Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I don't get the "Obama should wait his turn" thing

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
CatsDogsBabies Donating Member (652 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 08:34 AM
Original message
I don't get the "Obama should wait his turn" thing
Makes it sound the nominee was decided for some people before anyone even voted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 08:35 AM
Response to Original message
1. I get it I just think its a lousy way for a country to decide its future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JANdad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
2. Just figured that one did ya...
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatsDogsBabies Donating Member (652 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Well, no
Edited on Sat May-31-08 08:53 AM by CatsDogsBabies
but it still just baffles me when I hear it (and I just read it again in the Donna Brazile post).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
3. That's the aristocratic mentality that believes that
Also, arrogant skating divas and some skating judges hold the same opinion as Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbmk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
5. i could get it..
Edited on Sat May-31-08 08:43 AM by dbmk
.. if the party had two candidates they were completely sure could win the GE - and overall were similar in the direction and style. And one of them would be too old by the end of two terms, but not too old now. Then there would be some strategy in letting the youngest one know that he perhaps should wait for the good of the party.

But noone really foresaw that Obama had what it took. And the demeanor of the two candidates is so many miles apart that the example does not apply here anyway.

And as gc said, it still would be a funny way of selecting a president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 08:44 AM
Response to Original message
6. Obviously, it IS his turn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keep_it_real Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. And Obama was smart enough to see it was his turn, time
And seized the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamjoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 08:47 AM
Response to Original message
7. I Get It - And Reject It
The idea is he is young and relatively inexperienced. He should put in his time in the Senate or as Governor, etc.

Well - that's BS on several levels. Timing is everything - we're ready for different types of candidates at different times. In 2004, we wanted some one with lots of experience and even a military background to go against Dubya. Now, we're up against a very experienced candidate, but we're a little more cynical after 8 years of Dubya and want a candidate who is fresh and doesn't seem such a creature of politics. He may very well be, but its the aura and persona that counts. The timing is good for Obama too, he and his wife paid off their student loans within the past ten years - so memories of debt and struggle, something every middle class family faces are fresh in their minds. How people can call them elitist and out of touch is beyond me - maybe it's the whole persona thing - but that's another topic.

Anyway, if it were really about waiting one's turn - Joe Biden should have been our nominee. He's been serving for over thirty years. Clinton should have waited her turn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. Translation: Appearances are everything, substance is nothing.
In other words, if you're good looking and you can look good while doing something, get awarded points for style, it doesn't matter whether there is a working plan or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamjoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. To An Extent, Yes
It's not that substance is nothing, but to reject the importance of appearances is just naive.

Think of a political candidate like a product. In this case, instead of buying, we want people to vote for our "product." Marketing, including packaging, count. If a product is not attractive, consumers are less likely to consider it, no matter how good it may be. This was the case with John Kerry. He was outstandingly qualified, but the packaging just wasn't appealing. The advertising campaign just didn't connect. Of course, the media didn't help, but that's part of selling a successful product too - winning over the media.

Now, sometimes people buy a product because of an attractive package, open it up and are disappointed because the product is nothing like the package. Think frozen tv dinners. In the political world, think George W. Bush in 2000 selling himself as an ordinary guy and a moderate. Dubya's marketing campaign was so good, he got people to keep buying it.

Sometimes, though, we buy a product because we like the look of it and it really is a good product. Maybe there are other products in less appealing packaging that are just as good, but we ignored them and left them on the shelf. That may be unfair, but that's the way it is. Why do so many women continue to

Of course, some of us who like Obama have done our research on the candidate and decided that while he may not be perfect (no candidate is), his positives outweigh the negatives. We like his working plan. Funny thing is, in many areas his plan is similar to Clinton. But that's true of much of what we buy in the grocery and drug store too - there's very little difference between one brand of a product and another brand of the same product. We only perceive that there is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #16
26. Except I'm not buying a product.
I'm voting for someone to run this country. And I'm not interested in whether he looks good sitting behind the desk. In fact, considering how shallow the people in this country appear to have become and how, to all appearances, they coast on their looks rather than actually do their work good looks is rapidly becoming a strike against them.

Hillary may not be as pretty as Obama but at least she's got a real record so that I know what she's already done. Obama's "record" is too thin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamjoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #26
34. No Wonder We Keep Losing
We don't know how to market ourselves. When I say appearances matter, I am not just referring to physical good looks. Heck, McCain is hideous looking, but he has an aura about him - an image as a maverick. That gives him appeal.

