One Thing I Can Tell You Is You Got To Be Free Words Of Love
Posts
1,254
Posts Per Day
6.76
To boldly go where everyone's already gone before:
Early reaction to Al Gore's Obama endorsement: Yawn
Some early overnight reaction to the belated endorsement of Barack Obama by Al Gore. And it might disappoint the former vice president and loser in the 2000 White House race.
Exactly what Gore was waiting for in the past two weeks since Obama sewed up his party's nomination is unclear. Maybe he just wanted to go to Michigan where his prize-winning environmental pitch is so very less welcome than other places that don't make so many large cars.
Or maybe he was waiting until his endorsement meant absolutely nothing.
Anyway, as The Ticket reported, Gore said all the right things in his endorsement speech, except he noticeably left out the last Democratic president, the one who chose to elevate Gore from has-been senator to his running mate and has been the only Democrat elected president twice since World War II, which is like the Middle Ages for today's voters.
But within minutes online reaction was underwhelming. Joe Gandelman, editor-in-chief over at The Moderate Voice, who is usually, well, very moderate, posted an item titled "Obama gets 'the' Endorsement: The Lousy Timing of Al Gore."
He had this to say:
"Perhaps one day someone will write a chapter in a new book about Al Gore titled 'Profiles in Uncourage.'...But it came so late in the game that the person who'll be most impressed with it will be Tipper Gore."
After that the item went downhill. Gandelman said the endorsement so long-sought by Obama and Hillary Clinton was by now such an anti-climax that it resembled the ponderings about whether Ralph Nader would run yet again.
Ouch, how'd you like to be compared to the 21st century's Harold Stassen?
"Not exactly "Man bites dog" news. Who is Gore going to endorse? John McCain?" asked John Mariner in The Ticket's comments section.
Sam Patel added: "It's a sad day to see one of the Clinton's most loyal supporters essentially dis-own them! Like Bill Richardson, Al Gore was a complete nobody had it not been for Bill Clinton's risky generosity. I bet he now regrets some of those appointments."
Up at the San Francisco Chronicle's politics blog, Joe Garofoli wrote: "We know this will never happen, but hopefully Al will tell us tonight why he didn't endorse somebody when it WOULD HAVE MEANT SOMETHING. Like in February.
"Then again, think of it from his perspective. In his forseable role as Captain Planet, he's going to need to work with whomever would be president, so why burn a bridge with a nomination. But isn't Al big enough now (is that a Nobel in your pocket?) that he doesn't have to worry about such petty political matters."
One Thing I Can Tell You Is You Got To Be Free Words Of Love
Posts
1,254
Posts Per Day
6.76
Interesting factoid:
Lagging Behind His Party
Obama is losing white voters born between 1944 and 1958--pretty much the lion's share of the Baby Boomers--by 18 percentage points.
by Charlie Cook
Sat. Jun 21, 2008
It finally dawned on me that white Baby Boomers are the group that is really hurting Barack Obama. Of all people, the generation that brought us the Vietnam War protests and the Summer of Love is proving to be a very tough nut for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee to crack.
First, the context: The political environmentis wretched for Republicans. In the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll of 1,000 registered voters conducted June 6-9, respondents preferred a Democrat to win the presidency by 16 percentage points, 51 percent versus 35 percent for a Republican. Forty-four percent strongly preferred a Democrat; just 27 percent strongly favored a Republican. By 19 points--52 percent to 33 percent--voters also preferred Democrats to keep control of Congress. In terms of party identification, Democrats had a 9-point advantage, 33 percent to 24 percent. When independents were "pushed," that is, asked which way they were leaning, the Democratic advantage edged up to 10 points, 44 percent to 34 percent. And on a host of issues, Democrats beat out Republicans.
So why does that same poll have Obama leading by just 6 points, 47 percent to 41 percent? In other words, why the drop-off from party identification and the generic presidential and congressional ballot tests? Essentially, why does Obama underperform his party?
At the time this poll was done, not long after Hillary Rodham Clinton dropped out of the race, Obama was taking his victory lap, and most surveys showed him with a similar margin. Since then, most polls have found a bit of a tightening, with Obama's lead around 3 or 4 points. Whether his edge is 3 points or 6 points, the question remains the same: Why the drop-off?
