You’re kidding, right? Ideally, we would elect someone who chooses not to pander at all. Since that is as likely as the Devil purchasing a ski jacket, I’d rather have someone who at least panders to the right side rather than to the reactionaries on the other side.
I’ve seen this comment before and I’m wondering just what it is that makes people feel he’ll choose a strong cabinet.
It appears to me that he lacks both the experience and political connections to be able both to select the proper people and then bring them on board. I’m not adamant about this - and frankly Obama is the only Dem candidate in recent memory that I find myself actually liking on a personal level - but I’m curious to know where this optimism about the likelihood of his appointing quality people to his cabinet and staff comes from.
In short, I’m afraid that Jimmy Carter’s coterie of nincompoops (and some of Bill Clinton’s in the early days) has left me dubious about the ability of presidential candidates with little upper-level political experience to bring quality people on board.
It would well depend on his choice of veep. He needs someone with military experience and I would think that would be Webb but I know he’d have a slot for Chuck Hagel on his cabinet. We’ll see.
My main optimism on his choices for cabinet comes from listening to him speak and knowing a little about his motives for wanting to be prez. He has a chance to be [dare I say it] revolutionary as a president and there are a lot of people on the hill who would jump to his aid to be a part of that. I Colin Poweel has been advising him but I doubt he’d take a cabinet spot…maybe. I have no reason to think he’d make foolish choices for his cabinet given his current track record with the polls.
Objectively, I think his organization and fundraising as a relative unknown speak to his ability to hire and manage talent. His occasional gentle smackdown of his staffers tells me that he knows how to take the right amount of responsibility for things that are done in his name.
Subjectively, from his book particularly, I think he’s that rare super-smart politician who is open to nuance and questioning of his own beliefs. This to me suggests that ego massaging and lockstep agreement will not be a prerequisite when he’s appointing advisors and staff.
Finally, these recent high-level insider endorsements lead me to believe that if he gains the nomination, he will have the ear and advice of his choice of progressive policymakers and insiders to guide his decisions, and I think he’s open to listening to that advice.
Frankly, I think Hillary has so much of a history that she has those decisions basically made already. There won’t really be a search for these cabinet jobs, there’s a list already of people who have done their part. Admittedly, if we got a rerun of posts from Bill’s administration we wouldn’t be horribly off. But now is the time to be idealistic- I will capitulate with all speed if Hill is the nominee.
I prefer Obama. The old word “unctous”, which means, “smug, ingratiating, and false earnestness” describes her to me.
Think back to the debate where Obama said he would talk to the bad guys. Clinton immediately and dishonestly twisted this around to make it seem like Obama would be serving them tea in the Oval Office. I’m tired of that sort of conduct. She’s not the only one who does it, of course, as the Rovian Republicans specialize in it, but I just can’t stand that sort of thing anymore.
Very well said. Thanks for the explanations, Phlosphr and stolichnaya.
Shayna, it becomes a hijack but … to me the DNC has not the right but the obligation to set some limits on the nominating process for their party. Michigan’s Democratic organization knew the rules and decided to thumb their nose at them. That action was not in the best interest of the party or of Michigan’s Democratic voters but they did it anyway. All the candidates but HRC and Dodd agreed with the DNC that a strong message needed to be sent that the rules needed to be respected for the good of the party overall. That message would have been sent best by all candidates withdrawing from the ballot there. HRC and Dodd alone refused to do so preferring instead to not, as Dodd’s communication manager put it in that CNN link you gave, “slight” Michigan voters. To me that is pandering, not “listening”. Her campaign’s decision to not “run” there but to leave her name on the ballot anyway is consistent with the worst aspects of HRC’s approach - the constant attempts at triangulation based on naked political calculations alone.
No, I’m not kidding. I agree with the Devil/ski jacket remark. Pandering to reactionaries is where the pandering will lie with HRC. The other side doesn’t need pandering since they theoretically already are of her own thinking anyway and her policies will genuinely be geared to their benefit.
I really think that’s exactly true. But to me, the the constant attempts at triangulation based on naked political calculations alone are why I’m voting for her. I want someone like that as POTUS to beat the other side which, I think, will become necessary at some point. If I believed that such would not become necessary and that a fairytale land of Obama was really possible, I’d prefer him. Either one becomes the nominee, though, I’m voting for them. His would be a more interesting and exciting presidency if nothing else.
“may you live in interesting and exciting times.” 
I am aware that Obama represents a risk since most of my assessments of him are more deductions than examples. It is something that I think quite a bit about. I understand those New Hampshire voters who were undecided on the day before.
Well Geez! Isn’t that enough! Come on now! Get off the 9th floor and come up here with with rest of us craggs!
Pandering (or the perception of such) is hurting Hillary’s chances of getting elected because it chips away at the respect of the straddlers who want to vote for someone they can trust. In effect, she has wasted political capital on folks (like the anti-flag burners) who would not vote for her even if you paid them. Nothing about this strategy is smart to me. It’s one of the reason why I don’t like her.
Like I said before, forget what her policies can do…if she can’t even get elected, then it’s a moot point. I think pro-Hillary supporters are arguing too much from the vantage point of “Hilllary will do a good job” without really asking themselves “Can Hillary can get this job?”
