Letters to the Editor
-
Maybe Obama should agree to more debates, not change speeches
This would allow him to show he can be wonky. Aren't lots of folks watching these?
But I don't think he should change his speeches. He can't out-Hillary Hillary; he needs to go with his strengths. How many gazillions of people have seen the music video made from his "Yes We Can" speech? You've got to try and build on what you have, not alienate your base to try and pick up your opponent's folks.
(And by the way, that speech does show "substance" if not policy specifics -- it shows he understands history and how positive social change comes about.)
As for working-class voters, in Illinois on Tues. they went with him over Clinton, presumably because they know his record without having to do a lot of time-consuming research, which involves lots more than just comparing websites. Who's got the time? Surely not someone working two jobs.
So maybe he should try to work in his record and experience in his high-profile speeches, but not get all into policy. I think in the end, more people are impressed by what you have done and how you approach problems than what you promise to do. Everyone is familiar with the Clinton record, and it does seem pretty good compared to what we've got now.
But the more familiar people are with Obama's record, the more they seem to support him.
-
The world where I live...
I am an individual from a blue collar background who was fortunate enough to be the beneficiary of a great education and can now sit around and read Salon while I work. After months of scanning all sorts of articles, comparing positions, and evaluating what was important to me, I came to the conclusion that I would vote for Obama should I have the opportunity during the Dem primaries. When I shared my support with two of my cousins and a sibling, they said they just can't bring themselves to vote for him because of race. My mother says there is "just something about him I don't like." When I pressed her, she couldn't come up with anything specific, and I guarantee she hasn't read any of Hillary's policy positions. I freely admit I sometimes aspire to the latte crowd who turns up their nose at their ignoramus relatives.
I won't even start on what my husband's work crowd had to say about both Obama and Clinton; as sexist as their comments about the latter, what they said about the former was downright scary. I have nothing against Clinton on a personal level and will absolutely vote for her if she is the Dem Party's nomination. I'm also not saying every blue-collar voter is a racist. However, life is way more complex than the assumptions we can make here (and I include myself as one of those who sometimes does jump the gun and make rash assumptions), and people are fooling themselves if they think race is not an issue in the real world.
-
Hillary's health plan
The Clinton campaign claim to fame seems to be the promise of universal health coverage. But no one is talking about the fact that the means to attain that coverage require draconian measures such as requiring everyone (no matter whether they can afford it or not) to purchase a health care plan or have wages garnished, or pay a fine, or be criminally prosecuted. That is not the same thing as single-payer universal health coverage that is enjoyed in many European countries. This is draconian measure that will penalize the poor. Hillary's plan is virtually indistinguishable from what Mitt Romney did in MA (which is criticized precisely because it has not actually achieved universal coverage). It does virtually nothing to ensure that health care is affordable. It is a giveaway to the health insurance industry at the expense of people who can't afford health care. Doesn't anyone else find this disturbing?
-
Obama v. Hillary
Why did the SEIU decide Obama was preferable to Clinton?
Our members feel that Senator Clinton is an opportunistic, two-faced maniuplator that will say anything that seems politically expedient at any particular moment. Besides, in voting to authorize the use of force against Iraq, she got the most important vote of her political career wrong. She is more than willing to cry over the purported stress of the campaign trail but she has never publically cried for the lives of the soldiers she needlessly sent to their death.
-
Dems and the Working Class
The story is that the dems have lost many working class voters to the repubs since the 1980s. The question should why and what's needed to bring this natural constituency back into the fold. Beginning in the 1970s, Democratic activists and party elites began to despise the average working American, his values and his religion, which explains why they lost presidential elections since then, save the Carter presidency in the Watergate aftermath, and the two Clinton terms. Bill Clinton, as a bible-raised Southerner, appealed to these groups and got enough of their votes to win. Edwards had a populist message, but he's out.
Go ahead and write off these voters as religious, bigoted rednecks and lose to McCain this fall.
-
Can immigration play a role?
What's their relative positions vis a vis immigration and how it threatens Union jobs perhaps?
-
@ Hazel Parkinson
"Obama now has the political establishment, big money, and the media all squarely on his side, and draws most of his support from people who are wealthy enough that they don't need to worry about healthcare or the economy. I truly hope Clinton can overcome the Obama Drama spin machine, because if she doesn't, we'll have 4 years of stagnation.
After 8 years of Bush, the country is in a terrible mess, and frankly, we need the politics of Soap more than the politics of Hope. We need real solutions from a real leader, not Hollywood drama and pie-crust promises."
?
What proof can you cite for the 'fact' that Obama has the political establishment, big money and the media all on his side? First off, his overflowing campaign coffers have been filled mostly by small donations, frequently coming from the same people who cannot afford one large dose. This is why pundits acknowledge his better financial positioning - most of his donors have not come close to maxing out their campaing contribtutions. Clinton on the other had, has had to loan $5mm of her own cash to even present the facade of keeping up in the fundraising game. That sounds like an aweful lot of small money to me. Clinton on the other hand, freely accepts $ from PACs and special interest groups (and, as other posters have mentioned, big Pharm and healthcare providers) while Edwards and Obama denounce such forms of Presidential campaign finance.
Political establishment? How many names do you reckognize from Obama's list of advisors? Does Sen. Kennedy count as the entire political establishment? How about the former chairmen of the DNC who now chairs Clinton's campaign? As far as I, and many others are concerned... it doesn't get any more establishement than Clinton.
And the Media - gotta love em! Even MSNBC, who's Chris Matthews is usually all to eager to sneak in a hit on Clinton, didn't spin Super tuesday's results for Barack - despite him picking up more delegates and more states. Much punditry has flowed forth regarding the upcoming primary / caucus schedule, and how Obama's style of campaigning seems to give him an edge. Its a bit of a stretch to consider this a pro-obama spin, and that's the closest I've seen or heard ever since that fateful tear in NH.
I agree that we need real solutions from a real leader. Sen. Clinton will only lead us towards the type of 'bipartisanship' which has plagued us for the last 8 years - the type which aspires to be GOP light, either becuase they agree with their imperialistic fantasies, or becuase they are too frightened to be the party of opposition.
Obama is very careful not to insult Republicans or conservatives, but he certainly aims to bring all of us towards a progressive future. I see Hillary as the opposite of progressivism. She is an establishment centrist through and through, right up there with Harry Reid (and just slightly shy of the 'independent Democrat' Lieberman).
I'm sad to say I won't be suprised if Hillary is elected and we see the rich get richer, big business and big gov't (including a continuation of the unitary executive doctrine) and the poor will continue to suffer ever more. Obama may not fix every problem we face, but he will not allow the status quo - lobbyists, constution trampling, big business shouting louder than the populous, etc. - to continue as it has for the last 8 years (maybe longer).