The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Dean was one of the few Democrats that realized they needed to find a way to win back working class moderates, especially in the South and other red areas. This was at the same time Kerry was claiming he could win the Presidency without the South. Dean wasn't exactly subtle about it for sure, but at least he was smart enough to realize that you don't ignore large regions of the country forever, and then expect them to ever vote for you. That's why, as DNC chair, he started giving lots of money to state chairs in red states, which pissed off people like Rahm and Carville, but ultimately proved successful in 06 and 08.

Plus, I think he's more of his own man than someone like Obama, who I feel is listening to some historically bad advice and apparently not having the backbone to dismiss it and go it his way. I think Dean is more likely to be that type of person. He seems not to care as much what people think about him and would be more willing to risk losing a re-election bid than placating people. And I admire a guy who had to wear a bulletproof vest because he signed a same sex union bill into law.

Since Dean was replaced as DNC Chair, the Rahm picked successor Tim Kaine sat there and watched as a Dem totally tanked the Mass. Senate race. Not an encouraging sign of things to come.

I don't remember if you grew up in Georgia or moved there lately, but you pretty much just described me. Since I grew up in Georgia, I was pretty much raised a conservative democrat (ie: I guess Bill Clinton / Sam Nunn type). I've grown slightly more moderate as I have gotten older, but pretty much remain a moderate that generally votes Democrat more than Republican. The exception for me seems to be most things state-race wise in massachusetts. I find most of Massachusetts politics to be more liberal than I like and tend to vote Republican more often in local races. (I lived in Texas for a few years and tended to vote Democrat most often there as a comparison).

Anyways, Dean was much more preferable to me during that race and I likely would have voted for him.

[Autumn]

I guess my cynical answer is that it's easy to look like an improvement when you're on the campaign trail or in a position like DNC chair. But while governor Dean just looked like another politician, to me at least and lots of people I knew. To me the proof of the pudding was his time as head executive of a government. i don't expect he'd be better given a larger government.

I imagine he looks like his own man just because he came out of a small state where he didn't need a lot of other people or machinery to get where he was. By the time he came close to the presidency I'm sure you'd see a very different guy.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

So is it even possible to be genuine public servant, have unique perspectives on the country and government, not be indebted to the machines that helped you along the way, have the skill and fortitude to actually promote and enact your vision, and still get elected to major public office? That must be a very short list.

All that money and organizational support doesn't come without strings attached. I think most people enter politics with good intentions, but the system inevitably beats them down and ideals get laid aside as winning the next election becomes the goal.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

All that money and organizational support doesn't come without strings attached. I think most people enter politics with good intentions, but the system inevitably beats them down and ideals get laid aside as winning the next election becomes the goal.

Because of the phenomenal perks that comes with being in Congress or as an appointee. I had always wondered why so much effort is expended on keeping the job and why some/most will do illegal or unethical things to ensure re-election.

[JPhillips]

Power is intoxicating and just keeping the trappings of power is enough for most electees.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Power is intoxicating and just keeping the trappings of power is enough for most electees.

Yet another argument for term limits and 100% public financing.

Really...you're going into public service...it should be less like a giant party and more like military. I'd like to see them living in dorms/barracks/standardized housing, forced to actually study the issues and take tests on them before votes to show their competency, etc.

but i'm a dreamer.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I understand the old jokes about how to tell if a politician is lying... he's moving his mouth. These two just take it to the next level and would try to sell your mother's car to you if they could.

In this way, I find John Edwards jaw-droppingly impressive. Here is a man who came into public life as a personal injury lawyer and a politician. And still managed to blow away our assumptions about how dirty he was. I mean, how low was the "decent human being" bar for John Edwards? And he still managed to come in under that bar with miles of space to spare.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Power is intoxicating and just keeping the trappings of power is enough for most electees.

But you'd think there'd be the odd one here or there that can rise above all that. Where are the people that have that kind of potential going? Are they just stuck in mediocre political careers, or are they off helping the world in some other way?

Actually, I guess do know some people like that, insanely dedicated public servants who put their service and doing what's right above everything. But they're all in non-political positions, or they're just not interested in politics.

[Buccaneer]

That's why I thought it was delusional to have expected anything different after the 2008 election.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

I've come to the conclusion as a nation, we're either going to look at how we've acted per civil liberties over this past decade or so either with horror or as part of the "good ole days" when you had at least some privacy. Unfortunately, I'm leaning towards the latter.

