What Makes Obama Run

[HAL 9000 96]

I make up my own mind about things. I have no preconceived notions, I don't form my opinions from blogs. I look at the facts that are presented and there aren't enough to be sure of anything but that he wants things to be different. That's not enough for me while it may be for you.

Fine, he wants to be a facilitator for change but surely even a facilitator has to have a plan for what he is going to facilitate or at least have someone in the sidelines with a plan lined up. Where is this plan? What is this plan?

Again, I do think as senator and previously as state legislator he should have been able to achieve at least a working model of what he wants this new alliance democracy to look like and yet there is nothing. Why?

Alliance democracy as President, not legislator. That's why.

For the rest, well, its your right to think that way.

[Peikko 1,575]

What does that mean? Really? Are you simply saying that he will work across party lines? I mean, please, that is not new!

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I think both Clinton and McCain have a lot better record of "working across the aisle" than Obama, it's not really his unique selling point

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh, if he is so good at this, why aren't I being flooded with examples of how he has made these things happen through out his so far somewhat short career?

[HAL 9000 96]

What does that mean? Really? Are you simply saying that he will work across party lines? I mean, please, that is not new!

No, its not new. I am implying based on his own ideas.

I think both Clinton and McCain have a lot better record of "working across the aisle" than Obama, it's not really his unique selling point

Yeah, we all know about working politicians.

Oh, if he is so good at this, why aren't I being flooded with examples of how he has made these things happen through out his so far somewhat short career?

Read the Article in the OP.

[Peikko 1,575]

So, you are basically relying on the fact that he says he will do things differently when he gets into the WH? Or am I missing something fundamental here?

I have already explained that my personal discomfort with him is that he talks the talk of an idealist but walks the walk of a career politician who wants to short cut his way to the top, give 4-8 years to his so called ideals and then exit stage left.

He already knows from personal experience that politics is not as straight forward as he would like it so if he really does want to affect these changes he's got his work cut out to achieve that in such a short time scale. Personally, I think that if he believes his own rhetoric he is going to be as sorely disillusioned by the WH experience as some of his more passionate supporters but the cynic in my says he doesn't really buy his own sales pitch.

I would much rather have seem him put some solid years in at Senate level, achieve some of the goals that he appears to have set himself and then taken on the WH to push through the changes at the highest level. That to me would be the mark of someone who wanted to see real change take place.

I did read the article in its entirety and there are no working examples of anything concrete. There are references to this and that but nothing solid, nothing real, nothing beyond the rhetoric. Now, if you have more, please post it as this is key.

[HAL 9000 96]

So, you are basically relying on the fact that he says he will do things differently when he gets into the WH? Or am I missing something fundamental here?

I have already explained that my personal discomfort with him is that he talks the talk of an idealist but walks the walk of a career politician who wants to short cut his way to the top, give 4-8 years to his so called ideals and then exit stage left.

He already knows from personal experience that politics is not as straight forward as he would like it so if he really does want to affect these changes he's got his work cut out to achieve that in such a short time scale. Personally, I think that if he believes his own rhetoric he is going to be as sorely disillusioned by the WH experience as some of his more passionate supporters but the cynic in my says he doesn't really buy his own sales pitch.

I would much rather have seem him put some solid years in at Senate level, achieve some of the goals that he appears to have set himself and then taken on the WH to push through the changes at the highest level. That to me would be the mark of someone who wanted to see real change take place.

I did read the article in its entirety and there are no working examples of anything concrete. There are references to this and that but nothing solid, nothing real, nothing beyond the rhetoric. Now, if you have more, please post it as this is key.

Very well written, PH. He could do anything suggested above. Chances are if he doesn't win the nomination, he'll be back for more the next time around with much more of a platform from exactly that... (at least) 4 more years of Senatorial experience. Then we'd see what you think of him after a probable (in that case) JM presidency.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I think both Clinton and McCain have a lot better record of "working across the aisle" than Obama, it's not really his unique selling point

Yeah, we all know about working politicians.

