How Obama Won — and May Win
 

http://buchanan.org/blog/2008/06/pjb...n-and-may-win/

Great article by PJB, seems to provide a pretty simple path to victory for Obama, if he can do it.

I absolutely love the way that Buchanon provides a historical perspective to everything in current politics.

Pat Buchanon is discrediting Obama's success under the guise of providing a historical perspective to everything (I can detect this because I remain skeptical of candidates and didn't take Obama seriously beyond his oratory skills and his ability to walk on water and have a cult following). Kind of like Buchanan's "memo to whitey." Buchanan gives conservatives and Republicans a bad name. I used to agree with some of the things he said until his recent comments outed him as an idiot with a platform.

It is interesting that black folks are the "Jesse Jackson quadrant of the party." Very interesting indeed. Very loaded.

Republicans are definitely going to make Obama the issue instead of the platforms. Platforms don't matter too much anyway because what a President does in office can always deviate from the election platform. However, I call this the "anything but black" syndrome. Republicans may say "we cannot entrust America with an exotic and radical figure." But for many Republicans and nonRepublicans this is just a race-neutral way of saying "we cannot entrust our beloved America, in a time of war, to a black person. This is no time to experiment with Black History firsts and progression."

Mark my words. NO...NEW...BLACK PEOPLE.

That's ridiculous, I can assure you that Buchanon would not refer to Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice as "exotic and radical figures."
Perhaps the Jesse Jackson statement was loaded, but with Obama polling as high as 90% among black people there is certainly a correlation there that goes beyond political views and affiliations.
Either way, despite a few sentences that you viewed as racist, did you disagree with the article? If Obama can gain a sizable portion of the working class vote that Hillary had then he will win.

NEW Black people????


What happened to the old ones???


what's the difference....


waaaaaiiit.....o goodness...i just had a Boondocks episode one flashback...... 'nuff said.

He doesn't have to. They share his political categorical distinction so he'd have to find more creative ways to highlight their shortcomings on an "anything but race" basis. :)

go away

So you disagreed with the main point of the article?

LOL, wow, was the title of that article misleading! As often as I find myself in polar opposition to Pat Buchanan, I couldn't believe I was about to click in to read him write about how Obama may roll over McCain and take the White House. And I didn't. LOL. If anything, that blog is a post-mortem endorsement of why Clinton might have been the stronger Democrat candidate. I do think his final observation, though, is Obama's ace in the hole. Just like Reagan, Obama can win on personality if he plays his cards right. McCain is a decent guy, but sorry, in the one-on-one debates, he is going to come across as old and stuttery and stiff compared to Obama, if he's on his game. If Obama picks a good VP candidate, he still has every opportunity to deliver the White House to the Democrats.

Especially with the rise of HDTV...it will be Kennedy and Nixon all over again.

I think McCain is likely much better on a range of substantive issues, but the American people don't always care or notice. McCain has to keep his composure and try to get Obama to lose his. If he can truly back Barack into a corner about his far-left ideology and radical associations, I think cracks in the facade will go a long way for McCain.

I highly doubt that if McCain wins this election, it'll occur during the debates. Now if he picks Romney or Jindal, who would both fare well against pretty much any Democratic candidate, that could help. But if McCain wins, it'll be because the GOP political ops turn the public opinion.

True - plus, with the short time limits given to candidates to respond to questions, it essentially becomes a "who can top this soundbite" contest.

Or McCain could try something along the lines of Reagan/Mondale..."I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience."

I am commenting on the parts that I'm commenting on.

John Cusack on McCain = Bush
 

I'm sure the mere mention of "Moveon.org" will make some of the heads of our friends here explode :), but I love love LOVE John Cusack (I know that the page this is on is a shameless push for money, but I don't care, I love love LOVE John Cusack :)): https://pol.moveon.org/donate/cusack...906-JAfR5a&t=4

I'm a Cusack fan, as an actor; Grosse Pointe Blank is one of my favorite movies.

However, there are few things in this world funnier than when an entertainer tries to inject themselves into political discourse. Please stick with reading movie scripts.

This ad would be better if he got naked. Just saying is all.

Like Reagan did? Clint Eastwood? Arnold Schwarzenegger? Fred Thompson? Sonny Bono? Fred Grandy?