Yeah, I've had this fear for close to a decade now, too

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

That's why I thought it was delusional to have expected anything different after the 2008 election.

What I wonder is if Obama was delusional too, or if he was knowingly tapping into that delusion for votes. (Certainly the timing for that kind of strategy was more then perfect, coming off the Bush years people were more than ready for that).

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

That's true - and I suspect he would. He's all about getting elected/staying elected. So he'll do whatever he thinks he has to in order to make that happen.

Which kinda is a bit...i dunno...wishy-washy? without any real convictions?

I hate to say it, but I don't really find this as an inherent disadvantage. I don't really understand when people complain about "a politician flip flopping" or "a politician doing what is popular to stay elected". Isn't that the point of a democracy?

I realize that it leads to sacrificing long term gain for short term, sometimes. And it does matter if you think they are acting one way to get elected and then completely change so that makes it a trust issue and with Romney, that is the fear.

But when you get into office and do what is popular... well, isn't that what the majority elected the person for? To do the will of the majority (with some limits like tyranny of the majority, etc)?

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Colbert nailed it last night.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Pfft, you don't have to go as far as Dean. Hillary would have been better President. She's got more balls than Obama.

Well, and these two posts just sum it up in a nutshell. My wife and I were just talking over the weekend and she said something and it just hit me after two years. Basically, she said- well, he's just been disappointing. It's as if the primary didn't matter and Hillary Clinton was elected.

Now it's not that there's anything really wrong, per se, with Hillary Clinton as President. You're breaking a different boundary with a first time President. The right would still hate her unmercifully as they always have. Maybe she'd have prioritized a little differently and gotten things done in a different order and maybe that would have led to more efficiency, considering that she has more experience.

But, in short, there was seemingly a promise of something more with Obama. Instead, he's just been pretty pedestrian and mediocre and, frankly, has shown very few signs of changing that. Mediocre expectations and mediocre performance is less disappointing than high expectations and mediocre performance even tho, at the end of the day, it's the same mediocre performance.

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I hate to say it, but I don't really find this as an inherent disadvantage. I don't really understand when people complain about "a politician flip flopping" or "a politician doing what is popular to stay elected". Isn't that the point of a democracy?

I realize that it leads to sacrificing long term gain for short term, sometimes. And it does matter if you think they are acting one way to get elected and then completely change so that makes it a trust issue and with Romney, that is the fear.

But when you get into office and do what is popular... well, isn't that what the majority elected the person for? To do the will of the majority (with some limits like tyranny of the majority, etc)?

SI

Sorry - I wasn't clear exactly. With Romney it's that I think he acts one way to get elected in front of one group and then another way in front of another group, and then a third way entirely when he's in power. It's totally a trust issue.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, the difference with Hillary is that I'm not sure she would have cared if her bills were seen as "bipartisan". She'd just try to get enough votes to avoid a filibuster/pass the bill.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Romney campaigns like he's still the CEO of a large conglomerate. He always seems to be telling groups, "What do you need from me to make this deal?"

Never thought of it in quite this way, but I think you've really hit the nail on the head. Great assessment.

Originally Posted by molson

So is it even possible to be genuine public servant, have unique perspectives on the country and government, not be indebted to the machines that helped you along the way, have the skill and fortitude to actually promote and enact your vision, and still get elected to major public office? That must be a very short list.

I think the answer is yes, but it requires people who:

1. Can self-finance their campaigns.

2. Can self-finance the appropriate PR to combat the uninformed negative PR thrown their way once they're in office.

3. Aren't already tools.

You're still always somewhat bound by your constituency, even then. If your viewpoint shifts on a topic from your constituency, you've got to either switch to theirs, in which case you're not being true to yourself, or keep to your own values at the possible expense of your seat (hence the need for #2 - to have the ability to explain yourself and continuously pitch your ideas).

Examples exist, definitely, but as you say they're a small number. Angus King comes to mind.