I don't think Obama's record is too thin, or at least not that much thinner than Hillary's. Are you counting being First Lady as experience? OK, surely she and Bill discussed stuff. That's not really a record, though. Barack Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law - which shows uncommon intelligence. He has a number of accomplishments in the Illinois legislature. And of course, he was smart enough to know what would happen if we went into Iraq. Speaking of Iraq and experience, some highly experienced people got us into that mess - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, etc. Lack of experience was not an issue.

I do believe intelligence and judgment should count. Anyway, if we are only looking at experience, than John McCain has the most government experience of any candidate. But we certainly don't want him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tatiana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 08:48 AM
Response to Original message
8. It's at the root of all this anger and resentment towards Obama.
I think people felt that Hillary waited her turn and did not run in 2004, so Obama should have waited his turn.

I, for one, am glad that Obama did not "wait his turn."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 08:50 AM
Response to Original message
10. I Think That's Weak
But when did anyone ever actually say it? Are you sure it's something that was implied, and not inferred?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Probably from the fact that Obama just doesn't have
enough actual working experience to qualify for the post he's applying for. That's pretty much how I see it anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
George_Bonanza Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. By that standard, Biden or Richardson should be our nominee
Being the wife of a governor/president is not experience, at least in a feminist world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #12
21. That is such a weak argument...
I have no idea what 'experience' people who say that value.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatsDogsBabies Donating Member (652 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. It is in the Donna Brazile post
and I have read it here on several occasions. A while back, I heard on NPR (when I was driving) a PA superdelegate being interviewed who said people called him telling him to go for Clinton because it is her turn now. This view seems inconsistent with all the claims of disenranchising voters. If people thought the nomination is owed to HRC because it is her turn, were they really concerned with all votes from all states?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #15
38. Was This During the PA Primary Run-Up?
I'm not sure what Donna B post you're referring to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Medusa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
14. It's all about entitlement.
Hillary has been running for president since the day she carpetbagged her way into NY state and announced her senate run.

Reality's a bitch though and she's been bitch-slapped by a far superior candidate. Now she's whining like a spoiled brat because she can't get what she wants. Shit happens sometimes Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quantass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JustAnotherGen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
17. I don't either
They've both run solid campaigns. Hey! They beat my guy Edwards! So it should be the 'turn' of who ever has the most delegates come August. Though - I have to admit I'm solid behind Obama now. Just got back from two weeks in the South of France - met people from all over the world - most of them "Lefties Like US!" :pals: Not just Americans, but the world - well they are waiting on the edge of their seats to have a Democrat in office come January. There seems to be an awful lot of respect for the man who should have 'waited his turn'. . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oleladylib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
19. well, it would give him a chance to grow older, not taller.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tim4319 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
20. This is his turn!
The next two turns are his.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowknows69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
22. black man sits at the back of the bus, didn't you know that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
23. It only makes sense to the "Driving Miss Daisy" demographic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stahbrett Donating Member (855 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
24. It makes no sense either, because if it's based on seniority, it's not Hillary's turn either
Joe Biden should probably be the nominee, or maybe Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
25. This is not the cafeteria lunch line he's jockeying for...
Edited on Sat May-31-08 09:55 AM by papapi
...he learned valuable lessons in politics and applied them to winning the Presidency. If he is the best at doing that, why should he wait behind some less competent candidate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Stalwart71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
27. That is how Repugs think, not how Democrats ought to think n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
balantz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
28. The whole thing is a farce,
and has been for a long time.

We get rallied into believing we are taking part in our process when actually we are a part of their process.

The Powers That Be say whos turn it is, or isn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greylyn58 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #28
33. Amen balantz...n/t




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
29. I don't either. No candidate is entitled to the nomination.
It must be earned.

This isn't about what's best for Clinton or Obama. It's about what's best for us as Americans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
30. Its the old way nominees were determined
and its the way nominees are determined in the GOP.

So the people saying that are either old or from the GOP in my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Berry Cool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
31. Actually, it's a very feminine mindset. And I say that as a woman, so don't call me a sexist.
It's true. As girls, we are socialized not to fight, to be polite, to share and to take turns. If there is one thing everyone wants, and it can be shared without being consumed--such as use of a toy--but we cannot all enjoy it at once, we have been socialized to determine a hierarchy of "who deserves it/should have it first, who gets it next, etc." Normally, this works out quite well. For example, if there's a tire swing in my yard and you come over to play, you're the guest, so I'll offer it to you to ride first, and we'll take turns from there.

