The Democratic party: Caught between Barack and a hard place

Great Debates
21

Is it? I’m cynical enough to think that issues don’t make that big a difference to John Q. Public, but if you look at what Obama has said, there is something that merits a closer look. Here is a good example. Obama holds forth on how wrong the war in Iraq was, but he does say a few things that trouble me.

The whole linked article is a very good read, I recommend it to anyone, and I agree with a lot of what he’s saying. However…the quoted parts display a certain disquieting trend. I understand where he is coming from, his position is “get us out of Iraq”, and even though I don’t agree with the position (McCain’s “100 years of war”(sheesh, there’s a political hot potato if I ever saw one) is the correct course IMO), it’s his and he states it fairly. No, what I have a problem with is his seeming willingness to intervene militarily in Pakistan. No matter how viscerally RIGHT that might feel (after all, Bin Laden is there, these are our supposed allies and they can’t get him, lets just do it ourselves in a limited fashion), it would be a disaster. Musharraf CAN’T make the kinds of concessions that Obama wants, for him to do so would be political and likely real suicide, and our military setting foot in Pakistan, no matter how limited their involvement might be, would be a disaster to make Iraq look like a minor fender bender. It would be a sure way to guarantee that a mildly pro U.S. country in the Middle East, one with, HONEST TO GOD, NO FOOLING, THEY REALLY HAVE THEM, NUCLEAR WEAPONS, falls directly under the control of fundamentalist Islamic people. That’s my opinion, you may disagree of course, but it’s a far cry from “game over on the issues (of war)”, particularly since the war in Iraq is finally going better. Do we really want to get out of Iraq only to send Pakistan down the tubes?

Now, I realize that most people won’t bring this level of analysis to the table. So be it. However the “I’m voting for Barack because he wants to get us out of Iraq” mentality fails to consider the larger picture of what next?
Oh and FTR, Obama is spot, absolutely spot on, in his statements about Afghanistan.

22

I think we should all remember that November is an eternity away. Iowa, which seems like ancient history, was just over a month ago. In two months, everything will have changed. And two months after that, it will all change again. The Democrats are not going to fracture themselves. Gore, Edwards, and Pelosi are sitting out so that they can be the peacemakers. If Hillary wins, some of the youth vote might fade, but we’ve never needed that vote to win in the past.

Now, less on-topic…

Indeed, he might be the most liberal person in the history of the universe!

Look, I’m an Obama supporter, however as he is still fighting in the primary, I don’t think I gain anything by arguing that he isn’t a conventional liberal. But the fact is he simply isn’t a conventional liberal. To the extent that the conventional liberal-conservative spectrum makes any sense (and I think in many cases it makes very little sense), Obama is more conventionally conservative on many key issues than Hillary and a lot of the Democratic party are.

Just think of the things he’s gotten into the most trouble for in this campaign: he won’t mandate health insurance, he won’t “freeze” foreclosures, he supports merit pay for teachers, he supports striking inside Pakistan without their permission if need be, he opposes gay marriage (but supports civil unions), he is willing to at least consider raising the retirement age on social security, the list goes on. None of those positions are conventionally liberal.

His policy on global warming isn’t left-wing at all. Cap-and-trade is supported by almost all serious thinkers on the issue, and certainly the center of America (as evidenced by McCain’s support for it). Many liberals believe polluters should be punished, and oppose market-based tools for fixing CO2 emissions. His clean energy venture capital fund, run by private managers, is probably too conservative for a lot of Democrats.

You’ve cited elsewhere his support for net neutrality and renewable energy subsidies as proof that he is left-wing. But in actuality, those are centrist positions in American politics these days.

Does he have some conventionally liberal positions? You bet. But calling him “decidedly left of the American public” is severely mistaken. For every issue you can name where’s he’s “left” of the mainstream, I can name three where he’s to the “right” of Democratic party. Now, he says those old divides don’t make sense. I think there’s a lot of truth in that. And fortunately for him, there are a lot of voters who are looking for pragmatic solutions over the same old partisan divides. If this primary came down to who is the most orthodox liberal, I think Clinton would win hands-down.

