Why Obama does need to demonstrate some independence from the party

[kennetha]

Some on DU are dismissing McCain's attack on Obama for not showing any past willingness or tendency to stand up to the democratic party. The thought seems to be that since we democrats are always on the side of the angels, there is no point to be gained for Obama distancing himself from the party.

But I think this line of thinking is both naive and dangerous. I think Obama very much does need to show that he is something more than a mere party man.

That's because historically, many, many democrats have taken way too much money from the lobbyists, corporate movers and shakers, entrenched interests that don't really care who is in power. Some interest groups are definitely driven by ideology and give money only to candidates that share their ideology. But many, many of them -- especially the corporate ones -- correctly believe that money talks and walks much more powerfully than ideology in DC.

Certainly, before the advent of the Abramoff scandals -- which were definitely way, way one-sided in favor of the Repugs -- K street was an equal opportunity sucker up to power. Entrenched interests have historically blocked healthcare reform, meaningful energy reform. They have helped distort the tax code. They have made certain elements of educational reform off limits. INdeed, they have stopped all sorts of far reaching legislation dead in its tracks. And they have done so not simply because they have given money to the Republicans. Many, many Democrats have historically fed at the very same trough.

Obama in his primary campaign promised to break through all that. And his tacit message was that democrats and republicans were both to some extent captives of lobbyists and special interests. He represented himself as a decisive break with that past. He promised us a new politics more firmly grounded in the real aspirations and needs of the American people.

He CANNOT concede the mantle of independence from the entrenched powers that be -- and that includes independence from his own party establishment -- to McCain. He simply CANNOT. If he does, he LOSES!

One thing that means practically is that he cannot become merely the defender of all things democratic, merely the lead spokesperson for the party's agenda.

That would play into McCain's hands in another way too. Many voters tacitly or explicitly prefer divided government. They tacitly believe that when the government is divided that one party puts a check on the more extremist tendencies of the other. Look at how brief, in recent years, our experiments in unified government have been. And recall that as low as the approval ratings of George the Second are, our democratic congress is about half as popular these days as Bush.

So i do not think, unfortunately, that Obama can explicitly run as a person who favors all things democratic in the current climate. Of course, by keeping his mentions of the party and the possibility of unified government as subtext rather than text he gives us a better chance to get what we actually need -- a unified government that can actually make some things happen

[barack the house]

1. ...

...

[barack the house]

2. ...

...

[barack the house]

3. His ethics refrom bill was a bill that went against some intrests in both parties. Obama is ->

independent in his primary campaign against establishment. Proof alone.

[kennetha]

4. I don't disagree with this

And it gives him a way to answer McCain. I'm just objecting to those who say "Why does he need to take a stand against his own party, when his party is right 99% of the time" or something like that.

[NJmaverick]

5. The McSame attack is misleading (bet that suprises everyone)

it ignores the FACT that McSame's party got this Country in the mess it's in, not Obamas. So Obamam isn't the one that has to buck or fight his screwed up party.

[kennetha]

6. But Obama did and should represent himself

as an agent of BIPARTISAN change. He has to be more than a democratic partisan.

Of course, the republicans have screwed things up. But they haven't held unified power during Bush's entire term. We've controlled both houses the last two years. And we were marginally in control of the Senate for awhile early in his term, thanks to Jeffords. Our time of control included the vote that gave us the misbegotten invasion of Iraq. Plus even after expanding their majorities in 2004, the republican majorities were still pretty small by historical standards.

[kurth_]

7. Democrats should let Republicans in Congress keep their desks and pencils

That's my definition of bipartisanship.

[Overseas]

8. The attack is a lie and whatever Obama does, JSM III will continue lying.

Obama has showed a lot of independence. He's incorporated some Republicans in his team of advisers, which makes some Democrats angry. He talks going beyond party politics-- moving FORWARD rather than backward, instead of the D or R framework.

JSM III wants to pretend Barack is business as usual and he's not. Hasn't been from the beginning.

Quite a few Republicans plan to cross party lines this time and that has the JSM III camp worried. So they'll try like the Dickens to make Obama into a regular old Democrat. Because he isn't.

Obama is a pragmatic progressive and we all know our nation needs to make some dramatic progress to fix the economy and wean ourselves off of fossil fuels. A lot of people realize we really need that help as soon as possible.

[kennetha]

9. So I think you and I agree.

Obama can't and shouldn't give up the claim to independence. He's not the mere lead spokesperson for the democratic party.

Perhaps, he could stand to reiterate that message. He was pretty strong on this point during the primaries -- partly because he was running to seize control of the party from a creature the establishment, I guess.