That what? Clinton sponsored legislation with Rick Santorum - McCain with Ted Kennedy. I would call that working across the aisle.

[GaryC 7]

I think both Clinton and McCain have a lot better record of "working across the aisle" than Obama, it's not really his unique selling point

Yeah, we all know about working politicians.

That what? Clinton sponsored legislation with Rick Santorum - McCain with Ted Kennedy. I would call that working across the aisle.

Don't forget McCain / Feingold and the alliance with dem senators over court appointments. I didn't like them but they are examples of him working with the dems. If uniting the country is your goal then the only real choice is McCain.

[Peikko 1,575]

I'll ask you this, in your opinion this new democracy that Barack says he wants to build, with alliances from grass roots up. What does that mean to you? It doesn't mean all that much to me as I am not sure how you can please all the people all the time. That being said, I do think that it is a good thing to analyze political structure from time to time and see if they measure up.

Clearly one of his main criticisms of the current political climate is that too many politicians get caught up in the mechanics of the job and pay too much importance to getting re elected rather than affecting change in the lives of real people. Now, if I go along with that perspective 100% then surely something within the current democratic model is not working. In that case what would have to change at state legislative and senate level in terms of working practices? Would the current legislative system accommodate his kind of alliance democracy if minor changes were put in place? Or would the Senate or house have to change fundamentally to ensure that politicians become 'more accountable' to their constituents and less caught up in their own personal political career?

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I think both Clinton and McCain have a lot better record of "working across the aisle" than Obama, it's not really his unique selling point

Yeah, we all know about working politicians.

That what? Clinton sponsored legislation with Rick Santorum - McCain with Ted Kennedy. I would call that working across the aisle.

Don't forget McCain / Feingold and the alliance with dem senators over court appointments. I didn't like them but they are examples of him working with the dems. If uniting the country is your goal then the only real choice is McCain.

I think I may actuallly agree with you on this. I know you don't like it, but I do think McCain's bipartisanship is impressive

[HAL 9000 96]

Although not directly dealing with working as a politician across the aisle, which he has plenty of experience (gosh how we love that word) doing from Illinois, here's an interesting column article:

'Obama Republicans'?

By Salena Zito

TRIBUNE-REVIEW

Sunday, February 3, 2008

ST. LOUIS

If one great communicator -- the eloquent Ronald Reagan -- could build a coalition of disaffected Democrats that swung both of his presidential elections his way, can an almost-great communicator -- the fiery Barack Obama -- build a coalition of disaffected Republicans to swing the Democrat primary election his way?

It's possible, says Brian F. Schaffner, an assistant professor of political science at American University in Washington, D.C.

Even though Obama probably takes more liberal positions on many issues than does Hillary Clinton, Schaffner says the perception among Republicans is that he is more moderate.

story continues below

"This is a matter of style over substance," Schaffner notes. "Obama speaks so often of bringing the parties together and working with Republicans, he seems less polarizing to Republicans than Clinton, who has long been demonized by that party."

The Pew Research Center corroborates Schaffner's inkling. It recently produced a report showing that Obama is perceived as more liberal than Clinton among Democrats, yet is seen as more moderate than Clinton among Republicans.

One Republican who isn't afraid of Obama's liberalism is John Martin, who directs the grassroots Web organization "Republicans for Obama."

A Bronx, N.Y., native who was very active in the Young Republicans in college, Martin, 29, is in law school but serving on active duty in Afghanistan as a U.S. Navy reservist. E-mailing from Afghanistan, Martin said his group has more than 400 members since he last checked and that the Web site's server received so many clicks the day Obama won Iowa that it crashed.

Lisa Kinzer, 30, is another rock-ribbed Republican who's gone Obama. The Norman, Okla., native has been a registered Republican for 12 years. She has nothing against President Bush. But she does have a problem with the GOP's 2008 candidates.