So if I understand your POV correctly, what you want is someone who can effectively play “RealPolitik” and do it well. (I am assuming that your “other side” is in a global political sense, not in reference to the Pubbies. If I am wrong then my apologies. Idealist that I am, I am thinking of the skill set to be president, not candidate. If you are thinking about the domestic agenda, then I think that either HRC or Obama would be able to work with Congress and reach across the aisle well. In any case, it will be that reaching across the aisle that gets things done.)
If so then why vote for the Democratic candidate over the Republican one sight unseen? I suspect that several of them would be very good at that skill set. Heck, on paper the Bush administration should have been great at it! Rovian ethics and tactics are the epitome of that mindset. Somehow though it didn’t work out so well …
Hell, I don’t even buy the “Hillary would do a good job” part. What incentive would any Republican have to cooperate with her on anything? Or for that matter any Democrat holding a precarious seat? How’s she going to get anything done?
Oh, it works great as long as they share your ideals.
“I’m not arguing that with you!”
Edit- sound!
Well, that’s a very good point and I don’t think it’s at all clear that she can sail into the White House. As for the straddlers, I don’t know but for me watching her pander makes me feel I can trust her to be politically astute which is the only kind of trust I’m interested in when it comes to that job. I couldn’t care less about ‘trusting’ a President in the personal sense like I would a good friend or something or a candidate’s personal ‘sunny’ disposition or likeability, etc.
But can she even get elected is a good question since those elements matter to the public image.
Yeah, I meant the Pubbies. Apology accepted. 
It’s not clear to me that being bipartisan will be the thing that necessarily gets things done. It’s a nice idea but, as Bill Clinton once said, the middle is defined as being between two points – and those points can get shifted so that being ‘bipartisan’ can lose all practical meaning if we’re choosing between, say, right and far-right. O’Reilly considers himself to be the middle, fair and balanced. Think about that. And he’s not alone.
Insofar as the rest of the world is concerned I actually would expect more Machiavellian tactics from the Pubs than from HRC and you’re right, it doesn’t work out too well. Especially when combined with blinding incompetence and arrogance. And actually, I think for the Pubs it’s not so much those tactics as much as it is the pissing contest mentality when it comes to dealing with conflict. They don’t seem to have any appreciation for nuance, patience, and losing a little here and there in ways that advance the larger good. I trust HRC more for that.
What really excites me about Barack Obama are the new voters he is bringing into the mix.
He has gotten people interested in politics who either never were before, or who have become so disenfranchised as to not care anymore. Whether or not he himself is more of a liberal or centrist is debatable, but the people he is bring into the political fold both anew and again, are undoubtedly a far more progressive block of voters than we have seen for quite some time.
Through the evolution of society it seems that each generation is of a more progressive mind set than the last. Trouble is, each generation is also seems to be decidedly more cynical than the last, and as a whole, only become interested in politics later in life, if at all. With Obama’s youth, charisma, energy, optimism, and innocence(some might say inexperience) he is helping to bring these younger generations into the game much faster.
Like the saying goes: ‘if you aren’t a liberal in your 20’s you got no heart; if you aren’t a conservative in your 50’s you got no money’.
I think Obama can bridge this gap.
Now, granted Obama is not of the truly progressive ilk as say Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards, or even Dodd, but lets be honest, with big money media helping to control and frame the conversations and debates, these are not yet mass household names. The internet too is helping to change that. However for many of these voters all they know of politicians are the Neo-Cons that been in charge as of late.
Like Phlosphr was saying of inspiration- Barack Obama is who has inspired all these usual non-voters to become voters. Just think, if even a fraction of these voters continue to learn about politics, learn the rules, the players, the teams, the plays and the plans- think of how much louder the progressive and liberal voice becomes.
To be honest though, there are often times I have wondered, “but what if Obama is just a plant, what if he is one of “them”? Some sort of corporate Manchurian?” His life story, his words, even his name; it all just at times has seemed “too” perfect. The way he has missed important votes(this is his biggest sticking point with me btw) and the way he speaks so much in abstracts, rather than specifics such as Edwards does.
However, and this is nothing more than just purely gut-speak, so take it for what you will, but upon learning more of his childhood, the maturation process, where he has been, who he has seen, who he has been, worked with and for. It’s not Capital Hill experience but it is life experience. I just refuse to allow myself to be so cynical as to think that after all that, he would sell it all out now and turn into what he has fought against the whole time.
Further more, to listen to his wife Michelle speak, just solidifies the notion that the Obama’s are for real.
To tell the truth I have a feeling Obama is actually far more progressive than he let’s on, I think he just understands how to keep the peace within a debate. We could use that.
Though I am shocked and a bit disappointed that Dennis Kucinich didn’t back Edwards, who btw also has that same type of life experience I just mentioned, he has, since I learned about him(no thanks to the m$m), been a bit of a personal hero and I very much trust his judgment as well.
Ultimately though, I don’t think the worries I brought up matter that much. Even if there was some sort of Manchurian conspiracy, well then, just like all the other messes the ‘powers-that-be’ have made (racist policies, gay-bashing policies, enron, iraq, gonzo-gate, etc…), it will just come back and bite them in the ass.
Set up or not, Obama has sparked a fire back into people in which has long since died or was never lit to start. This fire gives fuel to their voice. Their, nay, Our new found voice- that’s where the change will come.