While I’m at it, the notion that Obama somehow lacks substance is equally misguided. I challenge you to name a policy area, with the exception of Iraq (because McCain actually has somewhat more detailed plans for Iraq), on which McCain or Hillary have a more detailed set of policy proposals than Obama. If you listen to the speeches where he talks about policy, he is clearly very intelligent and aware of the details on these issues. One can, believe it or not, talk about process issues and inspiration and simultaneously have good, substantive proposals.

23

You have a point, but McCain (hell, all of them) also stroll the streets of America with a heavily armed guard and armed helicopters overhead.

24

Sam, I usually agree with you, but I would like to point out that what we’ve had for the past eight years is a “cut taxes and spend” politician in the White House(dare I say “liberal”? Yes, I dare, with the proviso that for this discussion we’re defining “liberal” as “willing to spend all of our money and thus creating bigger, more intrusive, government involvement in our lives”. That’s the real knock many conservatives have on liberals, and Bush’s record is putrid in this area. On the subject of how the government should spend our money, Bush has been the most “liberal” president in history, From a “whatever” and spend point of view) That’s much worse. You’re right in that McCain seems to be a “cut taxes AND SPENDING” politician, which is the best of both worlds, and is the reason McCain has opposed some of Bush’s excesses.

25

I am a big fan of Obama.
However, like most of my friends, I also loathe Bush and what the Republicans have done to this country for the past seven years.

Ergo - I will vote for whoever wins the Democratic Party nomination.

Will I be disappointed if Obama doesn’t win? Sure.
Will I vote for Hillary?
Yep. And gladly.

26

At the risk of going on a tangent, wouldn’t it be better for the *democratic party * to capture a solid majority and mandate to end up (following due process of course) with Hillary as Pres and Obama as the Veep candidates? Take both of their overlapping constituencies, suck in as many of the swing voters as possible, win by a landslide so it doesn’t matter how many hanging chads or ballets are stuffed in Florida. Of course, this may not be better for Obama and less so than for Hillary. But for the good of the dems, and IMHO for America.

I’m not affiliated with any party. That said, I have been opposed to the moral majority ever since Ronnie gave 'em a voice. I want to see the moral majority rat fucked and the pubbies bitch slapped so badly that they will have to restake their fiscally conservative/smaller government roots in 4, 8 or 12 years from now.

27

That is flat out NOT what he said. Diogenes, were this reversed, you’d be apoplectic over the misrepresentation of Obama’s position. Evil talking points and all that. McCain did not, not, NOT advocate 100 more years of war in Iraq. He did nothing of the sort. It’s dishonest to suggest otherwise if you actually heard him.

28

Many have speculated on an ideal Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket, but so far, most seriously doubt that it will happen.

Then again, most doubted that the nomination process between the two of them would get this far. Still, they both have remained fairly civil in their debates - leading me to believe that the possibility is not totally out of the realm of belief.

However, as a betting man (I do live in Las Vegas), realistically I would put the odds of them running together on one ticket about 100 to 1 against the idea.

29

“As long as Americans are not being injured, or harmed or wounded or killed, then it’s fine with me…”

So if the insurgents continue a war of attrition, he will bring the troops home? Is that what that quote means? Talk about drawing a target on the troop’s back…

30

Exit polls show that McCain’s primary supporters were against the war in Iraq, for abortion remaining legal, and (to a lesser extent) upset about the state of the economy.

As best as anyone can tell, voters have internalized McCain’s rep as a GOP ‘maverick,’ but assumed that must mean he was to the left of Bush and the GOP establishment on all these things. They assumed wrongly, but that’ll be no problem to fix in the general election.

It’ll be easy enough for the Dem nominee to point out that McCain’s for a 100-year stay in Iraq, has been unabashedly pro-life for decades and has pledged to appoint anti-Roe Justices to the Supreme Court, and is almost proud of not knowing shit about the economy.

