Thread: The Cult of Obama

Originally Posted by Ironduke

Perhaps all we need is for Walter Mondale to pop his head around the corner and ask, “Where's the beef?”

Its funny you mention Walter Mondale. Here's a guy who's just been around too long. And I say that with reservations because I actually took a class with the guy last semester, easily the best poli-sci class in my time here at the U. He was around during a very defining era, and he knows just about every in and out of the nation's and the state's capitol. A true public servant and a really likable guy on top of it all. But as he's gotten old he's let himself become one of the embedded interests holding back the party and the country, the stuff of Obama's fuzzy "the past and the future" talk.

Simple example. In 1968 there was a very inspiring campaign with RFK and Eugene McCarthy. In fact, our virgil friend Jad has already compared Obama to RFK, tons of buzz and excitement like what's going on today with the Obama cult following his campaign day and night. Except RFK was murdered, so hopes went down the tube overnight, and it was obvious McCarthy wasn't going to win.

Here's the thing though: had he lived, RFK STILL probably wouldn't have won the nomination. Despite winning most all 13 primaries at the time, his campaign lagged to Hubert Humphrey in delegate counts at the time of his death. Hubert, the embedded, old guard candidate of his day, executed a strategy to game the system and court the majority of delegates who "represented" states without primaries, and at convention got their votes after a series of backroom/under the table deals, despite receiving only 2.2% of the vote. Not democratic at all. The superdelegates of then, like today, consisted of embedded interests unaccountable to anyone but themselves. Entrenched, and so, out of favor.

But one good thing came out of the 1968 Dem convention: a resolution to reexamine how the party chose its nominee. Definitely a tribute to the late RFK for having inspired a whole new segment of the country with his failed candidacy to join in the party. Lo and behold, by the next election the system had actually been completely reformed, and so in '72 a bona fide grassroots liberal, George McGovern, got nominated. And in '76 under the same rules, another one, Jimmy Carter. The system got reformed because new people got involved after RFK and they didn't want to lose them. Today, with the average age of Obama's supporters around 30, the party and the country has a lot to lose if they don't accommodate them over the next 4 years. Another source of hope for change with Obama.

But by 1980 the party elders had had enough, and so they un-reformed the process all over again. They retook all the superdelegates weighing down the party and elections today - all current and former Prezes, VP's, Speakers, Minority Leaders, along with all current Governors, Congressmen, and Senators, and several hundred party officers who aren't elected by any actual voters. (They're elected by themselves at convention.)

And so its ironic that Mondale could get into the White House on such great party reforms and turn his back on them 4 years later. What happened? He got in office, and by the time he got out you didn't have to look any further than his campaign to know he was corrupted.

I don't know how else to explain the turnaround. After riding on the back of a dark horse in '76, he rides out of the White House 4 years later as one of those embedded interests who in '76 would've kept an upstart like Carter out of the WH. But he and people like him have been digging in their feet ever since that era, halting change and frustrating young people like me. For 2008 Mondale pledges his super vote to supporting the establishment candidate at convention. Big surprise. I mean that kind of shyt should get every Democrats' blood boiling. Obama supporters get it. We gotta fire baby, a religious fire. And the only thing that'll put out that fire is some cowbell!

A true public servant and a really likable guy on top of it all. But as he's gotten old he's let himself become one of the embedded interests holding back the party and the country, the stuff of Obama's fuzzy "the past and the future" talk.

Embedded interest? Just what the heck is that supposed to mean? Is that Obama-speak for "if you're older than me, you don't belong in public office." What's Ted Kennedy?

Simple example. In 1968 there was a very inspiring campaign with RFK and Eugene McCarthy. In fact, our virgil friend Jad has already compared Obama to RFK, tons of buzz and excitement like what's going on today with the Obama cult following his campaign day and night. Except RFK was murdered, so hopes went down the tube overnight, and it was obvious McCarthy wasn't going to win.

RFK -- brilliant comparison. The man would have largely been a nobody if not for the crooked 1960 election and his brother's nepotist appointment of him as Attorney General, and the sympathy because JFK got shot.