Their bickering over the morality of using torture while interrogating terrorist suspects in an early debate was her turning point, she says, so she went to shop on the Democrats' side and picked Obama -- who she believes stands the best chance of uniting the nation by "reminding us of what we all have in common, our love of this country and our hope for its future."

Towson University science professor Antonio Campbell is a lifelong Republican -- he even ran as one in Maryland's 7th Congressional District 10 years ago. Yet if Obama wins the Democrats' nomination, Campbell says he will become an "Obama Republican."

"Obama's message reads like Reagan's playbook -- individual strength, faith and behaving in a fiscally competent way," Campbell says.

Obama is the only Democrat he would vote for, Campbell adds. His second choice is John McCain.

"The opportunity does seem to be out there for Obama to build an 'Obama Republican' coalition," says Cal Jillson, political science professor at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

While Obama clearly will not replicate Reagan's policies, Jillson says, he might replicate Reagan's larger theme of America as a land of opportunity. He might even persuade some Republicans "that government can effectively help families meeting their most serious challenges, like steady jobs at good pay, health care and college tuition at affordable prices.

"Reagan represented a fundamental shift in politics -- he created a majority coalition, and the voting population changed," says Jillson, as the primaries head into Super Tuesday.

If Obama can do to Republicans what Reagan did to Democrats, then Obama really will be 2008's "candidate of change."

[HAL 9000 96]

This one does have plenty to do with his abilities as a cooperative politician:

Police interrogation law showed Obama's skill in Illinois senate

By Steven Thomma | McClatchy Newspapers

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Facing the challenge of overhauling the death-penalty law in a state rocked by revelations of botched prosecutions, Illinois state Sen. John Cullerton made a tactical decision.

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee decided to separate one controversial proposal from the broader package, one that would require videotaping interrogations in murder cases. Police and prosecutors opposed it so much that keeping it in the broader package threatened to sink the whole effort.

The state senator who later took on the task of pushing the proposal to videotape interrogations was Barack Obama.

Obama worked with Democrats, Republicans and especially with police and prosecutors to fashion a bill that all of them could support. By the time it reached the Senate floor, everyone was on board. It passed in a unanimous vote, and is now Illinois law.

How Obama did it reveals a lot about his political style, which is at the core of his appeal. It defines an approach to political problem solving that he vows can change how Washington does business.

Whether he could replicate his Illinois success as president remains to be seen, however. Others have come from statehouses with similar promises to change Washington — including such former governors as Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush — only to find the national capital far different and more hostile terrain.

Nonetheless, Obama's record in the Illinois Senate (1996-2004) shows that he often was able to bring together opposing forces in one room, emerge with agreement and enact legislation.

"In early '03, we were going to enact the recommendations of a governor's task force on the death penalty," Cullerton said. "There were 64 recommendations . . . . But the videotaping was too controversial. If I were to include it in my bill, it would take the whole thing down. We figured that one was going to be almost impossible to pull off."

"We stopped it for a number of years," said Greg Sullivan, the executive director of the Illinois Sheriffs' Association

"He (Obama) called us and said, 'We need to work on this together. We need to bring this to conclusion,' " Sullivan said. "He's very good at bringing people to the table and getting to the core of tough issues."

One issue for police was the cost of buying videotaping equipment. Sullivan said. "For small-county sheriffs, this was a big issue." Obama worked to add state financing.

Another problem was the push to make police tape every step of an investigation as soon as they identified someone as a suspect. Cops hated that.

"He was the only one to understand we don't run around with cameras on our foreheads," said Limey Nargelenas of the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police.

"We might be working at a crime scene when someone comes forward and says, 'I did it.' We can't stop and say, 'Wait, we needs lights, cameras.' . . . He gave us that to help us out," Nargelenas said.

Another obstacle was a proposal from several legislators to release any suspect in a case in which the videotaping didn't work.

"The ACLU was not willing to give in. But what if the tape broke? Obama said, 'Let's say if you can provide evidence to the judge that you didn't do this on purpose, the judge has the option to keep the case or throw it out,' " Nargelenas said.

