Obama gets a few tips…
Late night advice from a friend (and an Obama supporter) here in Hellas:
Niceness will get you nowhere when you are up against the Orwellian Mrs. Clinton, who, by gaining a last gasp of air in Ohio, thinks she has a mandate; she reminds me of Greece’s PASOK party, who lose an election and manage to convince us that they won it.
It’s surprising Obama hasn’t resorted to nasty tactics already. Still, I guess some of his appeal lies in just that. Of course he is bound to get ‘nasty’, given the way these primaries turned out, if he’s really going after the nomination. That’s part of what politics is about, after all.
Eh. Obama’s Canada-NAFTA-gate didn’t go across too well now, did it?
Did you, by any chance, mean to write ‘get across’? Are you claiming that NAFTA-gate is proof that Obama is not as ’straight-talking’ as people think he is? Or are you implying that NAFTA-gate was Hillary playing nasty in her attempt to change public opinion before the Ohio/Texas election and her wins yesterday fueled responses such as Dajieblack’s from Obama supporters? I think you probably meant the first one, but it’s not exactly clear. Either way, I think I’ll wait before passing judgement on this one; the evidence is definitely insufficient with regards to NAFTA-gate. And it’s more or less clear (to me at least) that Obama’s campaign has been far more civilised than Hillary’s: which begs the question, would he be as popular if he had resorted to the same kind of tactics that Hillary has been using, earlier in the game? Dajieblack’s post may have been graphic, exaggerated, colourful in its presentation and clearly biased — she is after all obviously supporting Obama, but she still has a point: Obama will have to get nasty. Or at least nastier than what he’s been to date if he’s going to compete with the Clinton PR Machine.
I actually meant to write “come across” but I think my point came across anyway.
Yes, I meant that political realities mean that a politician simply can’t be the agent of change and hope that Obama is portraying himself as. If he does win the nomination, that realization will hopefully set in after he’s won the White House, but it’s going to come regardless.
That is the reason that I totally cannot get excited about Obama. I certainly wouldn’t mind him, and he’s a great candidate, but I’d rather have the Orwellian game I can see through than the more opaque Orwellian meta-game. Let’s face it, given a healthy dose of cynicism, you have to see that either Obama is deluding us or he’s deluding himself.
I’m not convinced by your reasoning. In particular, I’m not sure it’s better to vote for someone you know — and consider Orwellian, by your own account — than someone that doesn’t excite you because you allow yourself healthy doses of cynicism. Idealism is what makes Obama inspirational and what — if anything — might result in actually good policies in the end. It’s not (only) about Obama as a person/politician. It’s about how much he has inspired people merely through rhetoric. It creates expectations and changes the way the game is played for the better. This is phenomenal in US politics and a very rare occasion. If he does get elected through such a campaign, he’d probably be forced to do something, even if it were much less than what he originally promised in his rallies and speeches, or he would be committing political suicide. Second, I’m not sure that he cannot be an agent for change; if anything I’m quite certain he can do an equally good, or better job than Hillary in many areas. Sure, he’s not going to single-handedly reform everything sour in the US, but Hillary comes across as unwilling to do much anyway. Finally, I don’t think he’s deluding or delusional. I expect that if he gets elected as president his policies will be met with the resistance Hillary faced in 1995-1996 with her healthcare reform etc. Arguably, his idealism stems from the fact that, contrary to Hillary of 2008, he is much less assimilated in D.C. politics than she is and as a consequence he’s much more willing to do something to change things. And as president he might even succeed. Anyway you see it, even if he doesn’t end up successfully reforming US politics, as he probably won’t, that’s no reason to support Hillary. And by sharing a healthy dose of cynicism with you — it’s quite clear that she stands no chance against McCain anyway.
Well this could lead to a very long discussion. Perhaps I’ll pick it back up later in the week. For now though, don’t be so sure about your electability convictions. People tend to feel pretty strongly about the predictability of one candidate or another, but truth be told, nobody knows how it will be played out, and what your average voter really thinks. For example, take a look at the latest electability numbers, which have changed a lot but are now solidly pro-Hillary. Do I buy them? No, not necessarily. I think it could swing the other way around in another couple of weeks. But it’s silly to claim one candidate is truly much more electable than the other. The bottom line in all this debate should never be forgotten: they’re both great candidates.
I believe it was clear that the comment was tongue in cheek; I was trying to convey how pointless it is to be as cynical as you came across in your first comment regarding Obama’s intentions. I’m rarely as cynical as this. Regarding Hillary’s electability it remains to be seen, and she is an impressive candidate supported by one of the most successful and charismatic presidents of the past century. In any case, I’d be happy to continue this discussion at a later time.
Canada-NAFTA-gate?
Kosti, I agree they’re both strong candidates, but you need to ditch that Krugman guy =)
The best pollster out there has determined that Barack is slightly more electable than Hillary at this point. True, they both win. But I wonder how long either of them will be able to hold on to their lead, esp. if Hillary succeeds in making this (yet another) ‘national security election.’
There ya go.
Ha, I was about to link to the electoral college projections.
Yorgo, you’re right on Hillary’s nonconstructive new pitch. Just as unhelpful as Obama’s earlier domestic policy criticisms, only a tad more dangerous for Democrats. Still, it’s not something inherent to the candidate, only her latest idea for a differentiator with Obama.
Anyway, we’ll see how things go, but I still don’t really get Obamamania.
I don’t think Obamamania has or is ever going to inflict me, but I do feel that you’ve got a somewhat slanted viewpoint. “Just as unhelpful” and “only a tad more dangerous”? Criticism and insults among candidates are cheap and plentiful in politics, but taking the election campaign over to traditional Republican policy territory when facing an opponent as hawkish, yet socially ‘liberal’ as McCain, let alone using this as a differentiator is hardly ‘a tad more dangerous’ than either Obama’s or Hillary’s criticisms of each other’s record, policies, achievements etc. to date. I think Obamamania is hard to ‘get’ when you’ve already contracted Hillarymania. Still, they are both fun to watch. :)