Winning & Governing
When Hillary Clinton & Crew were
incessantly promoting her as the most electable candidate, I kept
saying: It's not just about winning; it's about governing. It's about YOU, Hillary; it's about US, the U.S.
Now that Obama has decided to turn down public financing -- despite the fact that he's been committed to campaign finance & electoral reform for some time -- I've had to revise my thoughts.
You can't govern unless you win.
The thousands of regular folks contributing time and money (many, like me, for the first time ever) to Obama's campaign helped him make it this far. If he had taken public financing, he would have had less money and flexibility to respond quickly to character attacks and other distortions. And more Swift Boatings, Willie Hortons or October Surprises are almost certainly coming. Since at least Nixon, Republicans have become the cynical masters of fanning people's barely suppressed fears, grudges and insecurities so they vote for the latest Protective Patriarchal Republican who will protect We American Children. Goebbels himself would be impressed with how Republicans -- and Clinton, too -- have clawed their way to the Presidency over the last 40 years.
To the critics who support public financing of campaigns:
* Obama's Facebook-like donor system IS a new type of PUBLIC financing. Tell me how it isn't. And if he can raise more from the public this way, what's wrong with that?
To those who say Obama broke his word:
* Changing one's mind is a sign of a nimble intellect capable of continued learning and a wise leader able to respond to ever-changing conditions.
To those who say this decision shows he's just another calclutlaing politician:
* Good. The Republicans are masters of the politics-as-usual attack machine. Obama must be prepared for this year's Swift Boat and whatever else they throw his way.
Win first. Then govern.
Govern better than the emarassing bozo we've had for 8 years. And, yes, govern better than the slick cynic we had before that.
Brilliant!
June 21, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The defense of Senator Obama's exposing himself for what he really is is astonishing. What a different tune you dudes are singing. After all the bile, vitriol and vicious pounding of Hillary Clinton for wanting to win, being a politician, making politically expedient decisions and all the holy, holies and Obama's our savior shouts from the heavens, now it's just fine that he turns out to be another scheming, truth manipulating, SNAFU politician. You monumental hypocrites.
And as far as slick cynics go. What could be more slick and cynical then running a primary campaign based on taking advantage of and making fools out of young, naive, idealistic first-timers taking part in the democratic process.
June 21, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just curious - besides spitting out vitriolic judgments on Obama and his supporters, exactly what have you done lately to make any positive contribution to our democracy? No snark intended and expect same if you respond. Thanks.
June 21, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aunt Sam, I'll try not to be snarky. Nice word however.
I'm a democrat. A progressive. I have participated in campaigns,primary's, canvassed door-to-door ( that one's painful) given money, worked phones,and voted for over 25 years. I won't bore you with charitable work.
I am ashamed of the way my party and other progressives ( blogs ) have treated Senator Clinton and her supporters. When she won in New Hampshire we were racists, when she won in Ohio and Pennsylvania we were bitter middle class twits with a confused value system, when she won in West Virginia and Kentucky we were dumb hillbillies. Right now I need to step back and think about were I belong in all of this and what I will do in November. I do know that my country cannot afford five more minutes of Republicans in power. But I am extremely wary of what Senator Obama will really be. Taking huge amounts of money from Wall Street, caving on FISA, opting out of public funding, limiting press access, playing word games concerning universal health care. Hope this helps.
Posted by johnnypro
June 21, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
For what it's worth, I posted my hypocritical and rationalizing mental gymnastics.
As far as "running a primary campaign based on taking advantage of and making fools out of young, naive, idealistic first-timers taking part in the democratic process." Isn't that a bit over the top? I'm 48 years old. When it comes to active politics, I've been a sideline cynic since I first voted for Barry Commoner (Citizens Party) in 1980. On the sidelines, one watches politics like sport. Somebody wins, somebody loses. Nothing much changes. We're all still going to die and the car wreck of our politics proves it. I had NEVER even CONSIDERED volunteering my time and giving my hard-earned money to a candidate for anything. But, pained by my deep-boned and clear-brained conviction that America has left the track (where not even a cynic can see the race to our demise) and the fact I have 3 kids to inherit this mess if we don't turn things around, I give money and time to Obama. That doesn't mean I think he's a saint. He's had quite a bit a bit of the sheen knocked from his holy relic. But his up side is bigger than anyone I can remember (let alone vote for).
Say what you want. Be as angry as you want about Clinton not going ahead. But don't throw out sweeping generalizations about "young, naive, idealistic first-timers." You don't know what you're talking about there. And you sure don't know who you're writing to if you say that to this old fart.
www.pith.net
www.anyman.com
June 23, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look: Obama would have been a damned fool to throw away an overwhelming advantage. Rationalizations are simply that (like abortion advocates who say a foetus somehow is not a can'tIperson). Grow up just and deal with it.
