Bush ran as a conciliatory figure. Obama is doing that too.

[cali]

Has bushco governed as he ran? Of course not, he's rammed through what he wanted and rarely worked with dems. In fact, he ignored them as much as he could. He even ignored liberal repukes like Jeffords- to the point where Jefford quit the party.

It's a campaign tactic. They're all trying to do it to some degree, and whoever gets the nom will spout off that rhetoric even more. Does that make Obama dishonest, or just a good campaigner?

Americans want to hear about conciliation. They almost invariably do. But because Obama is using that rhetoric, doesn't mean he's not a fighter. I see him as a very canny fighter in this election cycle, and I believe he'll fight if he's elected president.

[H2O Man]

1. It is a style

of dealing with the issues that confront us as a nation.

[dmallind]

2. Possibly right, but a tough line to tiptoe

I mean there are three options here. Only one reflects well on Obama. It's the one I sincerely hope is true if he wins, but damn is he THAT good?

1. He's flat out bullshitting and will be a partisan slash and burn president like Bush. Personally I'm not going to be too bothered by this, but then he's completely blown his ability to run on this "new way" vibe again. Note that even Bush doesn't try to sell the "uniter" shit and didn't during his reelection

2. He's a naive idiot who will be surprised when the hand he extends in friendship is torn off at the wrist and thrown back at him with the middle finger extended by very much "old way" opposition leaders like McConnell. The man does not strike me as dumb but it's possible he's overestimating his own very considerable charisma and ability to inspire. Hubbard help us if this is what we get.

3. He really is an almost preternaturally capable and gifted politician who actually CAN get a fractured fractious DC to work together for the common good. It would be wonderful, and would mark him for Rushmore if nobody shoots him first (nobody can unite ALL the wingnuts) but how likely is it?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

5. actually, i think that if he manages to get a a fair number of the moderate

republican voters on his side during the election it would have the Republicans start from a weakened position, while the democrats would start from a stronger. The reps would have a weaker 'grip' on their power base and might actually have to act in a more 'sensible' manner if they want to keep their positions

Unrelated to this topic but i just have to share a quote i just came over that made me chuckle(besides, it seems fairly accurate: This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer.

[cloudythescribbler]

13. What about a more realistic VARIANT of the third "option"?

Obama could AIM to try to unite a broad enough public backing for meaningful reforms that the MAJORITY of Americans want:

Mainly illustrative:

*A health care program that, though perhaps falling short of single-payer (which Obama said, in the abstract, is the best system), but is as workable as what other leading Democrats are proposing and NOT the kind of scam (eg w/ Medicare) the Repukes have put forward

* Gay rights -- a comprehensive bill to include sexual orientation (like sex and race, etc) at the FEDERAL level in the protected categories against discrimination in both public and private sectors, with the same sorts of 'exceptions' (eg you don't have to have an equal number of men in bra commercials). He could leave gay marriage to the states, and then at least make some more intelligent accomodation regarding gays in the military, without making it a wedge issue that it was under Clinton

* A very broadly popular effort to push alternative energy and conservation (he's proposing only $150 billion over 10 years which I consider insufficient by an order of magnitude at least), in ways the Repukes would never consider but which most Americans, including conservatives, want.

* Similarly broad environmental efforts, possibly coupled with hearings in Congress focusing on uniting Americans around this urgent issue rather than dividing them on things like gays in the military. (In this area I am a longtime advocate of heavy taxes IN ADDITION TO HARD REGULATION on pollution and scarce resources; these could help deal with the deficit while popularly reducing much pollution, etc)

The list goes on. On issues of social justice and race there are very popular things (like a WPA type job-creation program) that could do a lot and very CONTROVERSIAL things like non-means tested affirmative action that create much more division (and are being eviscerated both at the referendum level, like in CA, and at the judicial level). As you can see, as with gay rights and health care, plenty of progressives would be dissatisfied, and RW wingnuts also. His 'unifying' appeal is mainly to those who only LEAN conservative but are basically moderate and not heavily ideological.

This is not an idiotic and unreasonable GOAL, and much of it might be accomplished, with a president willing to and with the savvy to optimally pursue it. If I had to CHOOSE WHO I think could pull this off among the main candidates of both parties, my answer would be: OBAMA.

[dmallind]

17. It's not the policies that I doubt though

It's his (and indeed anyone's) ability to get those policies through against opposition that will, barring inexplicably positive changes, remain knee-jerk and implacable.

