Comments on: Where Are Obama’s ‘New Politics’?

By: misanthropicus

misanthropicus — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:46:03 +0000

RE #56/Anna: [...] What’s up with “a naked handbag designer with a Davidoff cigar in her hand?” I can’t tell if you’re posts are serious, tongue-in-cheek, or if I’m just missing something… [...]

Anna, just a defining vision of Clinton’s years…

By: roberto

roberto — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:26:53 +0000

We need some change ,but this country needs to go backward and be like it used to be.I told several people i would like to vote for a president who would promise to make no new laws,but would have many laws repealed. all of them said they would vote for him.

By: Cybergeezer

Cybergeezer — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:19:04 +0000

You may have a point about a different party; What are they going to call it? The MLK Party? Black Panther Party? Obamessiah Party? Afro-American Party? Affirmative Action Party? That last one sounds powerful.

By: Derek

Derek — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 07:43:06 +0000

This is the new politics of Obama and what I meant when I said earlier that he was separate from the democratic party:

http://nymag.com/news/features/all-new/53380/index1.html

““They have basically invented their own party that is compatible with the Democratic Party but is bigger than the Democratic Party,” the Republican media savant Stuart Stevens, who helped to elect George W. Bush twice, argues. “Their e-mail list is more powerful than the DNC or RNC. In essence, Obama [was] elected as an independent with Democratic backing—like Bernie Sanders on steroids.””

Trying to paint Obama with the same old brush is just not going to work. It completely underestimates his base, and not only that it ignores who his base actually is.

By: Anna

Anna — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:24:44 +0000

“Like Obama, they had an impressive resume.”

Correction: There was nothing impressive about Obama’s resume. He is the result of a brilliant branding campaign and little else.

By: Cybergeezer

Cybergeezer — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:08:20 +0000

Obama a leader? Of What? When? Leader of the Free World? You shall see how much of an embarrassment that will turn out to be. Sure, since you voted for this candidate, you think he will make your vote worthwhile. You’ll be disappointed shortly.
Having worked in the U.S. Government for more than 20 years, I’ve seen a multitude of “candidates” appointed to upper level positions that could not fulfill the requirements of the position. Like Obama, they had an impressive resume. This is nothing but an “affirmative action” appointment. His decisions are the results of a “Committee” which has been purchased specifically for the purpose of fulfilling the Democrat play book.
Obama’s no more than a puppet with a good voice. If he were a leader, he could speak without a tele-prompter and make his own evaluations and decisions. If Obama makes any decision of his own in this term, “We The People” are in trouble. He hasn’t shown any expertise in anything to date, besides public speaking, which anyone with the desire, can master at your local community college.
Obama was voted in simply because he was viewed as the least harmful of the available candidates. And, naturally, he’ll have a lot of support, because no one wants to be embarrassed.
Somewhere in Vegas they’re betting he’s a one term (if he makes it that far) selection.

By: TruthHurts

TruthHurts — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 04:33:25 +0000

The author asks: “Where are Obama’s New Politics”??? …..In my view, we can come to a conclusion on this question from Friday’s press conference…. Obama was asked by the press, why it was so difficult getting the stimulus done and why are there so many people criticizing it? Here’s how PEOTUS answered that question: “This is not some intellectual exercise…There’s no pride of ownership..If someone has a good idea that will help us grow jobs and turn this economy around, we’ll consider it. If there’s a better tax relief plan out there, we’ll do it. What we CAN’T afford to do is to posture..while the American families are suffering!”…….For those who question Obama’s politics and his “leadership”, let’s consider what’s happened since that quote. The Senate Dems who WERE complaining, piped down and started working it through amongst themselves. The House GOP, decided to call a “special conference” to hash out IDEAS for the stimulus. Now here’s the interesting part about these two groups. The Senate Dems did not believe that Obama would actually include business tax relief even though he’d said he wanted to do this- FOR MONTHS!. The House GOP did not think there was a necessity to do anything but be the “loyal opposition”, even though they knew the stimulus was going to happen, in some form, FOR MONTHS…See both groups were operating under the rules of the Bush and Clinton Whitehouse. Neither thought that this guy was serious when he says he’s interested in “what works” for Americans…It may benefit the GOP faithful to accept something that they’ve tried, too hard, to discount: There’s never been a politician to come onto the national scene quite like Obama..He’s not “like” anyone. If and when the GOP figures this out, they’ll start to put down the “fear and smear” playbook and start to develop REAL IDEAS to help solve 21st century issues…If you don’t believe the guy is something different, consider the notion of Rubin asking “Where are Obama’s ‘New Politics”, when he’s still 2 weeks from being sworn in! Conservatives can moan all they want but let’s not question the guy’s “leadership”. Barack Obama is the leader of the free world. Everyone knows it, accepts it and is anxious to get on with it. This constitutes a broad spectrum. From the leader of Hamas to Jennifer Rubin. From the Senate Dems to the House Republicans. There’s a new sheriff in town and he’s brought those “new politics” with him. If you take off the ideological blinders, you’ll see it.

By: Cybergeezer

Cybergeezer — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:54:56 +0000

Yea; Obama’s an enigma, alright; spelled enema.

By: Anna

Anna — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 22:58:35 +0000

#55 David

No one knows what or how his stimulus package will work. There’s already dissent about it within his own party. It’s just words and numbers on paper and he hasn’t the resume heading into this most awesome job to give anyone confidence he knows what he’s doing on this front.

As for consensus building: Point to some examples, please. In my view, voting “present” an astonishing number of times as a state senator and then digging in as a U.S. Senator and voting straight party line is hardly the behavior of a consensus builder. There’s no evidence at all that’s he’s ever collaborated in a bi-partisan way on any legislation and he certainly hasn’t included Republicans in his Cabinet in any meaningful way. Evidence please.

Your third point sounds like the kind of thing Obama would say: It sounds impressive and meaningful on first blush, but when you actually dig into it, it’s not at all clear that it has any meaning.

Irrespective of anyone’s party affiliation, it seems reasonable to believe that most Presidents have been interested in governing. One may not approve of their style, but I don’t think this holds up as a bullet point with any real weight to it.

As for “improved relations with allies.” Based on what? He has no international experience, and, as far as Israel goes, it remains quite uncertain as to how “improved” relations will be given Obama’s mixed messages on this front.

Yes, his promise to sit down with leaders of enemy nations will surely be a change if he does that. But “change” does not in and of itself mean good or bad, just different. On this point, the change he may usher in may well be the end of all of us.

Even Obama has gone on record as saying he doesn’t know what he would have done if he had been in the Senate and presented with the Intelligence Report.

How he will even begin to try to fix this broken health care system is anyone’e guess in light of the fact that 1) we are in an economic collapse, and 2) the issue is a highly complex and divisive one that has proven to be difficult to tackle in the past. But, one can hope (a word I used to love until it became part of Obamam’s branding).

As for your summary comment, remember that change in and of itself connotes nothing more than something different, which most incoming administrations that represent a change in political party can promise, whether they announce it in bold letters on posters or not.

By: Anna

Anna — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 22:44:49 +0000

#53 What are you talking about? What’s up with “a naked handbag designer with a Davidoff cigar in her hand?” I can’t tell if you’re posts are serious, tongue-in-cheek, or if I’m just missing something…