Comments on The Magic of Rhetoric

Boo-yah.

Love the line "we've seen this movie before". I can't imagine any other candidate putting it that way.

Yeah, yeah, he's going nowhere, but I'd like to see Kucinich's ratings by these various litmus organizations.

"Fakes right goes left."

As you say, his left record—which we see as a strength—will definitely be the "weakness" that the GOP will go after him on if he gets the nomination.

He'll continue faking right, but they'll trot out those lock step ratings.

If he can pull an election year Rossi or a Bush, and just stay focused on the feel-good, non-partisan rhetoric (as he's done so far), that'll be delicious....

especially, when and if, he really can blow by for a left handed lay up once the real game starts.

I think it's disingenuous to equate a negative rating from a conservative tax group with being "more progressive on taxes". I'd like to see ratings from a liberal group with respect to consumer rights, taxes, etc, as we have with NARAL and abortion rights.

and i dont know if being rated a 5 by haaretz means that you are balanced on israel. and annie if you are so progressive why aren't you singing the praises of kucinich who i'm sure beats all three. You should pray that he gets swept into office.

Metaphors aside, Josh, I think the fact that Obama can actually talk and play sports will keep that "liberal" tag from sticking too hard.

Americans are stupid. The white men who hated John Kerry for being "too French" or engaging in "sissy" sports like windsurfing will eat up the fact that Obama can hit a 20-foot jumper and give Charlie Gibson the results of the Redskins game on live TV.

Three law students graduate and eventually all run for president. But before that, one becomes a corporate lawyer, gets rich, and joins the board of Wal-Mart. Another becomes a trial lawyer, gets rich, and builds a huge mansion. The third foregoes a lucrative career and becomes a community organizer in one of America's poorest urban communities, assisting the disenfranchised. Which would you vote for?

The hope he offers is to bring more Americans to his positions. OT help them realize that that's what they already believe once the right-inspired fear melts away.

Obama talking about hope and fear and basic values like that hopefully opens up communication and a bond that produces that effect.

You don't get that with the independents by talking about a list of issues/solutions/policies/gimmes satisfiying each of the dozen core Democratic interest groups.
So far, that's pretty much what Hillary has done.

In other words, by the time he's in office, he won't need to do a lay up down the left lanes. He'll be running right up the new middle, because he moved the goalposts.

(Ouch, aplogies; sometimes I buzz from metaphor to metaphor, unable to take root anywhere).

BTW having interest group ratings a few points less than Obama (e.g., 99% versus 92%) is not proof Hillary is a centrist.

@4: Fair enough, I'd like to see one too. I do think Obama is more progressive on at least one tax issue compared to Clinton, and that is raising the cap on Social Security payroll taxes.

@5: Well, I said "more balanced." But obviously that's a hot issue--your definition of balance may be different than mine. As for Kucinich: I am deeply skeptical of his notion of creating a Department of Peace, I don't favor an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, I think he picked a wife to further his political career, his record in Cleveland is easily critiqued, he's soft on abortion rights, and he has zero charisma. He also has no chance of ever becoming president.

Aww, don't ya just hate it when people point out he's a swell guy?

Sen Obama's going to be a fine choice.

Remember, that his ultra-smooth "it's morning in America" patter helped propel a hard-right candidate into the White House 28 years ago, in spite of his political positions that were not in tune with the public at large.

annie @9: Ha! What a crapload of anti-Kucinich cliches (Dept of Peace, hot wife, bankrupt Cleveland, etc).

Apparently you've heard the sound bytes, but not a whole lot more. If you're going to critique the man, you might try to educate yourself on his background a bit.

I don't understand why anyone would spend time educating him- or herself on Kucinich's background, or anything else about him. He's a nonentity.

kucinich's wife IS hot.

and SHE picked HIM.

i think its reason enough to put him in the white house. and that he's the only one likely to put bush & cheney in jail.

Annie-

NARAL and Planned Parenthood give both Clinton and Obama 100% ratings.

But I wouldn't want to let something as trivial as facts get in the way of your Obama coronation.

@12: Like it or not, those are the reasons he's a weak candidate. (Except the Iraq thing--I'm on my own with that, I know.) I am well aware that he has progressive policy positions, but they do not mitigate his other weaknesses.

obviously Kucinich's wife was picked because she is hot, and because they share passionate beliefs about politics.
also her tongue thingy that he feels a bit proprietary about.

"he picked her for political reasons" -- WTF?

You think being married to a peace-activist foreigner pinko super liberal with a pierced tongue helps you politically in the USA?

We wish 'twere so.....

@15: True. And I don't know what specific vote(s) HRC & Obama differed on re: abortion in 2005-6. But Clinton was certainly appeasing the right in 2005 with her "sad, even tragic" speech. And I don't think that was a smart move.

@17: Publicity reasons are political reasons. Doesn't much matter what her personal politics are; she gets plenty of positive press for her cascade of auburn hair.

annie: Do you know WHY Cleveland went bankrupt? Do you even understand that issue? If so, please explain to me why that makes him a "weak candidate".

He's a weak candidate because he's short and funny looking, not because of Iraq, his wife, charisma, abortion or any other issue you cite.

Yup, I've heard the whole story many times, and though he has a fair defense, politics often doesn't work that way. He is a weak candidate because Cleveland appears to have been a fiasco, not because it actually was one.

And if you think "charisma" is independent of looks, you are nuts. Of course being short and funny looking hurts his candidacy; I never said otherwise. Iraq probably helps him in this cycle, but it makes me like him less. And I will reiterate my opinion that his trophy wife and his wobbly abortion stance hurts him.

That's it for Kucinich. I gotta do my real job for a minute.

The whole nation is ready to sweep Kucinich into office, can't you see? To carry on the legacy of President McGovern, overwhelmingly elected and beloved by the entire American people. (How fitting that the South Dakotan is to be enshrined as the fifth president on Mount Rushmore.) If only these stupid, recalcitrant Democrats would just get on with the Kucinich nomination by acclamation so he could go on to glorious victory in November!

Annie-

Puhleeze. Her comment was just a repackaging of Bill's "safe, legal, and rare" speech- that one can be staunchly supportive of abortion rights and yet also acknowledge the moral complexity of the decision to have an abortion.

You're grasping at straws because the central tenet of your argument- that Obama is fundamentally more liberal than Clinton- is bullshit.

Obama's appeal for unity and change is *exactly* like Bill's in 1992, and will result in the same kind of centrist policies. Go gagga over him if you want because he's young, or telegenic, or whatever, but realize you can't move beyond partisanship without enacting policies that appeal to centrists.

Their records aren't really that different. Some of the more rabid progressives seem to think that Clinton is some sort of pseudo-conservative.

Now, now, Big Sven, you probably thought Howard Dean was liberal, didn't you?

I find all this presumption that we know how people "are" quite silly, really.

@23: Hey, Big Sven, I don't dislike Clinton, and I'd be happy if she were to win the nomination. I don't, however, like the way she's been running her campaign: I want the first woman president to win on the strength of her own record, not her husband's. I'm mostly plugging Obama's marginally stronger rating on abortion rights because Clinton's been trying to undercut his record on that very issue. And I have thought a lot about that "sad, even tragic" speech--here's my essay on it, which explains why I think it goes farther than a mere reformulation of "safe, legal, and rare." For what it's worth.

If Obama becomes a centrist president, I'll be OK with that. But from the evidence I've seen, I think it's likely that he'll be a strong leader for core Democratic values, and more effective than Clinton simply because he's more persuasive.

Annie-

I had forgotten you had written about that speech (I had read your original piece, but at that point didn't know the individual writers well enough to remember who had written what.) I don't think she was reaching out to abortion opponents, but rather to those on the sidelines who don't understand the compassionate nature of almost all pro-choice advocates.

But whatever. I'll be o.k. if Obama is the nominee. Particularly if it's because young people get off their collective asses and "vote for one of their own." But I still contend there is almost no difference between Clinton and Obama on the issues, and that the difference lies in an orthogonal approach to politics: Clinton represents a very linear, block-and-tackling issue by issue approach to governance. Obama represents a more philosophical, who-do-you-like-more, how-do-you-feel-about-my-vision approach.

I don't think the issues folks see the world like the vision folks, and vice versa. I'm an issues guy, I don't care if Clinton has a broad vision about politics because I trust her on the issues. And thus I support her.

One more thing: I don't understand why you are so averse to Clinton's using her experience as First Lady. I remember in 1992, everyone gushed about how Bill and Hillary were the first modern couple in the White House, in that they both had strong careers and formed a real partnership. "Two for the price of one" was around even back then, and it meant we got Hillary for free. I don't think Hillary is an Eva Peron or an Indira Gandhi, expecting us to believe she got political skills through osmosis. I think she expects us to believe that she was up late with Bill and the gang, hammering out policy. In the modern world couples are a partnership, and after Laura Bush leaves I don't think we'll ever again expect Presidential spouses to *not* be in the inner circle.

Gee, can't quite remember the girlfriends saying, "Hi honey! Had that abortion today -- now that was happy *and* comical!"

"How about a little celebration, eh? Whopa!" [twinkle in eyes; radiant smile; reaches for champagne.]

@28: It was definitely an attempt to reach out to abortion opponents, and she said as much:

"I'm also pleased to be talking to people who are on the front lines of increasing women's access to quality health care and reducing unwanted pregnancy -- an issue we should be able to find common ground on with people on the other side of this debate."

and

"I think it's important that family planning advocates reach out to those who may not agree with us on everything to try to find common ground in those areas where, hopefully, emergency contraception, more funding for prenatal care and others can be a point of common ground."

So that was the context. I think that was a fine argument to be making, but I don't think it's necessary or advisable for politicians to speculate on the emotional response women have to undergoing a medical procedure. It's simply not relevant to the question at hand, which is, should women continue to have unfettered access to abortion?

As for not wanting the first woman to have been a former first lady: I was 12 years old and a rabid environmentalist in 1992, so I was a big fan of Al Gore. I didn't pay much attention to how the Clintons ran the campaign. However, in general I don't like the 2-for-1 idea. The constitution tells us to elect a president, not two, and I don't see any reason to change that. Polital dynasties suck--Benizir Bhutto's power was inherited by her son, not another woman. History books will take account of HRC's marital connection, and I don't want that to be the narrative. It's just an opinion, and one I don't expect will persuade others. But it does influence my preference.

annie-

OK, I now understand why her comment really was an olive branch to the anti-choice folks. I can see why pro-choice folks wouldn't be happy with it. Thanks.

We agree to disagree on the nature of marriage in the 21st century.

If you want to see ratings done by the people (not the pollsters), check out Fit to be President. This site lets readers rate the candidates on a myriad of personal characteristics. For instance, I gave Obama a 10 out of a 10 for his forward-thinking perspectives.