Seattlest: Obama-Mania at Seattlest HQ

TroyJMorris

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:19:47 -0800

"Then why do SO MANY people still have "Kerry/Edwards" bumper stickers in this city? " Bumper stickers are a bitch to remove. ----- I'm incredibly torn. To me, it seems that to make up for the last 8 years, we need someone just as arrogant and bullheaded and strong politically as the Bush clan was (just on the other side of the aisle). That's Clinton. But that's the same ol' same ol'. Obama is fresh, yes. But can he actually bring us out of this mess? That's up to the American public to give their collective finger to their reps in congress. I still say the only Democrat with cahonays was Kucinich. And no, he's not electable- AND THAT is the issue with Modern American Politics. In this "Age of Information," fact should be king, not glitter.

HeckOfaHawk

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 05:51:10 -0800

Ok.. perhaps this is the generational divide or the sea change and I'm just an old fogey type. But WOW.. the biggest negative reaction from a group of students was when Hillary gently suggests that changing policy is going to require a FIGHT? You really think that the freight train that steamrollered us into Iraq and a $1,000,000,000 war and probably $10,000,000,000 long term debt SHOULD have been stopped by Hillary stomping her foot and casting her vote against during THAT time but now half a decade later you don't even want to get off the couch and CONTEST some of these issues? You think the spirit of Obama is going to come over the hearts of these guys? And you don't seem to notice that the Conservatives have had outstanding youth operations going back at least 30 years and it's THOSE campus Republicans you're sharing ciabattas and Starbucks with now who are going to be the Tucker Carlson sociopaths you'll be facing off with after you graduate. And by then hopefully you'll be ready to fight for SOMETHING other than space on the futon! Though I could be wrong. I hope I am. But if Obama surges and Hillary concedes.. I'm not sure you're going to be able to stomach what those Republicans who you don't wish to fight are going to be doing to Obama from that day until early November.

cbendixe

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:43:53 -0800

I guess I interpreted Hillary's "fight" phrasing a little differently than everyone else. I assumed she was referring to what is sure to be a down & dirty general election campaign in which whoever the Dem nominee is will be compared to Osama bin Laden and a crazy liberal (!) who will raise everyone's taxes. My understanding of Obama's political experience is that he's hasn't been through a tough campaign yet. But hell, if he and his supporters aren't worried about the shit that's going to fly in the general and he would prefer not to "fight", more power to them and their positive thinking.

Michael van Baker

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:17:32 -0800

You know, I feel like Clinton is a polarizing person among the general population but my impression was that her actual Senate career was highly regarded for her reaching across the aisle to get shit done. Admittedly, I think I read that in the New York Times, but I don't buy that her reaching out to mad-as-hell Dems rhetorically is any more binding than Obama's policy statements. Probably less so. "Cryptofascist" is good, huh? I got that from Gore Vidal.

Seth

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:02:45 -0800

I don't know why Obama did that. If I were him, I wouldn't say shit. Why politicians think anyone gives an ass about whatever legislative proposals they'd come up with is beyond me. I don't pay attention to "policy initiative" stuff like this, because I know it will never go down the way any single politician says it will, and I think I'm in the vast majority. I want a candidate who's going to try to work with the other party to deal with issues like immigration and health care. And when Hillary Clinton uses words like "fight", I know she simply isn't going to do it.

Michael van Baker

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:52:20 -0800

Okay, I'll bite, Seth, you cryptofascist. If wise politicians don't suggest large unpassable initiatives, then why is Obama on record at all with a $100 billion healthcare package that covers 15 million fewer people than Clinton's plan (which costs an estimated $124 billion)? Cost-wise, it's in the same large, "unpassable" ballpark. My point is that if you're going to offer substantive healthcare policy, then do it. If you want to play the "electability" card -- "Vote for me because I'm a blank screen on which all your aspirations can play in glorious HD" -- then don't offer anything but directional indicators. But don't offer up half-assed policy when I'm trying to decide, based on limited data, whether to vote for you.

jwhieger

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:34:09 -0800

Given the vodoo economics of deception that put the federal deficit into the stratosphere and the other abuses of power inflicted upon us by the Republican Sleaze Machine, I believe it is paramount to the continued function of a legitiamte Democracy that we tell it like it is. If that means upsetting Republicans because their complaceny set this country back then by all means it should be done. If we believe in our ideas then they are worth fighting for. Ignoring what got this country off track isn't going to help anything, honest debate is necessary to actually clarifying what not to do in the future. Ideally Obama's softball approach to the backwards and misguided policies that got us into our current predicament is just masking his true hippie underbelly. Bipartisan chatter is the stuff of election cycles, honesty and conviction are ugly ingrediants necessary to affect the "change" we throw around so casually. It may not make Hillary electable but at least she has the nerve to take the unpopular realities head on.