[cloudythescribbler]

18. OK, so he can't part the Red Sea like Moses. But accomplish whatever's possible... nt

[OHdem10]

3. Painful as it is to recognize--the voters have split down racial

lines.

His conciliatory stance might have worked better if --he did
not need every black vote to win. This has created the havoc
and the fighting. Circumstances not Obama is the problem.

[cloudythescribbler]

14. Of course, "circumstances" are ALWAYS a problem -- the question is whether they can be overcome

I am with Obama on this general idea, though when he talks about the will and the resources somehow making nuclear energy adequately safe, I demur. But it is reflective -- as I see it -- of this general perspective I am trying to describe (see comment above)

[TooBigaTent]

4. After being burned by Democrats who promised to confront Bush* but caved

instead, I am very wary of any rhetoric that suggests making peace with the enemy.

I am not at all confident that an elected Obama will turn around and be the fighter we need.

Of course, if he wins and exhibits a John Carlos/Tommie Smith moment at his inaugration, I will gladly apologize to everyone here.

[bunkerbuster1]

6. I hope you're right.

I'm still undecided, but if I come to believe that he's just a very canny politician who will be hardnosed as any once in office, he'll get my primary vote on Feb. 5.

Good post.

[Rydz777]

7. Every candidate favors unity and hope. But these are not

policies; they are prayers.

[cloudythescribbler]

15. They are NEITHER policy nor prayer -- they are guiding principles

And like all guiding principles, if applied intelligently, they are adapted to "circumstances", as I point out in two other comments in this thread.

[maxsolomon]

8. i don't want to hear about conciliation. or reconciliation.

i want to hear about the GOP collapsing into the dustbin of history.

[cloudythescribbler]

16. If u want to overcome the GOP, you MUST have a pragmatic, centrist and unifying vision....

I personally favor the platform of Kucinich on a broad range of major issues (like health care and civil liberties). But even if he COULD get the nomination, COULD he win? Thinking realistically, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

But I still must admit that my OWN politics and outlook is more similar to the "fuck the RW and the underground creeps -- they, especially the latter, are a scourge upon the earth" And anyway we need eg net NEGATIVE carbon contribution and not just the kind of reforms that 'realists' are likely to bring.

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. The grown ups know this

The others scream that "But you said Obama wasn't political...isn't this a lie, huh, isn't it, isn't it????"

They're babies.

[cloudythescribbler]

10. The implicit comparison of Bush and Obama is flawed ...

Obama puts MUCH more emphasis on conciliation, and tries to give it some kind of real (and realistic) meaning. Although I can't pretend to read his mind, he seems a candidate of integrity almost at the opposite pole (among successful politicians) from W Bush.

It's a little like saying 'Hitler was a vegetarian. So was Gandhi -- you see, Gandhi wasn't the saint people make him out to be'.

[Skidmore]

11. Bush ran as a liar.

If anyone had bothered to research him thoroughly they would have realized he was nothing but a bully and thug. I read an article in the 80s in one of the news magazines about him when he was serving as the "enforcer" for his father's campaign. His job was to make certain people were loyal. It was not a flattering article and should have been republished during his campaign. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, something to keep in mind when looking at candidates period. There is no comparison between these two people that can be made with a straight face.

[Josiah1982]

12. this sounds like a good reason to vote for him?

cause he's like Bush? Cause he spouts out rhetoric? That makes him good? Doesn't make any sense.

[H2O Man]

19. "Doesn't make any sense."

[BenDavid]

20. Yea, and that got us what? to the worse times in american

history both foreign and domestic..... it will take a clinton to clean up this damn mess......and you can bet yo butts once she is elected the country as a whole will view this a positive and indicators will begin to rise and all will be positive....

[incapsulated]

21. Where is the record?

It's all fine and good to say, ignore what he says and believe he will fight.

I don't see it. I don't see it in his rhetoric. I don't see it in his Senate record. He always appeared to be a cautious centrist, frankly. And his actual policies are hardly anything that would be considered revolutionary.

I think he is exactly what he appears to be.

That is my problem with him, in fact.

Because there isn't enough "there" there. Very pretty speeches, lots of words that make people feel good but not much else. Not enough to make me think he can a) beat someone like McCain or b) not get into office with very little experience for a job that is going to test the toughest, wisest of men or women, in 2009, and sink.

I'm not looking for saviors or saints or even revolutionaries. I want someone who can win and someone who will be able to hit the ground running after the inauguration.