Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
democrat
Published Letters: 2
I'm really amazed Joan thinks this. Obama didn't say he liked Reagan's ideas; he said they were transformational and that Reagan was effective at changing the terms of the political debate.
Every Democrat I know has been asking, Why can't Democrats set the terms of the discussion, the way GWB? That doesn't mean -- by a long shot -- they want Democrats to pursue his policies, just that they'd like the Dems to stand up and fight for what they believe in.
I saw the video of Obama's comments soon after he made them, and my first reaction was that he was speaking to the frustration all Democrats have: in a field of Democratic leaders who triangulate and compromise with people who don't give an inch in return, we've all been asking, where's our transformational leader? The one who won't let the Republicans frame the debate, but will transcend it, re-shape it, and own the national stage?
Obama is right: Bill Clinton was effective. But he wasn't transformational -- like Reagan was.
We need a leader as transformational as Reagan, only ours will actually have good ideas.
Is that so hard to understand? Is it controversial?
Joan, go back and watch the video again -- and try to imagine that it's even plausible that Obama, a liberal community organizer from the South Side of Chicago, "admires" Reagan's policies.
This whole dust-up seems so manufactured. Joan, think about it: Do you really believe Obama "admires" Reagan's policies? Really?
Obama's power isn't as free floating as David depicts it here. True, Obama isn't dependent on any one faction, as our past several have been -- a strength of moving away from the "identity" politics the Democrats have used to organize themselves in the past. Instead, he built a (largely) online community, and brought together a network of progressive networks to form a new coalition.
But the idea he can now do anything he wants because the unions (or Wall Street, or feminists, etc.) don't own him is simply wrong. His power right now is based on the (accurate) perception that he represents a consensus, pointing in a generally progressive direction. If he violates that consensus, and becomes too hawkish or too corporate, or if he is seen as a tool of the establishment, his vaunted e-mail list will be of no use to him. If he goes against the reasons people signed up on MyObama.com, he'll have no army of constituents to activate to push legislation; they'll simply back away.
The laws of political thermodynamics still apply, even in a people-powered environment. Responding to the public interest is similar to satisfying a special interest, in that the client still needs to they're being attended to.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