Here's the thing though: had he lived, RFK STILL probably wouldn't have won the nomination. Despite winning most all 13 primaries at the time, his campaign lagged to Hubert Humphrey in delegate counts at the time of his death. Hubert, the embedded, old guard candidate of his day, executed a strategy to game the system and court the majority of delegates who "represented" states without primaries, and at convention got their votes after a series of backroom/under the table deals, despite receiving only 2.2% of the vote. Not democratic at all. The superdelegates of then, like today, consisted of embedded interests unaccountable to anyone but themselves. Entrenched, and so, out of favor.

Hubert Humphrey was far from being some old guard fuddy-duddy, he was actually quite progressive and liberal, supporting humanitarianism overseas, federal assistance to the poor, civil rights, etc. Kennedy was as much an establishmentarian candidate as Humphrey. You deride the Clinton machine and say out with the old and in with the new, yet the Kennedy machine and that line of succession is OK.

And you speak of RFK winning the primaries while losing the caucuses -- sounds alot like Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton has won most of the primary states, while Obama has won most the the caucus states. You rail against the caucuses, except when Obama is winning them.

And so its ironic that Mondale could get into the White House on such great party reforms and turn his back on them 4 years later. What happened? He got in office, and by the time he got out you didn't have to look any further than his campaign to know he was corrupted.

Mondale was facing a wildly popular incumbent President -- the politics in America shifted, and to win a presidential race, a candidate must steal the center. Bill Clinton stole the center in 1992 and 1996. Look at Labour in England, the reason for their success is because they were able to steal the center from the Tories.

Some replies from other forums:

Liberty Lounge:

Originally Posted by motivez

This is my biggest beef with Obama, and IMO it's his biggest challenge moving forward. I've said on a number of occasions that he has to be substantive when discussing issues instead of offering flowers and bunnies and all this other nice sounding stuff with nothing solid backing it.

Hillary, for all of the criticisms I have about her.. is still a policy wonk. She can talk about the specifics of her plans and what she wants to do and so on and so forth at length. Obama might be able to, but all I know is that he really hasn't.

The last debate he had he tried to, and was more successful than he had been in the past.. but he still has to do more. A lot more.

Military Photos:

Originally Posted by el borracho

To counter his popularity, Obama's critics like to remind everyone that he "lacks experience." That could work to his favor if he can translate lacking experience into not being tainted by the political game. To contrast the gray areas on Obama's platform, Hillary supporters claim that with their candidate you know exactly what to expect (the pro-Bush crowd said the same in '04). That's exactly right, and that's what people are afraid of. After the Bush presidency and the threat of another Clinton era looming on the horizon, people are more willing to place their bets on Obama and venture into the uncharted political territory.

Originally Posted by Merfeller

If he ever actually gets into specifics, rather than empty "we need change" blather, we might actually know what he's all about. Unfortunately, a slick delivery is enough for most Americans. It definitely seems to be his election to lose - Hillary is cracking and the Republicans are more interested in fighting with each other "for the good of the party" than anything else. The general election is far away, though. Plenty of time for him to **** up and have America fall out of love with him.

Originally Posted by gammbino

Originally Posted by shocker1

I now support Mr. Obama's bid for the Whitehouse. The GOP has told small government guys like me to go to hell. So lets tax and spend the right way, with a Dem who might even spend it on Americans.

I actually was feeling the same way, but I'm not so sure it's the right move. I have to believe that the leaders of their respective parties are thinking long term, as in not only how do we win in 2008 but how do we stay in power. With a democrat controlled White House and Congress I think socialized healthcare is inevitable, along with a number of other wealth redistribution programs. Problem is, once such things are put in place, they are NEVER going to go away. With Edwards out of the race, the class warfare rhetoric is less blatant, but it's still there. Without a doubt if we have Dem control for the next 4-8 years Universal Healthcare will happen and it will cost billiions and billions more than whatever any estimates say (look at Mass. and Cali.), Social Security will be reformed, meaning the cap will be removed and it will turn into a pure redistribution scheme, more tax "credits" for people who don't actually pay any taxes, college funds and housing funds to help those who were taken advantage of by the evil lending industry.

I really believe that the long term strategy for most politicians, D and R, is to make the majority of Americans totally dependent on government for their very survival. It's easy to win an election when you can say that if you vote for so and so, he's going to take away your [insert entitlement program here].

I think I'm going to stay home this year.