While Sullivan thought that Obama's willingness to negotiate was crucial to passing the bill, Nargelenas thought it was more a courtesy that bought good will and unanimity. He noted that the Democrats had just won the governor's office and control of the legislature.

"They could have pushed through any bill, and there was nothing we could have done about it," Nargelenas said. "He (Obama) did the same thing with (a bill to prohibit) racial profiling. We found him willing to look at both sides."

In addition to bringing police and prosecutors to the table with the ACLU and others, Obama won over the committee's top Republican, state Sen. Kirk Dillard. Dillard has since appeared in an Obama TV ad lauding his political skill, though he's endorsed Republican John McCain for president.

Other Republicans aren't as generous, stressing that it was the Republican former governor, George Ryan, who first recognized the problems with the state's death penalty system.

"Obama wasn't really in the driver's seat at all," said state Sen. Christine Radogno, a Republican leader in the Senate. "He signed on to things Republicans initiated. Barack does not have an unpleasant style. But just working out the details, that's something that all legislators do."

State capital politics — with their less polarized, more familiar relationships — often are much different from Washington's.

Bush, for example, pointed to his record of working well with Democrats in the Texas legislature as a sign of how he'd change politics in Washington.

But both parties in the Texas statehouse were more conservative, and the divide there was easier to bridge.

In Washington, Bush initially tried bipartisan negotiation, working with Democrats on education, for example, and persuading conservative Democrats to support his tax cuts.

But he gradually changed his style to govern as a partisan. He wrote a major energy policy in secret, for example, without bringing environmentalists to the table alongside oil and gas companies.

Like Clinton before him, Bush found an entrenched opposition in Washington prodded by a professional political class that raises money and frames issues through fights, not by seeking compromise and agreement.

"This notion of Obama's that I'm going to bring people together is just not the way politics works. That's a pipe dream," said George Edwards, a scholar of the presidency at Texas A&M University. "Take a rigorous look at what happens in the real world, that's not how it works in Washington."

The last president to try Obama's approach was the elder George Bush, who never served in a statehouse.

He called all sides together at a secluded site at Andrews Air Force Base to negotiate a budget deal. The plan cut the federal budget deficit as desired. But it included tax increases, and Bush's conservative base pilloried him.

To Leon Panetta, a former White House chief of staff for Clinton, the Bush budget deal remains a sign that politicians in Washington can still forge compromise.

"If you're someone capable of cutting deals and get people to work together at the state level, the same principle holds true even if you're playing in a bigger league in Washington," Panetta said.

Edwards disagreed, noting that the Bush budget deal was the exception, not the rule, and that the political culture in Washington has changed since then.

"It's worse now," Edwards said. "The polarization is greater. It is the way to go. But it's a hell of lot harder than it is on the state level . . . . It would be a mistake to infer that success at the state level will mean success at the national level."

LINK

[GaryC 7]

"Even though Obama probably takes more liberal positions on many issues than does Hillary Clinton, Schaffner says the perception among Republicans is that he is more moderate."

Speaking as a Rep that has a lot of Rep friends I can say that statement is not accurate. It's more of a wish by his supporters than reality. Maybe they hope that if they tout Obama as a moderate that will compromise with reps, some that don't take the time to really look at the man may be fooled. Those of us that are paying attention are not fooled. If he turns out to be the nominee I am sure his liberal record will get a full airing.

[HAL 9000 96]

"Even though Obama probably takes more liberal positions on many issues than does Hillary Clinton, Schaffner says the perception among Republicans is that he is more moderate."

Speaking as a Rep that has a lot of Rep friends I can say that statement is not accurate. It's more of a wish by his supporters than reality. Maybe they hope that if they tout Obama as a moderate that will compromise with reps, some that don't take the time to really look at the man may be fooled. Those of us that are paying attention are not fooled. If he turns out to be the nominee I am sure his liberal record will get a full airing.

And that it will, Gary.

The problem is that liberals are much more inclusive and tolerant of other "leanings" in the political process than conservatives tend to be by experience.