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

In this way, I find John Edwards jaw-droppingly impressive. Here is a man who came into public life as a personal injury lawyer and a politician. And still managed to blow away our assumptions about how dirty he was. I mean, how low was the "decent human being" bar for John Edwards? And he still managed to come in under that bar with miles of space to spare.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

What I wonder is if Obama was delusional too, or if he was knowingly tapping into that delusion for votes. (Certainly the timing for that kind of strategy was more then perfect, coming off the Bush years people were more than ready for that).

What it was is that Obama came up with a strategy for winning elections. I mean, people criticized Democrats in the past for not knowing how to win. Dukakis refused to engage in the sleazy attacks his opponent was making, Mondale admitted he was going to raise taxes. What bothers people about Obama and Clinton for some reason is they used the same tactics that Republicans had been using for years to win Presidential elections.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

More likely that he's leaving because he's had enough of the WH (and likely that much of the WH has had enough of him). Rumors to that affect have been circulating for months.

While that could certainly be a factor, my understanding is that Rahm's desire to succeed Daley extends back a good 10+ years, and I think he's on record even before he became WH Chief of Staff as being interested in the position as and when Daley retired.

WH Chief of Staff and Mayor of Chicago are two very different jobs. I don't think it necessarily is the case that the latter would be a demotion from the former. Plus, if Rahm manages to take over Daley's machine, he'd have way, way more power than he ever would as WH Chief of Staff.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

What it was is that Obama came up with a strategy for winning elections. I mean, people criticized Democrats in the past for not knowing how to win. Dukakis refused to engage in the sleazy attacks his opponent was making, Mondale admitted he was going to raise taxes. What bothers people about Obama and Clinton for some reason is they used the same tactics that Republicans had been using for years to win Presidential elections.

I think his strategy was brilliant in the primary. We'll see some of the tactics used in that used in future primaries for decades to come.

But his strategy in the general election was pretty standard. He won mainly because voters didn't want to vote Republican. Just as they won't vote Democrat in November. People read too much into these strategies. I think most people who impact elections just look at what's going on and if it's not going well, vote for the other guy/party.

[ISiddiqui]

Well it wasn't super hard to decide what to run on in the general... look at Dubya's approval rating at the time.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

But you'd think there'd be the odd one here or there that can rise above all that. Where are the people that have that kind of potential going? Are they just stuck in mediocre political careers, or are they off helping the world in some other way?

Actually, I guess do know some people like that, insanely dedicated public servants who put their service and doing what's right above everything. But they're all in non-political positions, or they're just not interested in politics.

Career politicians is what happened. I think these people crave the power as opposed to someone who gets into it to just help people out. You have to dedicate so much time and effort into the process to reach a high political position. I just don't see it appealing to most intelligent, sane people.

And I can't blame smart people for avoiding it. It is a horrible job and seems to only be palatable for the most diehard narcissists. You are scrutinized for everything you do. Your family is put through hell. You can't even put a condiment on a cheeseburger without taking crap. Who the fuck would want to go through that?

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Career politicians is what happened. I think these people crave the power as opposed to someone who gets into it to just help people out. You have to dedicate so much time and effort into the process to reach a high political position. I just don't see it appealing to most intelligent, sane people.

And I can't blame smart people for avoiding it. It is a horrible job and seems to only be palatable for the most diehard narcissists. You are scrutinized for everything you do. Your family is put through hell. You can't even put a condiment on a cheeseburger without taking crap. Who the fuck would want to go through that?

And also, it seems that once that political switch goes on, even at the lower levels, a majority of one's energy is suddenly dedicated to developing relationships and stategy, framing the way you're viewed among people that matter in the jurisdiction, and learning the ins and outs of "the system". I don't think many truly dedicated to public service would be interested in giving up the service part and replacing it with the garbage politicans have to do.

[larrymcg421]

And McCain faltered by trying to campaign on a "change" platform, which was as bad a decision as Kerry focusing the race on national security by constantly bringing up Vietnam. People were ready for a change, but changing from an R to an R wasn't what they had in mind, even if it was the most acceptable R in those circumstances.

[ISiddiqui]

To be fair, there was very, very little McCain could do with an R next to his name.

[AENeuman]

I was wondering how the Ultra-R's were going to spin Obama's personal come to Jesus story. Rush complained that Obama saying he liked the teachings of Jesus such as the golden rule and brother's keeper were not actually teachings of Jesus. Kind of funny, but he went on to say that brother's keeper is not a teaching, rather it's just a question.