June 21, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Grow up and deal with what? A fetus isn't a person.
June 21, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
It magically becomes one upon exposure to air?
June 22, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty much, yeah. It becomes one when it can actually breathe that air and live.
June 22, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Intelligent people can change their strategies; if Obama stayed with his original plan (I disagree that it was an Oath, or a Promise) to accept public financing, it would mean he was stupid. He isn't stupid.
The RNC has millions more than the DNC. The Republican smear machine has millions to spend on Swift Boat attacks.
If Obama threw away all his grass-roots contributors and ended up at a disadvantage because of all of the above, what would be the point? Is this a Nancy Pelosi, "Accepting the millions that ordinary people are sending in to support my candidacy -- is off the table" ploy?
This issue is about strategy and smartness. To act all hurt and offended about Obama letting you down is really a stretch. The way Obama could let you down is to put himself at a disadvantage against the republican machine. We need all the money we can get to fight that.
This is a false issue. Go find one that matters, like health care. If he lets us down on that, I will tear up the blogspace personally, but I don't expect him to do that.
June 21, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want a democrat in the White House. Period. We sometimes get too intellectual and pure to win a fight. When we lose, we get things like Dubya has done. If we love America and our way of life here, we're going to have to fight for it. I'm a lowly nurse, but I've done without a lot of things since January 1st so that I could cough up $1500.00 for Obama's campaign. When I read things about Obama not really being what he says he is because of the percentage of "big donors" who give $200 dollars or more, I laugh. I'm not a big donor. I'm a little donor with a big belief. I believe that my country is in grave danger. I believe that we could lose our moral guide and way of life to people like Dubya and the republicans who have supported him. I'm scared to death of losing my beautiful America that I love with a fierce love. So, I do without. I make sacrifices. I choose again. I send money. And I send it again. And again. And I'll keep right on doing that until Obama is elected. And after that I'll listen to his fireside chats and put pressure on my senators and representatives to make choices that are good for America. I went to a little country two room school where we learned about how America came to be. I fell in love with her and I never lost it. I let things slide for too long, but when we started being the people who torture prisoners, I knew I had to take a stand. So, I spend less on groceries and hardly anything on clothes. I don't go to movies and I don't go shopping for fun---Until Obama is in the White House and democrats have a solid control in the House and the Senate. I eat brown rice and vegies for Obama!
June 21, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I pay the man, and I trust the man, to get into our White House and make a difference.
Highly recommended post.
June 22, 2008 3:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amen.
June 22, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Hillary was cold and calculating because she would do anything to get elected.
I guess it's only when *THAT WOMAN* does it that it's a problem.
June 22, 2008 3:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's Hillary's position on FISA again?
June 22, 2008 4:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Has she put out a statement? I missed it, if she has.
June 22, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey wait, I thought Obama would be the best at governing because he ran a better campaign.
Now you're telling me that campaigning and governing are 2 different things?
June 22, 2008 3:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Campaigning and governing go hand-in-hand. But when you campaign, you say what you need to say. When you govern, you do what you need to do.
June 22, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quite a few have said that. But I'm not one of them. Obama's campaign strategy was considerably better than Hillary Clinton's. (Her mistakes have been well documented by others so I won't rehearse them here.) A good campaign, however, does not mean the winner will be good at governing. Not at all. There's no logical connection between the two and, in fact, the winner of a bruising, nasty campaign -- as ours increasingly have become for quite some years now -- may well find it much HARDER to do the complimentary work WITH Congress it takes to govern through difficult times and issues. That kind of governing politics requires (GASP!) compromise at times. Some of our thorniest, most challenging issues -- the future of Social Security and a bona fide energy policy with some VISION for the future, to name 2 biggies -- will require a more civilized brand of governing and the old, more civil "art of compromise" politics. brand of politics that regains "art of compromise" -- as opposed to the "continuous campaign," an approach that Bill Clinton embraced and Bush/Cheney/Rove/NeoConEvils kicked into hyperdrive, thus hurtling America even faster toward its eventual and inevitable demise as the moral & economic power it was. Anyway, I hope for a civil campaign from Obama and McCain as it improves the likelihood Dems and Reps can hammer out better approaches to contentious and troublesome issues, rather than just keep hammering each other through one overly long campaign to the next.
Is Obama the one to fix this? I don't know, but I certainly think he has the best shot at elevating the political discourse up from the shit bog it's been in for decades of anybody in my adult lifetime - since Reagan, at least (as much as it pains me a bit to say that about Ronnie).
June 23, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
My reply was to Desidero's post, not Hrebendorf's (which was well stated). Desidero said: "Hey wait, I thought Obama would be the best at governing because he ran a better campaign.
Now you're telling me that campaigning and governing are 2 different things?"
June 23, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Something tells me he'll govern not just better than Bush, but better than most.
June 22, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink