantle government safety nets; it's harder to transform those safety nets so that they work for people and can be paid for. It's easy to embrace a theological absolutism; it's harder to find the right balance between the legitimate role of faith in our lives and the demands of our civic religion. But that's our job. And I firmly believe that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, or oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. A polarized electorate that is turned off of politics, and easily dismisses both parties because of the nasty, dishonest tone of the debate, works perfectly well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government because, in the end, a cynical electorate is a selfish electorate.

<snip>

My dear friend Paul Simon used to consistently win the votes of much more conservative voters in Southern Illinois because he had mastered the art of "disagreeing without being disagreeable," and they trusted him to tell the truth. Similarly, one of Paul Wellstone's greatest strengths was his ability to deliver a scathing rebuke of the Republicans without ever losing his sense of humor and affability. In fact, I would argue that the most powerful voices of change in the country, from Lincoln to King, have been those who can speak with the utmost conviction about the great issues of the day without ever belittling those who opposed them, and without denying the limits of their own perspectives.

<snip>

__________

In this post from more than two years ago Barack Obama gives an excellent explanation for the poltical tactics he uses. One may certainly question those tactics, as many here at DU will do, but please do not question his goals or his commitment to achieving them. His goals are the same goals shared by many of us.

edited at 11:16 am to include link

[jasmine621]

1. A two-year old post? nt

[milkyway]

3. Why does that matter? It's completely consistent with the campaign he's been running,

and it's an in-depth and thoughtful discussion of his political tactics (which are pretty much at odds with what has become the conventional wisdom of the progressive blogosphere).

[Avalux]

2. All who think he's nothing more than a 'teleprompter preacherman' should read this.

Excellent stuff Mr. Obama. :applause:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. good point. no, great point.

and yes, it is great stuff.

[milkyway]

5. Oops! Here's the link:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/30/102745/165/500/153069

[BenDavid]

6. obama tactic....play the race card, often......and obama does

and since when has referring to somebody’s past admitted drug use been a racial slur? More racist,I would say, to equate drugs with blacks, and that’s what the Obama campaign is doing, not the Clinton one.

As for HRC's statement about Martin Luther King’s dream of racial equality and President Johonson's role, no more than fact, surely; an attack on Mr Obama’s lack of experience, certainly, but hardly a slur upon King. Mr Obama’s campaign is twisting things so that a comment about any black man is a comment about him, just as any attack on him is an attack on all black people. I ask again: who is playing the race card here?

[Avalux]

7. Isn't it interesting - you post something substantive witten by Obama and few responses?

People on this board demand to know more about him but when someone offers it (great on you for finding it), they don't say a word. What's this tells us is that in 2005, Obama had the exact same message he has now. It's one I agree with 100%.

[milkyway]

8. The "but there's no specifics!" argument is silly. All the dem candidates get into very detailed

policy specifics on their websites. You can read their plans until your eyeballs start to bleed.

And, of course, if a candidate gives a speech offering a detailed policy proposal (which won't ever see the light of day anyway after going through the legislative process) they're called a policy wonk with no vision.

I've always liked Barack a lot, but I didn't actively support him until recently. I had been waiting for Gore, and like many here I have been unsure about Obama because he seemed to be so different from the type of candidate we in the progessive blogosphere have come to prefer (a fighting Dem like Howard Dean, who was my guy in 2004). But Barack's ability to persuade and inspire, while challenging my own preconceptions, has won me over.

[Avalux]

9. We are on the same page then. I too was waiting for Gore -

and I was very hesitant about Obama even though I like him a lot. When it became a realization Gore would not run, I spent a great deal of time reading and taking in as much information as I could about Obama before throwing my support behind him. He is consistent and genuine in what he says (whether popular or not), which I admire. His ability to persuade and inspire will garner bi-partisan support which is what it will take for him to make any headway in Washington. It also motivates people to get involved who never thought it would make a difference before. :hi:

[Cant trust em]

10. I'm amazed that more anti-Obama posts haven't creeped up yet

usually when someone posts something that praises him there are plenty of people to jump on the bashbus.

I'm ready for the Obamarama.