Audrey

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:24:02 -0800

A vote for Hillary is a vote for McCain. Recognize.

Seth

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:00:38 -0800

James, you're also not a fan of Husky football, so....

James Callan

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:58:25 -0800

Polls showed that Clinton was going to be competing against Giuliani in the general election. I'm pro-Obama, but I'm not a fan of hypothetical "if the election were held today" arguments about electability.

katiet

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:55:55 -0800

I meant: IS just totally effing unforgiveable. Pardon.

katiet

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:55:06 -0800

Man, Seth, I'm so in love with this post I won't even complain that I'm not in the picture. Electability is HUGE right now. The fact that people are willing to throw their weight behind a candidate who 1) Republicans are united in their hatred for and 2) polls are already showing would lose or barely win against McCain just totally effing unforgiveable.

Seth

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:10:31 -0800

To be fair... 1) FDR wisely did not propose Social Security during his campaign for President. In fact, he proposed the exact opposite: "immediate and drastic reductions of all public expenditures." He knew that arguing for large, costly programs would give his opponent an easy target. Instead, he essentially just ridiculed the Hoover administration. 2) FDR didn't try to pass Social Security until after the 1934 elections, when he had a 71-25 majority in the Senate, and 332-103 in the House. Obama will not have a filibuster-proof majority in either congressional body. Wise politicians do not suggest large, unpassable initiatives when they run for office--they get in office and wield their power where they can.

Michael van Baker

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:57:20 -0800

I wouldn't be unhappy to see either Clinton or Obama as the nominee, but the hope that a single person can somehow transcend systemic partisanship strikes me as unsupported by facts. Hillary Clinton has, for better or worse, been associated with issues that spark ideological confrontation. My criticism of her is not that she fought for what she thought was right, but that she thought being right was enough. Republicans have been against universal healthcare (aka socialized medicine) since the Truman administration, and remain opposed to the concept. Obama's voluntary healthcare compromise, as an example of his style of bipartisanship, sacrifices the "universal" aspect, which has both ideological and practical implications. On that basis, it is hard to imagine him, for instance, ever proposing our Social Security program which, now that everyone has access to it, has become non-negotiable. (A voluntary retirement account, proposed by Bush, was a nonstarter.) That lack of actual audacity is troubling.

RMH

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:55:34 -0800

Great post, Seth.

Seth

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:21:57 -0800

What percentage of those are on Subarus?

BigGreenFrank

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:17:31 -0800

"And we certainly don't want to be reminded of the Kerry campaign." Really? Then why do SO MANY people still have "Kerry/Edwards" bumper stickers in this city? I feel like i STILL see more "Kerry/Edwards" stickers than Obama or Clinton. Also, I think it's amazing that Obama can play this dual sided game. He can attract many "hard-core" liberals (with some decidedly left wing stances) while still playing the "bringing Democrats and Republicans together" card. It strikes me that he's being a "free pass" by people on alot of these kinds of things. I don't know if it's because he's an incredibly charismatic guy, because he doesn't represent one of the two political families of the past 27 years, his message of "Hope" is too strong of a veil to pierce, or his race, but I can't help but feel that you all haven't poked and prodded him as much as Hillary. Then again, I'm on the other side of the aisle here, and have an outsiders view of this thing. I'll take my McCain (with all his positives and negatives) and wait for you all to slug it out...

Brenda Helverson

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:05:33 -0800

Maybe you and the Cool Generation don't want to fight Republicans, but will you fight to defend yourselves? Gore didn't and Kerry didn't, and as a result we have 8 years of Little bush and President Cheney. If you and your crowd follow Obama's approach, it will only result in the election of President John McCain. I want a Democratic candidate who will fight for us. Obama has already conceded.