Print This Post
Feb
11
I’ve said some of the very same words, though not nearly as coherently as Morra Aarons does in this post, about how, for all the newness Barack Obama projects, he’s got some very not-so-new folks at his elbow and beyond.
Aarons writes:
Being a Hillary supporter is like being the person in the dorm who yells at her partying neighbors to shut up, because she’s studying for a final exam. You know you have a good reason, but you’re a little annoyed at yourself for being such a pill. At the same time, I get very indignant about Obama’s snow job on the Democratic electorate. The Will.i.am “Yes I Can” video? When I worked for John Kerry last election cycle, Will’s band the Black Eyed Peas were BFF with DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe (who is more Establishment?) and performed for many Kerry functions. I bet they would’ve made a video too if we’d had YouTube. My Dad said to me yesterday, “I don’t understand. There was this article in the New York Times about the emergence of Obama and the death of the establishment but I don’t understand how he emerged from nowhere without the aid of the establishment.”
Obama is aided by the establishment. This is his strength (it’s why he’s not been marginalized) but it’s also important to remember when we get swept up in his change-y exuberance. He spent more money on TV ads than Clinton. His campaign manager and senior team are DC veterans. A cursory glance at the FEC year end report by spending purpose says Obama spent almost twice as much as Hillary in the category “polling” (of course, who knows, since there are many other line items that absorb pollsters and related consultants).
After describing an anecdote that details how college students can sing in a chorus that Obama is about change but they “don’t really know what his positions are,” Aarons concludes with this:
To me, Obama rhetoric is like Splenda- “made from, tastes like.” Tastes like change, but it’s not really. It has no substance. It’s made from the same stuff as other politicians. I don’t understand exactly how Obama embodies change, except that he tells us he does.
Depends on what you want from a President. Obama has exhibited great leadership. He has created a brand and a message and it works. He’s brilliant and charismatic and he gets our zeitgeist. I suppose he can hire a great Cabinet, the way he clearly hired a crack campaign team.
But you won’t see me joining the cult of Obama. Not today at least.
This post of mine about the Obama “Join” ad has a similar tone in its comment thread. And I’m absolutely fine with being the one to tell the partying neighbors to be quiet. My name doesn’t rhyme with “pill” for nothing.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:47 pm February 11th, 2008 in Barack Obama, Campaigning, Environment, Hillary Clinton, Politics, Primary, WH2008
Comments
23 Responses to “Morra Aarons: “Obama is the establishment””
Leave a Reply
2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
by Tips and TricksNews Now
OK, Hillarettes. You can have one but not both. Either he is pathetically inexperienced or he’s deeply embedded in the Dem. establishment.
Pick one.
No way am I a Hillarette, but I do believe someone could be both embedded and inexperienced. He stands the best chance of getting us back into the world of diplomacy, of repairing our image. I really believe that. Morra wrote a great article though and I’m glad Jill featured it here.
it’s called leadership. i realize the hillarettes aren’t familiar with this, but there weren’t any establishment types jumping on the bandwagon before it was a bandwagon. now that obama has a real shot, breaking news, everyone wants a piece.
the fact that they are now jumping onboard to avoid being left out in the cold is no more a sign of obama being “establishment” than it is of the bandwagoners being brave leaders.
get your metaphors right, jill.
Obama’s electable.
I voted for Edwards in the last primary cycle, then for Bush.
I’ll vote for Obama in this one, and if the Dems shoot themselves in the foot again by nominating Hillary, I’ll vote for McCain.
My husband is for McCain, but says a choice between McCain and Obama would be tough.
Rhetoric is not a dirty word. A couple of hundred years ago, it was a queen of the disciplines. During the NH primary, a news commentator said people follow leaders out of foxholes motivated by rhetoric. It can pull people to work together.
[...] like the party-pooper who asks partying neighbors to be quiet, as I referenced last night in this post that highlights the perspectives of political consultant Morra [...]
Eric – these are NOT mutually exclusive – why on Earth would you think that they are?
(referring to this, “Either he is pathetically inexperienced or he’s deeply embedded in the Dem. establishment.)
Thanks, Carole. I appreciate your comment. I continue to be undecided and the fact that I can understand that analogy Aarons makes has nothing to do with whether or not I’d vote for Clinton.
Tim – I didn’t use the bandwagon metaphor so I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
As for a fear of being left out in the cold? That’s rarely a reason to join something, unless you are actually in danger of something. I assume you’re saying something like people are in danger of ending up with Clinton and that that’s danger enough for you to support Obama?
Julana – thanks for reading and leaving a comment. I know exactly what you mean about the choices re: your husband’s logic – I was out to dinner the other night with friends who are Republicans and the wife felt the same way re: McCain v. Obama. The husband, on the other hand, really liked Biden but said he’ll probably vote McCain.
Rhetoric is an incredibly important tool – no doubt.