McCain’s independent/crossover support: dead.

31

I know this might be taking us into silly territory, but if Obama is (perceived to be) screwed over for the nomination, is there the slightest possibility he might be invited to become running mate for . . . McCain? If right wing Republicans could be persuaded not to bolt, that might be one way for the GOP to royally stick it to the Democrats.

32

There’s glory for you! :smiley:

What spending excesses of Bush’s has McCain opposed recently? What current government spending (besides earmarks, which are a drop in the bucket of Federal spending) would he cut?

Anyone versed in history knows that it’s easy for a candidate to claim he’ll cut spending, but that few are willing to try to build support for specific cuts of any size. Earmarks are 2008’s answer to the “we’re going to cut waste, fraud, and abuse” claims of an earlier era.

Maybe he’ll come out in favor of cutting foreign aid. Tthat’s another longtime conservative “I’ll slash the budget big time by cutting this” favorite: people think it’s a huge chunk of the budget when, like earmarks, it’s actually pretty trivial.

33

I’m pretty sure Obama knows how great the policy gulf is between him and McCain.

McCain could invite him all he wants, but there’d not be a snowball’s chance in hell that Obama would be window-dressing for the campaign of as conservative a candidate as McCain.

34

Those who want to trumpet Obama’s “no executive experience” should note that he’s constructed and run a very remarkable national campaign that clearly goes far beyond his oratory skills.

He’s out-performed the Clinton machine (!) in terms of tactics, organization, fundraising, etc.

That speaks to his ability to hire good people & manage them with vision. Which is executive experience.

That said, I am nervous as hell about this. The culture of fear that Bush has stoked is very powerful, and benefits McCain. There will be unimaginable corporate money supporting this. Obama could do everything right and lose.

35

I think it means exactly what he said, however likely you think it is–that he would support a U.S. stabilizing presence on a long-term basis, a policy that most Americans accept, for example, in Korea. It does not, however, mean that he advocates a continued war in Iraq, with the consequent U.S. casualties. In fact, he specifically disavows that notion.

My point is not to argue that his position on Iraq is right or wrong–i.e., the position he actually holds. My point is that anyone who actually heard him and suggests that McCain wants 100 more years of war is being dishonest. That doesn’t mean it won’t be spun for the political hay it will make, despite people (like Obama) knowing for damned sure that’s not at all what he said.

36

True. I NEVER DREAMED I’d hear a Democrat saying: “Parents have to parent and turn off the TV set and put away the video games,” as he did in Madison last Tuesday. What an amazing thing to put forward in these circumstances.

37

Like EddyTeddyFreddy says, if she somehow wins in a way that is not perceived as back room dealing or getting rules changed mid-game, then she can go on to a narrow victory in the general. If she wins any other way then she wounds the party for years to come.

As to Obama being so “liberal” … first off what killed the so-called liberal candidates in the past was that they ran from it, not they actually were so liberal. The time has come to get the American people to recognize again that liberal is not a dirty word. Stick on what the actual issues are, not the label, and many Americans may find that they too are … gasp liberal on many issues too.

Second of all, he is actually not all that “liberal”, as RichardParker notes.

On the other issue, the Republicans are hard pressed that they have been the models of fiscal responsibility.

He’ll roll over McCain. It won’t even be close.

38

Are you hairsplitting over the difference between saying 100 more years in Iraq “would be fine with me” and saying he wants “100 more years of war?” Because I don’t see much of a difference. I certainly don’t see a political difference. McCain saying “make it a hundred…that would be fine with me” was a politically suicidal thing to say, not to mention morally bankrupt.

39

In the interests of relentless fairness, I have to disagree, Dio. It was clear to me that McCain, the Ancient of Daze, was talking about a S. Korea/Japan type occupation, with nothing more exciting than an occasional demonstration by the indigenous personnel.

We don’t need to cheat, ol’ chum, *they * need to cheat. And we’ll whup 'em anyway.

40

It isn’t cheating if you aren’t fooling anybody . Dio to his credit has always been an honest debater.