2008-01-03 Home Front: Politix
|
Why the Angry Left hates Barak Obama
|
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 Edwardss 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 Hillarys would, and Obama has run some ads illustrating this distinction by pointing out that Hillarys plan would force people to buy insurance even if they cant 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 Hillarys 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 cant afford it. Obamas statement isnt wrong because its false; its wrong because it doesnt adhere to the party line, according to which mandates dont force people to buy insurance, they provide coverage, which would otherwise be absent. (Note: Obamas plan has plenty of other coercive elements. It just lacks this one.) . . .
While the Republican partys core activists are primarily concerned with finding a viable candidate who holds an even basic set of conservative policy positions, the Democrats core activists dont 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. Theyre 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, thats not the kind of campaign Obama ever had the option of running if he wanted to win. He certainly wont 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. Theres no consensus on why Deans 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 Deans excessive partisanship, which he vigorously defended.
One thing is for sure: The liberal blogosphere, which enthusiastically supported Deans campaign, couldnt 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, well know whether Obamas approach is as successful as Deans 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 2008-01-03 12:07||
||
Front Page|| [11136 views ]
Top
|
Posted by Liberalhawk 2008-01-03 14:28||
2008-01-03 14:28||
Front Page
Top
|
Posted by Speamble Barnsmell1128 2008-01-03 15:47||
2008-01-03 15:47||
Front Page
Top
|
Posted by charger 2008-01-03 16:05||
2008-01-03 16:05||
Front Page
Top
|
Posted by Pappy 2008-01-03 16:32||
2008-01-03 16:32||
Front Page
Top
|
Posted by Whomong Guelph4611 2008-01-03 16:43||
2008-01-03 16:43||
Front Page
Top
|
Posted by tu3031 2008-01-03 16:54||
2008-01-03 16:54||
Front Page
Top
|
Posted by swksvolFF 2008-01-03 17:08||
2008-01-03 17:08||
Front Page
Top
|
|
09:43 Mullah Richard
09:27 Warthog
09:11 Mercutio
09:07 AlmostAnonymous5839
08:52 Matt
08:24 Matt
08:20 SteveS
07:43 Procopius2k
07:42 BrerRabbit
07:42 Procopius2k
07:39 Procopius2k
07:36 Procopius2k
07:35 Procopius2k
07:34 trailing wife
07:31 Procopius2k
07:30 NN2N1
07:22 NN2N1
07:18 trailing wife
07:14 Richard Aubrey
07:10 NN2N1
07:09 Besoeker
07:03 NN2N1
06:58 NN2N1
06:58 Besoeker









|