:)

Fair enough, but Fred Thompson was a lawyer before he was an actor, so he doesn't necessarily count. As to Grandy, I think he went to Harvard or someplace similar, right? To be honest, if I was alive when Reagan grew to power within the party in the 60s and 70s, or when Grandy was campaigning for Congress, I probably would have had the same issues.

My main point is that it annoys me when members of Hollywood try to become part of the debate (whether Democrat, Republican, or otherwise). It's part of their right as citizens to speak their mind, but it still bugs the heck out of me.

Plus there's the simple issue of all of the dudes noted save Reagan pretty much sucking.

Jesse ventura?

Yeah, there's that too.

LOL, I avoided outright nutballs because it would only hurt the point (plus, he ran and won as a 3rd party candidate).

And as to the others "sucking", the congressional members were all reelected several times, so their constituents must have thought they did something right. And I'm sure it didn't escape your attention that they were all from the GOP.

It didn't - although I'm not sure where in my comment I made it a point to say that I was annoyed at celebrities advocating for Democrats. I made a blanket statement, and intended it as such - it annoys me no matter their party affiliation.

Fair enough! It still struck me as interesting, though...

Should farmers stick to farming, construction workers stick to construction, and au pairs stick to watching kids? What about being an actor speaks to you as unqualified for political discourse?

If you'll read my follow-up post, I said that it simply annoys me when they (and notice I said celebrities, not just actors) do it. No matter the political affiliation, I've found that, many times, their statements tend to be misinformed, and yet they're trying to act as a voice of the people.

Because of their public persona, when they make those statements, they tend to get plastered everywhere. At a certain point, I get sick of reading them, and it annoys me, whether it's Tom Selleck talking up family values, or John Cusack doing ads for MoveOn.

It's nothing more, nothing less. I have nothing against people having opinions, and I have nothing against actors. People have the right to speak up and speak out, to share their views on the government and how things are run. Everyone gets annoyed at certain things, and I'm simply saying that my annoyance happens to be celebrities playing politics.

It also seems like you're trying to play the "elitist" card with me - if you are, that's fine, but considering my parents are a construction worker and former middle school teacher, the label doesn't fit.

ETA: I was going to mention Curt Schilling as being annoying too, but then people would just say that's because I'm a Yankees fan...

I'm guessing most farmers, au pairs, and construction workers don't have tens/hundreds of millions of dollars that they can use at their disposal to speak out on their political beliefs and act like their words are somehow more important than "normal" people in our country....like they will actually make a difference.

I think that is what KSigKid is trying to say....and it looks like everyone here has missed the point.

I fell the same way. It irritates the shit out of me when you see a bunch of movie stars talking about politics on a national level. Nobody cares what you think....make movies. Like how a couple weeks ago Susan Sarandon made a public announcement that she would move out of the United States if Obama wasn't elected. This was news that was actually reported on bigger media outlets.

Thank you - some days I fear law school has taken away my ability to communicate clearly.

I wasn't trying to play any card, and I read all of your posts. I was trying to find out the reason why it annoys you. In one of your posts you seemed to be saying that actors who were highly educated didn't "count", so it seemed that some basis for your annoyance was their presumed lack of formal education. If it is not, then those statements are confusing. If your annoyance is only that celebrities' statements are everywhere, it might be better directed at celebrity-obsessed culture than at celebrities for saying something.

I don't want to totally hijack the thread, although I may have already done so, so I'll just say this: TexasWSP pretty much summed up my feelings.

In my previous post, I had differentiated Fred Thompson because he had a career in law and politics before he became a professional actor; I tend to think of him as a lawyer/politician who acts, rather than an actor dabbling in politics. I did mention about Grandy's education, but in the next sentence, I noted that if I were a voter when he were running, I would have had most likely had the same issue.

I'm sure there are other similar exceptions such as Thompson, but I just can't think of them right now.

It has (and will) - luckily, that's why I have a job.

Seriously, this isn't rocket science - a celebrity abusing his/her privilege to soapbox on an issue they may or may not be more qualified to speak on than any other retard isn't something we should exalt.

Additionally, using the fact that people were elected multiple times as proof of success is nominally nuts as well - we've proven almost by dictum and mandate that the electoral process is not an efficient market, haven't we?

I don't contest the underlying opinion that it would be preferable for people to get information from nonpartisan and more academic sources, but there's also a reality to running and winning elections, unfortunately. Candidates are like products these days so they employ good marketing & advertising strategies in a similar way. Our celebrity-obsessed culture responds positively to celebrity endorsement, so campaigns and lobbyists employ them as effectively as they can. For every Chuck Norris there's a George Clooney, for every Charlton Heston (RIP) there's a Susan Sarandon.

