|
I partially agree that Obama has been a better campaigner than Clinton, by successfully playing political hardball without looking like a poor loser, an angry man, or a divisive politician. Both campaigns are playing for keeps, but I have to say that I do feel like I perceive a bit of a difference in the tactics utilized and most importantly - where the line is drawn between in bounds and out of bounds.
Certainly were not talking about "Obama the gentle saint running a hello kitty campaign" vesus "Clinton the root of all evil sowing satanic perversion wherever she goes" - its more subtle than that. But are there differences between the campaigns? Yes, enough to characterize the Clinton camp as a group of strategists who believe that all politics is war, and that nothing matters as long as you win, and that winning involves the personal categorical destruction of your opponent and any opposition standing in your way, no matter who it is, at any costs.
I may disagree with you if you feel that Obama's message is purely vapor. That charge gets leveled a lot, and its fair that it does, since its the sign of a critically thinking individual, and I appreciate that. There is a difference between policy positions and political philosophy. And I believe that policy wise Obama is a center-left politician. I wouldn't go as far as to lump him in with the center-right DLC, but he is certainly not a champion of radical left politics by any stretch of the imagination. What I feel like Obama brings to the table that is different than politics is usual is a different political philosophy.
First of all, Obama didn't just invent his themes of hope and unity for this election. Like them or not, believe they are superficial or not, they have been a stable of his basic political philosophy for as long as he has been around. I actually believe that Obama is a "visionary" - I know visionary is usually a complimentary term, but in this case I mean it to be neutral. I call Obama the George Lakoff candidate, which is exactly what I think this country needs as STEP ONE toward a more progressive society. The first step won't be taken by staunch progressives. It will be taken by someone able to bridge the gap between politics and usual and a climate in which serious progressive discussions can be entertained and supported by the public.
The interesting thing about Obama's career is that instead of taking a "triangulation" approach to politics where you move the left more to the center in order to say "see, democrats are really 'mainstream' too, we just do what you want republicans to do better than they do" he takes the re-framing approach, and is presenting a way of talking about politics and envisioning mainstream America that excites people and begins the process of shifting the american center back to the left. His definition of unity is persuasive rather than capitulating, and he is a masterful, masterful user of frames, which is what the democratic party desperately needs. We have been out "framed" by republicans for decades.
I believe that Obama actually believes in the possibility of a more united american electorate, and when he speaks of unity, he does so in a way that beings this re-framing process. He eloquently talks about center-left democratic ideas and gets the public to listen - on both sides of the spectrum, and as they start to become interested, he not only successfully shows how such ideas are really good for all american and in the countries best interest, but also gently plants the seed into the minds of the people that oh, by the way, this is what democrats have always been about.
I support Obama because I believe we need a George Lakoff candidate who has the eloquence and the appealing personality to begin to create a cultural shift in ideology and a deconstruction of political language that has been defined by the hard right for too long. His policies will be moderate, but the purpose of his presidency will be to re-frame public debate, and work with Howard Dean to deliver that message to 50 states, and work with Dean to elect a new generation of democrats into the party - democrats who are also of the George Lakoff stripe, who can continue to facilitate a language change in the public and lay the foundation where more progressive Democratic candidates would be tolerated.
I see the same policy positions in Hillary Clinton, but I see nothing in her political philosophy that I would characterize as being a Lakoff candidate, and nothing in her political philosophy that reflects any interest in re-framing the political discussion and transforming the party - Clinton to me represents politics as usual. Maybe the next four or eight years under Clinton would a little bit better than the last eight years, but in the end absolutely nothing about the political culture and climate would substantially change, and thus there would be no ability to introduce the next level of more progressive dialog into the political mainstream.
Now, I disagree with you completely that Obama's decision to run was destructive or divisive because his policies are similar to Clinton's. I disagree mainly because I do see a strong difference between the two candidates which I've just described.
I agree with you about egos - if you're running for President, you've got a big one. That's just the way it is. However, the real question is whether or not a candidate is willing to subordinate his or her ego to the interests of the party, and to the interests of the country, or whether or not ego and ego alone will drive all decisions. As a matter of personal opinion, with nothing but anecdotal evidence, I believe that if roles had been reversed, and Obama was down like Clinton has been, he would have conceded the race already with the interests of party and country in mind.
I don't agree with you that Obama hasn't done much to reign in his nastiest supporters, but that's mainly because I'm not sure who these nasty supporters are you are talking about? Obama isn't the one who has state campaign chapters issuing memos calling Obama a terrorist. His campaign isn't the one endorsing the republican nominee over his democratic rival. His campaign isn't the one that, when presented with a stupid question about the faith of his rival, answers in such a way as to deliberately equivocate in order to keep fueling the media coverage of a lie and character smear. And when one of this chief campaign advisor's was caught off the record saying that Clinton was a "monster" she was forced to resign.
I don't take criticism of Obama has heresy. I criticize him, and I criticize a lot of Obama supporters. But I KNOW why I support him.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
