Quote:
Originally Posted by nonsqtr
Right? All these concepts, kinda revolve around this idea of Obama getting "stained" somehow.
That's a really interesting piece, right there. What do you think about it?
|
Obama's a double-edged figure. He's pretty liberal as far as viable candidates go... but he's pragmatic enough to come off as moderate and be moderate in all practical measures of accomplishment. That's part of the reason people like Nader don't like him. They see incrementalism as weak.
And it makes him a lot like Hillary in a way... Moderate out of pragmatism.
But I'd argue there are important differences:
1. He does come from somewhere closer to the grassroots. He rose a lot at once, but he did rise from the bottom.
2. His moderation is one of trade-off and negotiation, rather than defeatist moderation. He will attempt to make gains for liberal ideas, but accept having to give conservatives something as a necessary cost. The implementation of ideas seem more important than the winning. For Hillary, winning seems to now be the end in itself.
3. Obama respects the opposition. Despite being more liberal, he listens to conservatives as humans with differing opinions rather than using divisive rhetoric to compensate for lack of real difference.
Now with all that said, Obama is a rising star. He's finding himself in a position of more pressure to conform to the mainstream wants.
And he's gaining the attention of the Democratic Leaders... the very force he seems to be in conflict with. Many seem to be ditching the Clintons for him.
The question is:
A. Did the DLC mighty have an epiphany and realize that Obama's way is better?
B. Or are they trying to keep him under control by offering him power?
If B is the case:
I. Will he make the best of the power he is given and ultimately force change in the Democratic establishment?
II. Will he become the new Clinton? This is especially haunting as he acknowledged the importance of running while he was still in touch with real people.