Cain's question is absolutely part of a larger teaching: faith alone will not protect you, you must take care of one another. However, I love the fact that Rush will reinterpret theology in order to show Obama's theology is wrong.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

To be fair, there was very, very little McCain could do with an R next to his name.

He could have (R)eplaced Palin.

I was pretty much undecided until he brought her on board and found out what she was about. He killed his chances by taking her on as his VP choice. That's probably not the only contributor, but, definitely a huge factor for voters like me.

[larrymcg421]

Well there's no doubt about that. Many of the presidential losers had no shot. Mondale, Dole, McCain were essentially screwed by the circumstances, but they all made their own mistakes that made things worse, maybe mistake made out of desperation because of said predicament. Dukakis probably goes down as the worst candidate ever because he had the most winnable conditions and completely screwed up almost every step of the way.

[SirFozzie]

Remember the guy who edited the ACORN videos to attack the organization, and then went so far as to try to bluff their way into a Democratic Party Senator's office to try to wiretap it? He should've quit while he was ahead.

You think I'm referring to the ACORN hit job? He was still ahead after only getting probation for the wiretap attempt, but he's in the news again.. apparently he thought he had the charisma of James Bond..

James O'Keefe of ACORN Video Fame in Fake Abbie Boudreau Seduction Scandal - TIME NewsFeed

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

He could have (R)eplaced Palin.

I was pretty much undecided until he brought her on board and found out what she was about. He killed his chances by taking her on as his VP choice. That's probably not the only contributor, but, definitely a huge factor for voters like me.

to be fair, it was either/or. The right-wing part of the party was just going to stay home, so he had to try to at least energize the base (and the GOTV apparatus) and hope the damage to the independents/moderates was minimal.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I was wondering how the Ultra-R's were going to spin Obama's personal come to Jesus story. Rush complained that Obama saying he liked the teachings of Jesus such as the golden rule and brother's keeper were not actually teachings of Jesus. Kind of funny, but he went on to say that brother's keeper is not a teaching, rather it's just a question.

Cain's question is absolutely part of a larger teaching: faith alone will not protect you, you must take care of one another. However, I love the fact that Rush will reinterpret theology in order to show Obama's theology is wrong.

LOL! Rush's theology is quite amusing... I'd like to see what a pastor's reaction would be to someone saying "the golden rule" or caring for your brother isn't a teaching of Jesus .

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

to be fair, it was either/or. The right-wing part of the party was just going to stay home, so he had to try to at least energize the base (and the GOTV apparatus) and hope the damage to the independents/moderates was minimal.

I think it would have been far more interesting if he actually had the balls to go with his first choice and take Liebermann. That would have played out reaaaaly interesting, I'd imagine.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think it would have been far more interesting if he actually had the balls to go with his first choice and take Liebermann. That would have played out reaaaaly interesting, I'd imagine.

Interesting in that Obama probably would have won by more. The GOTV apparatus on the right would have probably ceased to function. Yes, they'd have picked up more moderates/independents, but utterly depressed the right of right wing.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think it would have been far more interesting if he actually had the balls to go with his first choice and take Liebermann. That would have played out reaaaaly interesting, I'd imagine.

I doubt it. Picture McCain and Lieberman together. It would've been the most boring and uninspiring campaign in history. At least Palin brought some energy to the campaign.

I still think picking Romney would have paid off huge when the financial crisis hit.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think it would have been far more interesting if he actually had the balls to go with his first choice and take Liebermann. That would have played out reaaaaly interesting, I'd imagine.

That worked well for Al Gore

[JPhillips]

I think everyone is missing that the campaign and winning/losing is the fun part for a lot of politicians. It's a competitive sport where they can show their skills. Actual policy is slow and full of relatively uninteresting detail. Ask yourself what you'd rather do, come up with a strategy to get the media to treat your opponent like a closeted homosexual or craft a 100 page white paper on the effects of agriculture policy and school lunches?

The problem, IMO, is that the 24 news cycle has elevated the game for the populace. There was a time when most people didn't give a damn about campaign strategy, but did care about what the government did or didn't do. (Yes, I know I'm romanticizing a bit.) Now, though, everything is about the game and the game isn't going to do anything to help people.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

That worked well for Al Gore

He came a lot closer than McCain did .

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

to be fair, it was either/or. The right-wing part of the party was just going to stay home, so he had to try to at least energize the base (and the GOTV apparatus) and hope the damage to the independents/moderates was minimal.

He definitely underestimated us. That was just way too radical of a pick for voters like me to stomach, especially given his age. All I have is anecdotal stories, but, friends that were not decided (not that there were 100s or 1000s) and saw the Palin pick, it went from: "Lets see what McCain's got, but, it's definitely up in the air between him and Obama" to "WTF? I'm either not voting at all or voting for the lesser of two evils (Obama)".

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

He came a lot closer than McCain did .

That campaign was Gore's to lose though. You were the VP of a highly popular president (despite all the scandals) and you wind up losing. One word, lockbox...

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

He definitely underestimated us. That was just way too radical of a pick for voters like me to stomach, especially given his age. All I have is anecdotal stories, but, friends that were not decided (not that there were 100s or 1000s) and saw the Palin pick, it went from: "Lets see what McCain's got, but, it's definitely up in the air between him and Obama" to "WTF? I'm either not voting at all or voting for the lesser of two evils (Obama)".

Part of this is due to where you are in the country. Out on the west coast, I'm sure this was the result, the question is did McCain have a chance there anyway?

Here in the south, I think it solidified McCain's base. There were several states in the south McCain may have lost had he not tapped Palin.

[JPhillips]

Such as?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

That campaign was Gore's to lose though. You were the VP of a highly popular president (despite all the scandals) and you wind up losing. One word, lockbox...

That's not exactly rare... ask Nixon.

[larrymcg421]

Gore picked Lieberman to win Florida. That and for some bizaare desire to separate himself a very popular incumbent president. All that time and money wasted in Florida to barely lose. Think if a different VP was selected, he ignored FL, embraced Clinton, and went hard after TN and AR. He almost certainly would have won. Of course he did win, but it shouldn't have even been that close. I have no doubt that Gore ran one of the worst campaigns in history, one of the few that almost approaches Dukakis levels of suckitude.

[JPhillips]

Lovely.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Gore picked Lieberman to win Florida. That and for some bizaare desire to separate himself a very popular incumbent president. All that time and money wasted in Florida to barely lose. Think if a different VP was selected, he ignored FL, embraced Clinton, and went hard after TN and AR. He almost certainly would have won. Of course he did win, but it shouldn't have even been that close. I have no doubt that Gore ran one of the worst campaigns in history, one of the few that almost approaches Dukakis levels of suckitude.

You guys are over-analyzing. Gore had Mark Penn on the payroll and Mark Penn always loses.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Such as?

Loonytopia

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Part of this is due to where you are in the country. Out on the west coast, I'm sure this was the result, the question is did McCain have a chance there anyway?

Here in the south, I think it solidified McCain's base. There were several states in the south McCain may have lost had he not tapped Palin.

Totally understand that and it was a good move to win over those states, but, I think cost him more than it gained, in the long run. I also think it's a misconception that California is an uber liberal state, when it is not (voter wise). San Diego is very Republican leaning and most of the rural areas are as well. The exception being the Bay Area and parts of LA. Coupled with, that I think it's rare here to have a high voter turnout, McCain definitely had a chance in California. Plus, Arizona is a neighbor, so it wasn't like we hadn't heard of him before and in the past was very friendly to the Latin community and immigration.

I actually liked him up until that point in the election. He sold out for a last ditch effort for the presidency and now, he's just a shell of his former self. This is all my opinion of course.

[RainMaker]

There had to be a conservative he could have nominated that wasn't a total fucking idiot. Wouldn't someone like Fred Thompson have worked?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

There had to be a conservative he could have nominated that wasn't a total fucking idiot. Wouldn't someone like Fred Thompson have worked?

Maybe the Fred Thompson that was a Senator and not the one that when he ran in 2008 looked like he was gonna eat your children.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Lovely.

I knew that was coming when he said he listened to a little Lil' Wayne in that Rolling Stone interview. Hilarity.

[molson]

It's interesting to look back at the reaction here to the Palin pick back when it happened. It was already considered high-risk/high-reward, and very much a panic/desperation move by McCain. And that was before we really got to know her. But I think I had the best insight:

"This pick is shocking, really. I can't believe it.

I have absolutely no idea how this will turn out, but I look forward to the SNL skits"