Combing through cross-tabulations of three months of Cook Political Report/RT Strategies polls, taken April 17-20, May 29-31, and June 12-15 and involving a total of 2,484 registered voters (margin of error +/-2 percent), the overall trial heat showed Obama ahead by 2 points, 44 percent to 42 percent. But focusing exclusively on the 1,832 whites in the sample revealed something interesting, even allowing for the fact that Lyndon Johnson in 1964 was the last Democratic presidential candidate to win even a plurality of the white vote.
Obama trailed McCain by 9 points among both 18-to-34-year-old white voters and those 65 and older. He lagged by 10 points among 35-to-49-year-old whites. But among those 50 to 64, Obama is losing by a whopping 18 points, 51 percent to 33 percent.
By doing very well among African-Americans and reasonably well among Hispanics, Obama could easily overcome his deficits among whites under 50 and over 65. But losing whites born between 1944 and 1958--pretty much the lion's share of the Baby Boomers--by 18 percentage points? Wow. That's a burden.
Some of this may be attributable to long-term voting patterns. These are voters who remember the disappointing--some would say failed--presidency of Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981, which was followed by the fairly popular--many would say successful--presidency of Ronald Reagan from 1981 to 1989. The voters in this bloc were ages 19 to 33 when that 12-year downer period for Democrats began and 31 to 45 with their voting patterns set, most likely for life, when it ended. Obviously, there are exceptions.
It is often said that Reagan drew a whole generation into the Republican Party. And some observers wonder whether George W. Bush may have driven another generation away. If this is true, Barack Obama, meet Ronald Reagan, your real opponent.
But do white Boomers' past voting patterns explain Obama's problems with them? Or, is his difficulty that these are voters in their prime earnings years, when they are most sensitive to the issue of taxes? Do they view national security issues differently and want beefier credentials than Obama offers?
A dozen or more indicators could prove important in attempting to determine whether Obama or McCain will come out ahead on November 4. Trying to figure out what is going on in the minds of white Baby Boomers is going to be high on my list.
I think the hypocrisy of the Boomers became apparent when they became the "greed is good" yuppies of the eighties. And they haven't looked back since. Peace and love isn't what makes you the big bucks. Sad to hear this anyway, but not surprised.
I think the hypocrisy of the Boomers became apparent when they became the "greed is good" yuppies of the eighties. And they haven't looked back since.
Some did: I think the point about the boomers is that they split into at least two camps: one that wanted to overturn the prevailing assumptions of the post world war II consensus and another that was opposed to any such change. The Republicans have been making a political killing by positioning themselves as the party of traditional values ever since 1968: Nixon's pitch to the "silent majority" - which even then included a lot of young people- was the first incarnation of it, and it reached its weird apogee in the eighties with the sentimental / heroic all-Americanism of Ronald Reagan. The "radical" component of the boomers has always been the numerically smaller one, and their successes have come more in the media and educational realms than the political one.
Some did: I think the point about the boomers is that they split into at least two camps: one that wanted to overturn the prevailing assumptions of the post world war II consensus and another that was opposed to any such change. The Republicans have been making a political killing by positioning themselves as the party of traditional values ever since 1968: Nixon's pitch to the "silent majority" - which even then included a lot of young people- was the first incarnation of it, and it reached its weird apogee in the eighties with the sentimental / heroic all-Americanism of Ronald Reagan. The "radical" component of the boomers has always been the numerically smaller one, and their successes have come more in the media and educational realms than the political one.
Heh. Not if you listen to the media though. Who are still bombarding us with commercials about how hip and radical they still are...played to the tune of Born To Be Wild.
Of course it's some. I just can't help myself from being cynical when discussing the boomers for some reason. But really, what is their problem with Obama? The bit about Carter perplexes me. I mean, do they not remember Clinton? I'd say that was pretty damn successful overall. Why still cling nail and tooth to the Reagan years? Maybe because that's when they got to partake in the spoils of his reign? I think money is a big motivator for that generation for sure. But who knows. And why this white faction? Because they are the higher earners? Or is it a race thing? Or because they were the target voters back in the day and again it's this pattern? It's interesting anyway. Only a little over four months to turn things around though!
Quoted Text
But do white Boomers' past voting patterns explain Obama's problems with them? Or, is his difficulty that these are voters in their prime earnings years, when they are most sensitive to the issue of taxes? Do they view national security issues differently and want beefier credentials than Obama offers?
Is "yuppies" the correct term for Boomers who went corporate? Because I understood that it stood for "young urban professionals".
Hey, why sugarcoat it? They're plain old sellouts.
I'm an alligator, I'm a mama-papa coming for you I'm the space invader, I'll be a rock 'n' rollin' b**** for you Keep your mouth shut, you're squawking like a pink monkey bird And I'm busting up my brains for the words
Yeah, but who coined the term? Wouldn't that be the boomers? The first of the yuppies? What do I know. I just associate it with them more so than other generations. Maybe because I lived through the eighties. Do people even want to be called a yuppie anymore? I don't know anyone that would find it complimentary. I clearly know little on this topic, but I guess the only way to learn is to discuss. As long as more than one side is represented. Otherwise, why bother. It's like talking to yourself then.
Of course it's some. I just can't help myself from being cynical when discussing the boomers for some reason. But really, what is their problem with Obama?
It really comes down to which boomers: the ones with lots of education and money are generally quite likely to be amongst his supporters; it's the poorer and less educated ones who are most skeptical.
It really comes down to which boomers: the ones with lots of education and money are generally quite likely to be amongst his supporters; it's the poorer and less educated ones who are most skeptical.
But that's pretty much the opposite of what the article is implying. No?
But that's pretty much the opposite of what the article is implying. No?
He's treating boomers, or white boomers as a group: perfectly right, so far as it goes, but there's more to be said than that. During the Democratic primaries, education and income were pretty good predictors of how whites would vote: wealthier and more educated voters were more likely to go for Obama, and poorer and less educated ones were more inclined to vote for Clinton. That's why Clinton was one of the first people to pick up on the "elitist" charge after Obama made his "guns and religion" comments in San Francisco. That voting pattern applied to groups beyond the boomers, too. I think that put simply, poorer white voters (as a group) tend to more traditional or conservative on cultural matters. It is interesting, though, that he's so far behind with the boomer cohort: I would like to see those results broken down by income, education, and region at least. Also religion, come to think of it.
"If you are an American who yearns to finally get beyond the symbolic battles of the Boomer generation and face today’s actual problems, Obama may be your man."
"If you are an American who yearns to finally get beyond the symbolic battles of the Boomer generation and face today’s actual problems, Obama may be your man."
Thanks for the link: it brought to mind this New Yorker article from a couple of weeks ago:
The Fall of Conservatism Have the Republicans run out of ideas? by George Packer May 26, 2008
The era of American politics that has been dying before our eyes was born in 1966. That January, a twenty-seven-year-old editorial writer for the St. Louis Globe-Democrat named Patrick Buchanan went to work for Richard Nixon, who was just beginning the most improbable political comeback in American history. Having served as Vice-President in the Eisenhower Administration, Nixon had lost the Presidency by a whisker to John F. Kennedy, in 1960, and had been humiliated in a 1962 bid for the California governorship. But he saw that he could propel himself back to power on the strength of a new feeling among Americans who, appalled by the chaos of the cities, the moral heedlessness of the young, and the insults to national pride in Vietnam, were ready to blame it all on the liberalism of President Lyndon B. Johnson. Right-wing populism was bubbling up from below; it needed to be guided by a leader who understood its resentments because he felt them, too.
“From Day One, Nixon and I talked about creating a new majority,” Buchanan told me recently, sitting in the library of his Greek-revival house in McLean, Virginia, on a secluded lane bordering the fenced grounds of the Central Intelligence Agency. “What we talked about, basically, was shearing off huge segments of F.D.R.’s New Deal coalition, which L.B.J. had held together: Northern Catholic ethnics and Southern Protestant conservatives—what we called the Daley-Rizzo Democrats in the North and, frankly, the Wallace Democrats in the South.” Buchanan grew up in Washington, D.C., among the first group—men like his father, an accountant and a father of nine, who had supported Roosevelt but also revered Joseph McCarthy. The Southerners were the kind of men whom Nixon whipped into a frenzy one night in the fall of 1966, at the Wade Hampton Hotel, in Columbia, South Carolina. Nixon, who was then a partner in a New York law firm, had travelled there with Buchanan on behalf of Republican congressional candidates. Buchanan recalls that the room was full of sweat, cigar smoke, and rage; the rhetoric, which was about patriotism and law and order, “burned the paint off the walls.” As they left the hotel, Nixon said, “This is the future of this Party, right here in the South.”
Nixon and Buchanan visited thirty-five states that fall, and in November the Republicans won a midterm landslide. It was the end of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, the beginning of his fall from power. In order to seize the Presidency in 1968, Nixon had to live down his history of nasty politicking, and he ran that year as a uniter. But his Administration adopted an undercover strategy for building a Republican majority, working to create the impression that there were two Americas: the quiet, ordinary, patriotic, religious, law-abiding Many, and the noisy, elitist, amoral, disorderly, condescending Few.
One Thing I Can Tell You Is You Got To Be Free Words Of Love
Posts
1,254
Posts Per Day
6.76
Hands up anyone who's surprised; after all, calling yourself a maverick who won't play the usual political games and posing as the guy who's going to change the bad old ways of Washington are both variants of one of the oldest vote getting strategies there is:
New Wine in Old Bottles
By Dan Balz A campaign between Barack Obama and John McCain once offered enormous possibilities for something new. Instead, the two presumptive nominees have opened their campaigns for the White House with what looks and sounds like a repeat of the kind of politics both have promised to leave behind.
Since Obama wrapped up the Democratic nomination a few weeks ago, he and McCain have served up a series of indignant exchanges over foreign policy, terrorism, the economy, energy policy and campaign money. Their aides have gone farther, with snarling conference call putdowns and taunting e-mails flowing constantly out of the Chicago and Crystal City headquarters.
McCain has given a series of policy speeches and Obama is beginning to do the same. Whatever substance they may contain has been buried in negative counterattacks from the opposing camp, designed to turn ideas into stereotypes and candidates into caricatures. In the hands of Obama's advisers, McCain is nothing more than the third coming of President Bush. To McCain's staff, Obama is merely a liberal, naive, arrogant extension of what Democrats have been offering for years.
Gone in the early stages of this campaign is any sense of the uniqueness of the two nominees. McCain is certainly no garden-variety Republican and the historic possibilities of Obama's candidacy cannot be overstated. But those realities have been submerged beneath a tactical shouting match that feeds the cable culture of contemporary politics.
Don't blame the media for this. The campaigns have deliberately adopted postures of hyper-aggressiveness to set the early tone. The testosterone levels appear extremely high. No charge however small or incidental can go unanswered. No proposal, no matter how innocuous or provocative, can be discussed calmly or intelligently.
That led a McCain surrogate to respond to Obama's comments on the rights of terrorist detainees, a topic on which reasonable people can differ, as "delusional." It led to an Obama surrogate to describe as "stupid" the positions McCain has taken on the Iraq war, though it is clearly arguable that the surge strategy has helped to reduce violence and U.S. casualties.
Both candidates have contributed to this. Obama tarnished his reputation as a new style politician by deciding not to take public funds for the fall campaign, despite a pledge to do so if his Republican opponent would do the same. He had promised to sit down with McCain to discuss the whole issue of money before making any decision.
Obama's decision may have made political sense, but it was a demonstration of old politics, not new politics, and his reasoning for refusing public funds was as tortured as anything he has had to say in his campaign.
McCain has hurt himself and his reputation as an independent thinker by reversing course on past positions, whether Bush tax cuts -- which he did long ago -- or opening up coastal areas to offshore drilling. His campaign, in the view of some of his own supporters, has allowed itself to show an angry and resentful face that they believe is contrary to McCain at his best.
It is difficult to believe that Americans are enjoying all this -- or even paying close attention to it. The attack-counterattack cycle is so quick that only the most devoted of political aficionados can keep up, and the tone is so relentlessly critical that only the most partisan will applaud it.
The long battle between Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, for all its intensity and competitiveness, rarely reached the levels of negativity and petulance seen in the opening weeks of the general election. Whenever Obama and Clinton crossed a line, they seemed quickly to step back, mindful of the consequences of letting their contest get out of hand. So far there seems to be no such impulse governing either the Obama or McCain campaigns as they go after each other.
Of all the candidates who sought the presidency this year, McCain and Obama seemed the least likely to fall so quickly into old habits. The question is whether the opening weeks are a true reflection of their characters and the kind of campaigns they intended to run or a temporary departure.
It is still early. The two candidates have the capacity to elevate their contest. Perhaps there will be town hall meetings or other forums before the conventions that will set them on a different course, although the idea is languishing for now.
On a host of issues, the differences between the candidates are profound and should provoke a vigorous debate. Both candidates once promised that such a debate would be civil and respectful. But right now the presidential campaign appears to be more a rerun of the kind of polarized battles of the recent past than something that heralds something new.
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
Geoff
Female
Male
Logged