Regarding the reelection issue, that points to the very real truth that all politics are local and constituents remain satisfied with representatives that deliver. Having a celebrity as your representative doesn't hurt when you're trying to bring attention to an issue affecting your area or support for a bill that benefits your district. Democracy in action.

Oh, I totally agree - I'm not disputing the utility of the celebrity endorsement, I'm saying that often the celebrity statement is ill-informed at best and intentionally misleading at worse (see: Baldwin, Alex).

Put another way: utility doesn't make right, and there's nothing wrong with an informed individual being upset that an ill-informed individual gets increased say that they may or may not deserve, depending on your world view.

Again, I agree with the concept, but I would posit that an overwhelming number of voters don't have any clue about their representative's actions, efficacy or "deliverables."

Actually, this kind of feels like selection bias - because you understand these things, you're assuming others do too. However, I think name recognition is likely only important in and of itself, and most people don't ever think "Hey, John Elway would bring increased attention to my shoddy highway funding!"

This makes sense, but didn't seem to me to be what was originally being expressed. And I understand being upset, but not at the celebrities.

Well, as awkwardly as I may have expressed it, that was exactly my point.

At least two people understood what I was getting at - I'll take that kind of comprehension over a message board post any day.

Actually, I think I was attempting (poorly, obviously) to cynically point at why celebrities are successful and strategically, why it's smart to use them. Campaigns are run to the lowest common denominator, knowing that people don't bother to read the paper, watch the actual news, read up on issues. They try to get the most signs in yards and bumper stickers on cars because if they manage to get a voter in the booth, they know that if they actually recognize a name, they're more likely to mark that name. Even better if they can get a great soundbite (whether true or not) they can make resonate and stick in their mind.

So if a cause or candidate can get a John Cusack ad on youtube or during an episode of "Entertainment Tonight", that cause or candidate is much more likely to catch and keep a viewer/voter's attention than an ad that just has words, texts, random images. People relate to, and listen to, sometimes unfortunately, celebrities. And as to what the celebs actually say, besides the occasional off-the-cuff remarks in People or during an awards show, they are carefully scripted by the cause or campaign they're stomping for. So what they're saying in those ads is very representative of the issue because the words are put in their mouths. The causes just need celebrities that "lean" the right way and agree enough to make their words sound sincere and appealing.

So yes, while I may understand the context behind some of this, the point I'm trying (and again, probably failing) to make, is that the tactic is probably most effective for people that DON'T know the context or assume anything beyond what they see on the surface. It's much easier to be cynical about a celebrity "endorsement" when you can see the party/cause machinations behind it. Most people just don't put that much thought or effort into it. And campaigns/causes count on that.

And everyone wants to be associated with the most popular kid in class, right? So, sure, voters want the celebrity to win their district (as long as he or she is not a complete tool). It's not rocket science to know that if you put "Gopher" from "The Love Boat" in DC, then your little area in Iowa will likely get more attention and have more pull than if you elect Ted the Hardware Store Owner. Cynical? Sure. Unfortunate state of affairs in our democracy, pretty much.

And I did go off on the all-GOP examples of elected celebrities, which was probably an unfair assumption that your initial reaction against the John Cusack thing was also the tie to the liberal organization. It seems when people rail against celebrities with "causes" it's usually the more outspoken liberals (e.g., the Susan Sarandon call-out in a post above). I was trying to head off the "damn liberal celebrities" argument at the pass with a showing that the GOP is just as celebrity-rich. In fact, GOP celebrities have been more successful in actually winning elected office, from what I can tell. I will be watching Al Franken's race in MN with interest.

You're correct in this - my initial reaction had nothing to do with the party or group affiliation. If Adam Sandler (a Republican) were to go out today and do something similar, I would have the same reaction.

Respectfully, not buying what you're saying is not always a comprehension issue.

Obviously - what I meant by "comprehension" is that things don't always come out clearly over the message board, and my original posts may not have been entirely clear, so I'm glad that at least a couple of people understood my point.

I understand not everyone agrees with my point of view - I was simply giving my opinion.

This I agree with completely, and was exactly the point I was trying to make as well.

Are you insinuating that he's lying or recanting when he agrees with what I posted? This is really awkwardly phrased.