Obama Brand: Truth or Consequences

[metta 0]

I don't like the campaing funding idea at all Steve. I don't think people should be elected on the strength of their ability to raise funds. Being a good fund raiser and being a good politician are not exactly interchangeable states.

The public funding ideal is still a good one, it's the way elections take place and the absolutely crazy sums of money that are spent on them that are completely wrong in my opinion.

As for the 'he didn't expect...' argument, yes, he's choosing expediency over principles. I get that, do you?

Well, I agree with PH. I am all for public financing. Infact I'd like to go furhter and place time limits on campaigns which is also a driver of campaign costs.

" Had I known then what I know now..." argument smacks of HRC on Iraq. is that not the big no no that was held against her?

Iraq and Campaign Financing are two issues that are not even on the same level. But its a little bit more complex than that.

Granted Hillary likely had a lot of pressure to vote for the war, being the Senator from New York, and how it was sold in connection to 9/11. It would have been nice if she questioned in detail the evidence presented to go to war, but its understandable why she voted the way she did.

I think her problems really came with how she changed her mind about it. She really stuck by it, until it became a liability. Instead of more " Had I known then what I know now..." argument it was more "I want the Democratic nomination, so I need to do something about the war...".

"I want the Democratic nomination presidency, so I need to do something about the war abandon my erstwhile promise to stick with public financing...". Voila ! you get barry.

The point here is Expediency versus Integrity.

I see that even elements on moveon and daily kos are up in arms about this flip flop.

(note to self: need to ask Dog where to find those big pink FLIP FLOP icons)

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think the key point here is that the way Obama has positioned himself as this agent of reform - the public image he is presenting isn't borne out by scrutiny. Things like this only reinforce that doubt about what he actually stands for... the new or the "same old".

While some people may be willing to overlook that on the basis of having a Democratic candidate in the White House - you can't really deny that it won't present him with some problems when it comes to selling himself to Independents and swing voters. Kerry lost on the basis of "better the devil you know", its not all that inconceivable that the same could happen here.

McCain is going to take a hit from the unpopularity from Bush - but you can't really hope that this will give Obama a win simply by itself... He needs to sell himself to the public - unambiguously.

The rhetoric has not fallen from substance. Look at what he did with the Democratic Party in terms of donations immediately after Hillary conceded. Like I said, public financing was a noble idea, but under our current reformed laws on campaign financing, it is possible to do even better than what any public financing could do.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

As regards to ideals, I am closer to the Democratic side but not unquestioningly and I have not ruled out voting for Mccain either.

So, looking at McCain, you don't see him breaking with long held principles? I mean, really, McCain has flip flopped on just about any issue he could flip flop on. So much so, that McCain of 2008 would not support the McCain that ran for the Republican nomination for President back in 2000.

[Dan J 277]

Health care reform rules him out for me. I really do think that America would be a better place for the majority of its citizens if the government could put in place a system that does give adequate care for all citizens. However, I think McCain would be better for foreign policy. Ho hum.

I agree, but as much as I support Obama, I'm not sure he will have the political power to deliver an effective system on a national level. But I don't think anyone can for that matter.

Many of the arguments against Universal health care is really irrational. I think we will need several states implementing successful system first, before the initiative will be on both sides to put in place an effective national system.

Medicare Part D was sort of a limited attempt at doing this. But with the way it relied on private industry, and took away most of the power from government (to negotiate drug prices and alike), it turned into an expensive disaster.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Medicare Part D was sort of a limited attempt at doing this. But with the way it relied on private industry, and took away most of the power from government (to negotiate drug prices and alike), it turned into an expensive disaster.

I would go so far as to suggest that this was a deliberate and homemade disaster to further the useless propaganda against nationalized healthcare.

[Ban Hammer 13,651]

I do think though, that I would like to see some of the stalwart supporters of Barack recognize that these are serious issues and not just brush them aside as propoganda.

it's not going to happen, many are too rabid about their candidate.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think the key point here is that the way Obama has positioned himself as this agent of reform - the public image he is presenting isn't borne out by scrutiny. Things like this only reinforce that doubt about what he actually stands for... the new or the "same old".

While some people may be willing to overlook that on the basis of having a Democratic candidate in the White House - you can't really deny that it won't present him with some problems when it comes to selling himself to Independents and swing voters. Kerry lost on the basis of "better the devil you know", its not all that inconceivable that the same could happen here.

McCain is going to take a hit from the unpopularity from Bush - but you can't really hope that this will give Obama a win simply by itself... He needs to sell himself to the public - unambiguously.

The rhetoric has not fallen from substance. Look at what he did with the Democratic Party in terms of donations immediately after Hillary conceded. Like I said, public financing was a noble idea, but under our current reformed laws on campaign financing, it is possible to do even better than what any public financing could do.

Well the criticism of that "No lobbyist funding" thing was that it basically amounts to a one-off for the purposes of this election - pushing the idea of change without really doing anything substantial or long-term to effect it.

For me this comes back to Obama's campaign slogan - its vague and ambiguous, but specific enough for him to be judged on it (and criticised) again and again in relation to whatever policy issue he chooses to discuss. I think his campaign management were frankly stupid to push that angle. This campaign finance thing is just one example of that. I don't think it will torpedo his candidacy or really have much of an impact at all - but this kind of thing will surely raise questions from undecided voters.

Quite simply his campaign has positioned itself in such a way that its promising high standards that it can't realistically deliver and in doing so is creating problems for itself that are simply unnecessary. It takes the emphasis off what Obama is saying (on healthcare, the war on terror, the economy etc) and onto whether or not he's providing anything "new".

As I say - I think the Democrats seem to be doing everything they can to piss this election down the toilet. Given Bush's unpopularity you'd think that the Dems would win by a landslide with the right candidate - but with polls showing minimal differences between McCain and Obama - its not exactly encouraging...

Edited June 25, 2008 by Number 6

[HAL 9000 96]

6, I think its a bit more complicated, yet simple, at the same time. Bush may be the object of quite a lot of ire and irritation at his complete failure as a President... but there are plenty of individuals ready to continue that line of politics no matter how off the mark that politik is... Lop on that cookie the bitter resentment at not having their candidate be the nominee, and the numbers get scattered into the wind- independent of both Democratic rivals being essentially identical in most issues that should have been of importance to the electorate.

In the future most parties will have to ensure its candidates have enough different platforms for voters to decide along ideological lines rather than accusing the other candidates of nonsense along the way.

All in all, given the length of the process, it is my understanding that once the actual nominations are official, there will be a bigger consolidation towards that candidate that will win the general election. Then people will be more apt to choose between the issues at hand: platform vs platform.