If we were boys, we might be more likely to fight over use of the swing. Or, you might come over to my yard and start swinging, and I'd run out and say "Get out of our yard, that's MY swing." We might end up trading blows.

There are certain levels of politics at which it's understood that turn-taking is the norm. Normally, though, that's at a lower level, such as local town politics, and it's done in such a way that everyone who seriously wants a chance to hold a given position has it. At that level, it's more or less possible, and it's usually because everyone recognizes the position as a temporary stepping stone to something better, and as people move on to that something better, they leave the position vacant for others after them to gain the experience.

Obviously, once you get to President of the United States, that's no longer possible. Not everyone is going to reach that pinnacle, and it has to be earned through a lengthy process of campaigning and winning primaries and then a party nomination, followed by a general election. Turn-taking doesn't really enter into the equation.

But something tells me that privately, within the Clinton household, there was an understanding between two very strong and ambitious people that while both wanted to be President someday, both could not do it at once, so one would have to do it first. That one would be the man, because it would be easier for him to win. His win would then, as they saw it, pave the road for the woman.

That's how the Clintons, between themselves, agreed upon it and set it up. He would win first, serve for eight years if all went well, then he would step out and she would lay the groundwork for her own eventual election by running for, winning and serving in the Senate. When sufficient time had passed for her to not look like an upstart who had accomplished nothing on her own, and to gain some serious political and financial mojo, she would then throw her hat into the ring. With any luck, it would be at a point when the opposing party had essentially bankrupted its own chances to win. As it so happened, this year, the climate was exactly as they hoped.

What they didn't count on was an interloper. Yeah, sure, they knew that technically, no one else who wanted to be President was obligated to play by their privately agreed-upon "turn-taking" rules. They knew that others were free to run if they so chose. What they expected, though, was that the other players contending for the nomination would lose primaries to the point where they would eventually, gracefully, drop out, leaving Hillary alone as the nominee.

It didn't turn out that way. Something happened on the way to inevitability, and that something was Barack Obama, and the enthusiasm and support he was able to raise.

He upset the Clintons' apple cart. He ruined their turn-taking plan--and he did it without following the same plan she did, to become a two-term senator first.

As far as they're concerned, in their minds, he jumped the queue. He failed to realize it was "Hillary's turn." And they cannot forgive him for it.

And many of Hillary's female supporters, having been socialized to believe in the all-importance of turn-taking, cannot forgive him either.

The Presidency is a limited commodity. Not everyone can have it, and there's a small window during which winning it is realistically possible for anyone. They see that window as closing for her--and not just for her, but for WOMEN, ALL WOMEN, period, if SHE doesn't get it RIGHT NOW!--whereas for him, and presumably for men like him, it will be open for quite some time longer. So the whole business of who actually EARNED it through following the rules and fighting the best political fight matters nothing to them.

In their eyes, if he wins it, even by completely fair means, it's not "fair," because he's trying to take it away from someone for whom this may be the last chance of getting it, when he could easily step back and get it another time.

The way they see it, he SHOULD be polite, step back and let her have it this time. Because, while he may have earned it, it's HER TURN.

It's an absurd way of thinking, because of course the Presidency isn't like that. It isn't supposed to go to the person whose "turn" it supposedly is, it is supposed to go to the winner.

But that's not how they see it.

Does this at least help you see their line of thinking?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamjoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #31
36. Yes, But With Women
it goes beyond that. You are right that it is not just for Hillary, but for all women. It goes deeper though because women have traditionally been asked to step aside for the man. The boy always got his turn, his portion first and then, maybe the girl would get hers. In many cultures, when food is scarce, the male gets his first. Families that could or can only afford to send one child to school (or college) might send the boy, even if the girl was older and possibly smarter.

So, that sort of undercurrent is running through it too - at least for many women. I like Barack Obama over Hillary, but I empathize with her and might be a little angrier about the whole thing if he weren't African American because that is another people that have been oppressed in this country, and not had their "turn" at success. Ironically, I was originally supporting John Edwards, but that was before race and gender became more of a factor in the process.

And yes, since any political race is a zero sum game, waiting one's turn and sharing doesn't really work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eurobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
32. What if someone had told a young Gov. from ARK the same thing
it would have gone over like a lead balloon.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
35. Its always the voters turn - candidates don't make the call
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mezzo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
37. I feel the same about the Hilary should bow out thing...makes it sound
like there is supposed to be a coronation, not a convention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Dec 27th 2014, 10:14 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC