Same Old Democrat Story

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-19-2007
Same Old Democrat Story
3
Tue, 09-09-2008 - 11:50pm

Not much bark and not much bite.  I can't believe I have to say this, but it's the same old Democratic campaign consultant doldrums. I guess Democratic voters just have to make do with subtle hints and feints toward liberal policies. That's as good as it gets for the Left. Meanwhile, Republicans are calling for more offshore drilling and missile defense systems. I guess we'll watch the Democrats go down in flames again. I wouldn't mind them losing elections if they just stood up and fought a sustained battle for liberal principles, but they just refuse to do that.    Click here to find out more!



Open Left








Why Is Obama Slipping? Because He Won't Say Which Side He's On.
by: David Sirota
Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 15:43







Why is Barack Obama slipping in the polls? Here's why:


"In a Washington Post-ABC News poll, Obama's edge on the economy has slipped to only five percentage points, a low for the campaign."

That's really sad on a lot of levels, especially when you consider the contours of the candidates' tax plans:


"All taxpayers would receive a cut under McCain's plan. Taxes for those who make less than $226,982 would go down under Obama's proposal and they would rise for those who make more than $603,403. Obama would give the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy."

Then again, even considering those facts, I'm not really surprised.



David Sirota :: Why Is Obama Slipping? Because He Won't Say Which Side He's On.

Because Obama has refused to really focus on the issues that really draw a crystal clear contrast - issues like trade and the Iraq War. Thus, what policy debate that has survived is one over policy details - ie. whose tax plan is better, rather than, say, why McCain is happy telling Ohioans NAFTA is awesome.

This goes back to what I've been saying for months. Obama refuses to answer the fundamental question - that historical question always asked by organized labor: Which side are you on?

Oh sure, he answers the question on candidate questionnaires, where he commits to strong positions, and his convention speech was a momentary flash of real populist vigor (raising the question of whether it be as fleeting as Gore's 2000 "people versus the powerful" convention speech that boosted his numbers and then was thematically abandoned).

But in most of the public debate, Obama essentially says that question doesn't need to be answered - that he's a consensus builder on everyone's side, and that, as he suggested in my interview with him for The Nation in 2006, he can avoid real confrontations. As he said:


"The question is, Do you let confrontations arise as a consequence of your putting forward a positive vision of what needs to happen and letting the confrontation organically emerge, or do you go out of your way for it?"

The answer on a campaign (which is, after all, an electoral confrontation) is not to "let confrontations organically emerge" - that's the way to be on the defensive all the time. No, the answer on a campaign is yes, go out of your way to shape, build and embrace confrontation in a way that draws a contrast. And in a country whose crises are now so binary - bankers versus homeowners, Wall Street versus Main Street, neocons versus American troops, the wealthy versus the rest of us - Obama's rhetorical posture suggesting that he can be on everyone's side doesn't ring true. It's not an answer to the question "which side are you on" - it's a dodge.

He has to choose a side. Should we read his silence on an issue like trade to mean he is with the the Wall Streeters, insiders and elites that he has surrounded himself with on his campaign - the people who say that the majority of the country that opposes NAFTA should be ignored?

Or is he going to - finally - start publicly declaring that he's taking the majority's side in the struggle to stop the Republicans class war, elites be damned?

Which side are you on, Barack? You've only got a few weeks left to forcefully answer that question - it's just barely enough time, but it's enough. But if you don't, the McCain people are right - this will not be a campaign about issues, and it won't be a Democratic victory. http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=1571A25A25C580046AA0755017FE8ED7?diaryId=8103


 

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-01-2004
Wed, 09-10-2008 - 3:20am

Obama definitely has a problem. . .if he clearly told US voters where he stood on issues, he knows he would lose the election.


After all, it is highly unlikely the voters would choose a socialist, who wants to increase their taxes (he prefers to omit references to his plans to increase capital gains taxes, payroll taxes, and taxes on small businesses when he talks about how he is going to "help" the middle class), decrease national defense(after all Iran is just a small country and no threat to US. . .terrorists will

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2008
Wed, 09-10-2008 - 3:40am

McCain is a liar. His ads are lies. His speeches are lies, and when he and Sarah stop being afraid to talk to the media, everyone will have confirmation of that. They can stump,but they can't hide. lol.

Barack's plan is more specific than Mccain's. I haven't even seen Mccain's business plan except to give them huge tax cuts, and not a single detail. Everything is soooo vague. Barack will build the military, which is good news since most democrats don't do that. Remember he told young people that if they enlisted they would get better benefits that Mccain voted AGAINST! McCain givs lip service to supporting the troops.

McCain and 4 of his senate friends caused a savings and loan collapse that cost the taxpayers OVER 3.4 BILLION DOLLARS!! I bet we are ALL still paying for that corrupt groups' follies. He was given a don't go to jail free card for being the son of an admiral.

He enjoyed the perks of being the son of an admiral while at the same time he resented his father's position, or his own lack of one, and living up to his father and grandfather's reputations. He's been a double talk express a long time. lol.

So, John McCain is just like Ted Stevens, without the indictment. lol. Sarah might join her buddy Ted in court soon, too.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-01-2004
Wed, 09-10-2008 - 4:25am

Name calling is not persuasive.