The argument that is being made is that he hasn’t been in the Senate long enough and hasn’t done anything (inexperience). Then we hear how deeply embedded in the Dem. establishment he is. Do you win a drawing to become that embedded or is it experience over time that gets you there?
The arguments, as they are being made, certainly are mutually exclusive. To be deeply embedded you HAVE to have been there a while and done something.
They are both inexperienced so let’s stop making that argument, OK? They are both “a part of the establishment” in so much as they are both Democrats and not big outsiders. So we can dispense with that as well. It’s the message we should be focusing on.
It’s nice spin, and Team Billary needs to make it (that Obama is really the establishment guy), but nobody should nor is going to buy it. Hillary is as entrenched as an old school Democrat gets. Her digs on him over just being an “organizer” while she was fighting big political battles should make this clear. Obama is new. You simply CAN’T continue to make the argument that he is inexperienced yet somehow wound up instantly in the “old boys club”. It just doesn’t follow.
Spending more money is a sign that he’s being backed by the establishment? Please. Do some research. How much money has Obama taken in that was maxed out at $2300? How much of it was $50 and $100 donations by a grassroots movement of people ready for a new face and a new name – not to mention new way of leading?
Point to a few veteran campaign folks from DC? Excuse me! Guy IS trying to win a campaign afterall. He’s smart enough to pick good people who have some experience. That bodes well for the future of his administration if you ask me.
He’s establishment because he ran more polls? LOL.
These arguments are specious and you know it. They support your not “joining” argument, which gives you comfort. I’m fine with that. But let’s recognize what it is. You and a lot of other overt Hillarettes are trying to have it both ways where it concerns Obama’s experience.
Nobody has ever said that he’s some Independent running on the Hope Party ticket. He’s a Democrat with a new message and that message is resonating. HIllary is an old Democrat with the same old message. She only started making “Change” signs when she saw it was resonating and she wanted to get some change love.
the sign-changing thing really is laughable, sorta like all these arguments chasing each other’s tails.
Ready from day one!
Ready for Change!
Solutions for America!
you half think the next Billary sign is gonna be something like “READY FOR OHIO AND TEXAS TO BE READY FOR DAY ONE AND READY FOR CHANGE WITH SOLUTIONS TO AMERICA! I AM AMERICA AND SO AM I”
Eric, I disagree with you. Just flat-out. I read what you believe and that’s fine for you. I don’t see it the same way.
Convince yourself of whatever you want in regard to what I think or who I want or what I believe. But what I read in what you write is your inability to accept that someone can be undecided.
I’m flattered by all the time being spent trying to persuade me one way or the other but frankly I’m surprised that you would think that any of the messaging affects my decision at all. I’ve said that the “join” messaging turns me off. I haven’t said once or written once about anything that Clinton has said or done that’s either turned me off or on to her.
I remain undecided. But thanks for contributing more fodder for me and other voters to consider.
Tim – I completely agree with you, which is why “join” campaigns don’t persuade me – I don’t believe any such slogans persuade you either.
I’ll know when I know. That’s all I can tell you. In the meantime, people who already know who they like should be working for their candidate, rather than wasting time trashing other people for either being undecided or liking someone else. Talk about hilarity.
#12: We can disagree. You can be undecided too. And yes, I’m trying to convince you.
Don’t be too flattered. I comment mainly to dispel misinformation about the candidate I support.
I’m not too flattered, I promise. I know you are passionate about your support and I WELCOME it here.
As the NBC slogan goes “The more you know…” I totally believe that.
ok jill. don’t join. just realize that the time has come for the Billary show to go off the air.
Tim – that’s exactly what I’m trying to look at – but name-calling and superior sloganing isn’t going to impact what I think. I know – I already made that clear. lol
I tend to agree with Eric and Tim, but then again, I’m supporting Obama with some reservations. My mantra has always been, if something looks or sounds too good, beware. I hope he’s as good in office as he looks now.
That said it seems to me that Obama realized at the very beginning that the only way the Hillary machine was going to be beat was to fashion a campaign that reeked of newness and hope. If he had tried to go toe to toe with her on traditional Democratic issues-based debating, he would have been playing to her strengths. Why does she want so many debates? She wants to pull him back into the land of the wonk where she excels.
But Obama’s people know what disaffected people want to hear from a candidate. They also know what people want him to seem like – the smile, the charisma, the can-do attitude – yeah its PR but that’s the way campaigns succeed in America. And he’s been brilliant in bringing this off. Years from now when political science textbooks are written, Obama’s campaign is going to be used as the shining example of how to beat someone with all of the momentum, money and connections that Clinton had coming into this campaign.
It may seem unfair to policy wonks, but the strength of any candidate in modern America is not so much on their position papers (no one believes policy promises anymore anyway) but on their VISION of what they see for the future of the country. Republicans learned this lesson first and a long time ago and they’re forgetting it now. All they have to offer going into this election is 100 more years of war. Obama is offering a different vision. Whether he can actually translate that into action in office remains to be seen. But what is Hillary’s vision for the future?
