| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Why the Angry Left hates Barak Obama |
| 2008-01-03 |
| Steve Spruiell, National Review . . . So why do liberal bloggers (a.k.a. the netroots) have such a problem with this guy? After all, they are notoriously obsessed with winning, and while they have warmed to John Edwards’s fire-breathing populist shtick, they acknowledge that his decision to take matching funds in the primary race would significantly limit his ability to campaign against a deep-pocketed Republican nominee like Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney until September. The more viable alternative, Hillary Clinton, leaves them cold over her Iraq votes. That leaves Obama, a candidate liberal bloggers have spent much of the last week attacking. Why? As liberal blogger Steve Benen explained on his The Carpetbagger Report Wednesday, they are angry over several recent instances in which Obama “used conservative frames in very unhelpful ways” (Benen himself concludes that “the concerns seem overwrought”). For an explanation of “framing” and why it has captured the liberal imagination, see this artful deconstruction: One way to resolve this paradox (in which Republican policies are bad for most people, yet these people continue to vote for Republicans anyway) is to divide conservatives into two rough taxonomic categories: the small elite of evil geniuses who spend their days spinning sinister plots, and the masses of ignorant dupes who can be tricked into following them. Conservatives can thus be diagnosed as either evil or stupid — masters of sinister language manipulation, or hypnotized victims of it. Apparently, one of these evil conservative plots is to remind people that health-insurance mandates “force” people to buy health insurance. The health-care plan Barack Obama has put forward would not mandate coverage for adults whereas Hillary’s would, and Obama has run some ads illustrating this distinction by pointing out that Hillary’s plan would “force people to buy insurance even if they can’t afford it.” (Benen gives this a 5 out of 5 on the "Lieberman scale" for the most "annoying" use of conservative frames.) The statement is true. Although Hillary’s plan would offer tax credits to offset some of the cost of insurance, it would force people to buy it, even if they feel they still can’t afford it. Obama’s statement isn’t wrong because it’s false; it’s wrong because it doesn’t adhere to the party line, according to which mandates don’t force people to buy insurance, they provide coverage, which would otherwise be absent. (Note: Obama’s plan has plenty of other coercive elements. It just lacks this one.) . . . While the Republican party’s core activists are primarily concerned with finding a viable candidate who holds an even basic set of conservative policy positions, the Democrats’ core activists don’t have that problem. “The policy differences between all the Democrats really are tiny to irrelevant,” Moulitsas writes. All their candidates, in other words, seem ready to walk the walk. They’re looking for someone who talks like they blog — heavy on partisanship, conscious of “framing,” devoid of appeals to conservatives. In short, "nutty as a fruitcake." But as Matt Taibbi noted last month in Rolling Stone, that’s not the kind of campaign Obama ever had the option of running if he wanted to win. He certainly won’t change directions now that momentum appears to be going his way. In the days leading up to the 2004 Iowa caucuses, Howard Dean — who only weeks before had been the Democratic front-runner there — started slipping in statewide polls. He ended up falling all the way to third place, which is where he finished on caucus night. There’s no consensus on why Dean’s campaign imploded, but many chalk it up to his temper, which manifested itself in a rude exchange with a senior citizen just over a week before the vote; the subject of the argument was Dean’s excessive partisanship, which he vigorously defended. One thing is for sure: The liberal blogosphere, which enthusiastically supported Dean’s campaign, couldn’t shore up voters’ lack of support for Dean himself. In Iowa and especially afterward, his abrasive public persona eroded his viability. Temperamentally, he was a perfect candidate for the netroots. To more normal people, not so appealing. By Friday morning, we’ll know whether Obama’s approach is as successful as Dean’s was doomed. There could be an interesting three-way conflict brewing here: the pleasantly-tempered Obama, favorite of the average Dem voter, versus the inside-baseball queen Hillary, versus the angry moonbats who write all the big checks. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #7 So, what about the independants like myself, how do I fit into his bipolar world - or do I even exist!? (holds hands up to the sky and stares longengly) I figured it was because obama advertised on monday night football, which is as everyone knows a neo-con fascist sport because people don't just jog they run, and because like NASCAR is to a hippodrome NFL is to the colloseum. Nah, theys just batshit crazy. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2008-01-03 17:08 |
| #6 That's okay, Pappy. As long as it's "the government" paying for it and not me... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-01-03 16:54 |
| #5 you got that right, Pappy. |
| Posted by: Whomong Guelph4611 2008-01-03 16:43 |
| #4 If you have insurance available, that has no exclusion for pre-existing conditions, EVERYONE will buy it WHEN they get sick Or, more likely, it will end up being 'bought' for them... |
| Posted by: Pappy 2008-01-03 16:32 |
| #3 "Framing" seems to be a big thing with the nutroots. I seem to remember a discussion some years back of how Cindy Sheehan should be framed as "Mother Sheehan". Try having some good ideas instead, folks. |
| Posted by: charger 2008-01-03 16:05 |
| #2 One way to resolve this paradox (in which Republican policies are bad for most people, yet these people continue to vote for Republicans anyway) is to divide conservatives into two rough taxonomic categories: the small elite of evil geniuses who spend their days spinning sinister plots, and the masses of ignorant dupes who can be tricked into following them. Conservatives can thus be diagnosed as either evil or stupid — masters of sinister language manipulation, or hypnotized victims of it. Sounds like bad intel to me. |
| Posted by: Speamble Barnsmell1128 2008-01-03 15:47 |
| #1 "it would force people to buy it, even if they feel they still canÂ’t afford it. ObamaÂ’s statement isnÂ’t wrong because itÂ’s false; itÂ’s wrong because it doesnÂ’t adhere to the party line, " Its wrong because Obama is either stupid or disingenous. If you have insurance available, that has no exclusion for pre-existing conditions, EVERYONE will buy it WHEN they get sick, but no one will buy insurance when theyre well. They'll game the system. If youre going to have insurance that has no pre-existing condition limit, esp if its subsidized, you HAVE to make it universal, IE mandatory, or youre going to hemmorage costs. When Ive put this to Obama supporters, they say that Obama WILL add mandatory coverage, just not right away, not till the costs become clearer. The above rhetoric from Obama indicates he either doesnt understand the problem, or, more likely, he does, but he cant resist the cheap shot. So much for a "different kind of politics" |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2008-01-03 14:28 |