You are about to see a very strange thing here at DD...I'm about to admit something. Something strange. It involves me being amenable...and questioning..and open-minded. And these things? Well, these things are the opposite of dogmatic.
Settle in, folks....
Ok...I think I'm giving up on Gore in 08. Don't get me wrong, he is the BEST Democratic candidate. He has no controversial war record, has extensive political experience, is an outspoken and effective Bush critic and leader on one of the most controversial issues of our day (policy change). He has tapped into the entertainment media, the netroots and the international community (hello Nobel prize nomination...). But that is on paper. ON paper, Gore is so, so, so fantastic. Fantastic I tell you. But elections aren't waged or won on paper. And as I watched Obama on Saturday, I realized that Gore can't compete. He can't compete in a sensationalized political world that now expects sermonic rhetoric and charisma. I don't think sermons and likeability are bad. Quite the contrary..I think they are just what Democratic and undecided voters need. They need hope. They need excitement. They need ceremony. Pomp! Circumstance! They probably *get ready* ...don't *tear* ...need *deep breath* ...Al Gore....America needs him. We need him behind the scenes. Making movies. Writing books. Being huggable, lovable and smart. But we don't need him as commander-in-chief.
So, Internets, I am re-thinking my Gore-lovin stance. Still love em...just not waiting for him to join the race. We have enough horses. Good horses. Good horses who couldn't really be his VP nominee anyway. Let's say Gore clinches the nomination....can you imagine Obama as his Vice President? No, I can't either. Same with Edwards. They have too much pomp! and circumstance! You're reading it correctly. I'm hanging it up. Done. Done with the Gore touting. Done with the Gore in 08 posts. Done.
I need a moment....
Settle in, folks....
Ok...I think I'm giving up on Gore in 08. Don't get me wrong, he is the BEST Democratic candidate. He has no controversial war record, has extensive political experience, is an outspoken and effective Bush critic and leader on one of the most controversial issues of our day (policy change). He has tapped into the entertainment media, the netroots and the international community (hello Nobel prize nomination...). But that is on paper. ON paper, Gore is so, so, so fantastic. Fantastic I tell you. But elections aren't waged or won on paper. And as I watched Obama on Saturday, I realized that Gore can't compete. He can't compete in a sensationalized political world that now expects sermonic rhetoric and charisma. I don't think sermons and likeability are bad. Quite the contrary..I think they are just what Democratic and undecided voters need. They need hope. They need excitement. They need ceremony. Pomp! Circumstance! They probably *get ready* ...don't *tear* ...need *deep breath* ...Al Gore....America needs him. We need him behind the scenes. Making movies. Writing books. Being huggable, lovable and smart. But we don't need him as commander-in-chief.
So, Internets, I am re-thinking my Gore-lovin stance. Still love em...just not waiting for him to join the race. We have enough horses. Good horses. Good horses who couldn't really be his VP nominee anyway. Let's say Gore clinches the nomination....can you imagine Obama as his Vice President? No, I can't either. Same with Edwards. They have too much pomp! and circumstance! You're reading it correctly. I'm hanging it up. Done. Done with the Gore touting. Done with the Gore in 08 posts. Done.
I need a moment....
Labels: politics
11 Comments:
NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Damn right.
Plus people want something new, and Gore isn't it.
There is only one Democrat who can unite the country around a new era of progressive reform, and I think you know who I mean.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Go Jim Gravel!
DT
Does this mean you will join me in my Obama loving, or do you have another favorite candidate?
B: I like Obama...not really on the bandwagone yet...maybe if he would start articulating some actual policy platforms, I'd be more likely to join in.
He's great. Great website. Great persona. Great appeal. Great speeches. But I have no idea what he IS.
So far, I am Edwards all the way...Even if his health care policy is the only thing he articulates, I'm in favor! (and it is more than I'm getting from Obama!)
You need to get on the Bill Richardson wagon. Stat.
Drew likes a Edwards/Richardson ticket....
Way to echo media criticism! "Obama needs details".
Since you are someone whom I am told has a thing or another to do with the study of communication, you might know that talking about broad themes lets an electorate know more about a candidate than policy details.
The policy details are on the website you do know...and if I were Obama I would ride the broad theme bandwagon and release specific policy details throughout the next year to steal a good news cycle when he needs it.
In the mean time he can perfect the kibbles and bits.
Remember, broad themes are less available for criticism than policy specifics.
A Presidential candidate is more than a catalogue of prospective legislation. A campaign is about communicating what kind of person they are, what their values are, and if their judgement is right for the office.
A Presidency is rarely defined by proposals sought during a campaign but rather the events and demands of the office.
gObama!
GIMME A BREAK, DAVE!
Yes, broad proposals do those things that you claim...but we are starting to move PAST that stage. He's been doing the broad stroke technique since the 04 convention! It is time he starts to take some risks and articulate what he stands for.
He needs independent voters. Independent voters need platforms. I'm not saying he needs a 12 point plan...but he needs some substance. We get it. We get that from a state house he was against the war...we get that he wants positive campaigning...we get that he has hope...we get it! But what we don't get is anything else.
ALSO...even IF what you're saying is true...for me (as an intelligent voter) who cares about ISSUES...I want more. I don't want fluffy politics. I want to know what distinguishes him from every other democratic candidate. Until he gives me SOMETHING to vote on, I have no idea why I would vote for him in a primary...
Plus...his OVERUSE Of religion makes me uncomfortable...THERE...i said it...I know it makes everyone else SWOON...but we can do civic republicanism W/OUT constantly appealing to a traditional, christian faith.
Kristen,
What you are saying is that even if a Presidential candidate agrees with you toe-to-toe, you want that candidate to campaign to get your vote even if it means being less politically viable. I wonder why we have only had the White House 8 of the past 30 years or so.
Broad themes worked for Lincoln,FDR, JFK, LBJ,Reagan and Bill Clinton.
Wonky policy details killed Mondale, Dukakas, Dole, Gore, and Kerry.
A majority of the country follows a traditional Christian faith, it is not unwise for Obama to show that he isn't hostile to that faith.
He has said many wise things about the relationship between religon and and politics.I for one would like a progressive Democrat to make sure that people of faith understand that being a church goer and believing in God doesn't mean you have to support a party that lusts for war, promotes greed, and who is indifferent to those in need.
It sounds to me Kristen that your candidate is Segolene Royal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9gol%C3%A8ne_Royal
DT
Dave:
1. You are unreasonably interpreting what I am saying...I'm not expecting him to LAY OUT a theme/platform for the race ala convention style. Rather, I am asking him to state SOMETHING that he stands for. While I am very anti-war and that matters to me, so do domestic issues...and I have no idea what his stance is....and his HOUSE record isn't enough.
2. Yes I want him to cater to MY vote and the votes of many independent voters who will MAKE THE DIFFERENCE IN 08. This race will not be decided by democratic voters. We're going to vote for whoever the nominee is...but I'm talking about all the disgruntled voters somewhere in the middle.
3. There is a HUGE difference between not being hostile to christian faith and using constant religious metaphors, talking about how he knows his "christian faith," etc, etc, etc. He is constrained by the context of proving he is no terrorist extremeist. He is constrained by his skin color. So I get that he has to use identification and talk about communal values. However, one can connect faith and politics in a way that is not over the top.
He should at least wait until the inaugural to be fully ordained into civil piety.
And he should wait until the convention to reach out to independent voters.
Post a Comment
<< Home