She seems to be sulking on the whole unfairness of it all – having to actually fight for it. And her positions generally are reworks of former Clinton positions on health care for example. And if we take into account the fact that she voted for the war authorization, her positions on foreign policy do not deviate much from the Republicans.
In short, she comes across as a candidate woefully unprepared for the kind of candidacy Obama put forward. And it seems too late now to repackage her. She carries too much baggage from the past.
I’m not 100 percent sold on Obama. But for me, I’m willing to give hope in this process just one. . . more. . . shot. And I believe he can beat McCain while I believe Clinton cannot. And polling seems to back that up.
Love the debate though
Keith – you make a lot of great points and I agree with pretty much all of them. In particular:
“She seems to be sulking on the whole unfairness of it all – having to actually fight for it.” I think that was true, particularly after Iowa and New Hampshire.
“In short, she comes across as a candidate woefully unprepared for the kind of candidacy Obama put forward. And it seems too late now to repackage her. She carries too much baggage from the past.”
Again – I agree – unprepared for candidacy.
But what about presidency? There’s so much emphasis on how they are running campaigns and how they are as candidates.
It reminds me of the difference between taking the bar exam and being a lawyer. They barely compare.
We have a real problem in this country with separating out and allowing to remain entangled the politician who has to run and the leader who must govern.
I don’t know the answer, but this love for a great candidate versus assessing who’ll be the best person to govern distracts us during a primary. In a general election, not so much maybe – I’m not sure. But in general, I think it’s a very bad distraction. We should be smarter than that.
The democratic party finally puts up a candidate that actually brings out the democratic base in substantial numbers and who independent voters are swooning over. A lot of this is due to the fact that Obama is an incredibly gifted and moving speaker. It sounds like the new Clinton defense is that his words are empty and lacking substance. Great, let’s try to convince the democratic base to put up the candidate who’s campaign will draw as much attention as a chess club match while the football game is going on outside. Look people, Republican policy is slowly eroding our rights and social gains we’ve made over the past century. We need to get a liberal mind in the white house. Let’s win this thing by running the most popular kid in school instead of the captain of the debate team. Look at the last two elections. The debate team captain got whopped by the class clown. Let’s not do this to ourselves again.
Jimmy, you wrote:
“Let’s win this thing by running the most popular kid in school instead of the captain of the debate team.”
There’s no question that there’s value in that approach. Depending on what the goal is.
But winning one race doesn’t mean you win the girl or the game of life. What happens to the class clown eventually? As a parent, I’d much rather have a debate team member than a class clown for a kid.
You focus only on the winning – but that’s no better than Bush did with Iraq. We’ve got to think about everything after the win ALSO – both time periods deserve equally serious consideration.
Now, you also wrote this:
“It sounds like the new Clinton defense is that his words are empty and lacking substance.”
That’s not a new defense. People have been saying this for a long, long time. I heard Obama speak in person at Tri-C last year and wrote then about how moving he was but we needed specifics. People have been saying that for a very long time.
Now, on the other hand, people made this complaint about Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland when he was running, but the effect was to set expectations low, or not at all. That worked well for Strickland – his favorables remain very high, esp. compared to former OH Gov. Bob Taft.
I don’t think it’s a stretch, what’s being asked of Obama – so he needs to just do it. How hard could it be for a guy as smart as he is to come up with ideas that people can then repeat as being his plans?
Obama is all talk, no action.
He’s obviously taught Constitutional Law so long, he got bored with it, and decided to run for office. Otherwise why spend 10 years teaching it?
Those who teach can’t do, and if they can, they don’t spend 10 years before they do.
Hillary has always been a doer; that’s why she hasn’t been a teacher except for a short stint right after law school.
Does America want a teacher or a doer?
Obama inspiration requests that America revisit with him the 1960’s to focus upon race, when America is beyond race in the necessities of today. We’ve moved on to economics, to gender and gender orientation, and to globalism. We don’t need to go backward in time or in spirit.
What we need is to use the talents of everyone in the nation to combat the forces of terrorism, the forces of economic plundering, and the forces of negligence that threaten to cripple America, and end its democracy as well as the national prominence which made it the kind of country others want to follow.
It needs youth, and it needs voters, but it needs them to go forward, not to return to the land of yesteryear where Kennedy and Kerry feel comfortable touting Obama as the new JFK because he evokes a familiarity with those years. This is 2008, not 1968.
Allowing women to transform the nation, end domestic violence, and offer youth and children a chance at tomorrow will do more for America than anything Obama can do about race. Race is passe; America has spent decades on civil rights and affirmative action to make it that way. We don’t need to go back as the change we need. We need change to go forward.
Pat – you left the same comment three times so I deleted the other two. Thanks for reading and sharing your perspective. You make some good points. Good luck to your candidate.
What state are you in Pat, and have you voted yet?