Hillary and Obama are "Down the Line" being "very careful" /It's a Good Strategy...

[KoKo]

What do you think. After all do we need another ideological President beholden to the most EXTREME VIEWS of EITHER the RIGHT or LEFT in American Policy?

Wouldn't it be great to have a BREAK from IDEOLOGY?

I had this thought after watching Tucker's Wind Up of the "FIREFIGHTERS UNION" thingy where Dems turned out and had an "airing."

I thought the comments by Lynn Sweet about Obama (where Tucker trashed him) were good...she said he had an "off night" and had been on the Campaign trail and yet he speaks because he might be a "vessel for Dems beliefs" was good.

Then there was the ABSENT Giuliani....and the "controlled Hillary" Spin....but the consensus was that BOTH Hillary and Obama are trying to be centrists to LEAD AMERICA FORWARD without PARTISANSHIP.

I think it's something that's worth hearing if both Obama and Hillary are into "CENTRISM."

I'm a LEFTY but willing to listen......WHAT DO Hillary and Obama Supporters THINK about this? :shrug:

DISCUSSION ...PLEASE..not FLAMES. (as a Lefty, I still keep my ears open to DISCUSSION because the Dem Party is VERY IMPORTANT)

[DemKR]

1. I like both of them, honestly

I am on Hillary's team, but Obama is my Senator. I love them both!!! The media hates all of our candidates so we try our best. They're all with us on the important issues....what they think personally does not bother me.

I just think this community should not hold one candidate to a certain standard and the other to a different.

[KoKo]

2. There's alot to like about both of them...and other Dem Candidates...but

"liking" doesn't ring with me anymore. I LOVED Bill Clinton...maybe if I'd been more critical ....WHO KNOWS. I also was a big Carter supporter....

[KoKo]

3. I think what I'm asking is if we are exhausted with Fighting and this is WHY Obama & Hillary are

getting Front Runner Status? Although, Edwards is pushing up from the rear ...trying to pull them to discuss Poverty/Union issues.

But...many DU'ers aren't trusting of them. Do they see this?

[MGKrebs]

4. I don't know.

My not-so-strongly-held opinion is that ideologues don't win presidential elections. Bush may sorta look like an ideologue, but he's not (in a conservative/liberal way anyway) and he certainly wasn't an ideologue candidate.

I think ideology happens at the grassroots level. State and local parties, activists, and candidates, over time, can bring their constituencies to certain places on the ideological spectrum, but by the time presidential campaign season rolls around, the boundaries are pretty much set. Candidates are staking out various bits of territory within those boundaries, but any who are serious about winning are responding to their perception of where the people are and what they want to hear NOW, not what they think they will want to hear 3 years from now. The rest are running to get a non-mainstream message out to condition people for the future and/or hoping they can make a difference working in some other candidates administration.

Is that cynical? Maybe. I've supported loser ideologues for so long, and I'm tired of losing. I can pursue my ideology in many other effective ways than depending on some longshot outsider who can't raise money or get any press.

The right wing is not dead. The GOP has unleashed a fanatical monster that they can't control anymore. There is so much right wing money and media access and faith-based hatred for all things left of Rick Santorum that they don't even bother choosing priorities. They try to destroy everybody and everything that pops up on the radar and even some that don't. We better run somebody who can think on their feet, has serious professionals around them, can get a lot of money, and who has a family situation that is not fragile. This is not going to be a campaign for polite candidates. I wish it were different, but it's not. And none of the candidates are perfect, but this is a capitalist process (don't get me started), so perfect doesn't count for any more than anything else without TV time.

[KoKo]

7. But, would you agree that Bush didn't "appear" an idealogue but

was run by the right wing and the Corporatists. Those who voted for him were deceived by "Compassionate Conservative" and Poppy's credentials...but he was as much a Fundie as the base that brought him in and managed to hoodwink lots of folks who thought he was the "anti-Clinton" and those who wanted the Reagan/Poppy "Trickle Down Corporate" economics.

I hope those who were "hoodwinked" in the Repug Party finally see where it all has come down. But,will the Centrist Dems throw their Left under the bus to get those folks.

That's my worry. You make good points about those who might support a position that the Left agrees with won't get the money or backing to further their message. (I'm thinking Kucinich, here) and so why should we waste our time...after going through the hell we have with the Bushies. I was a Dean/Kucinich supporter in '04 and when Dean went down I supported Kerry and gave to both Kerry and Kucinich. Went to Kucinich rally here...and worked for Kerry in Precinct. I was split wanting Kucinich to stay in because I shared his views but being bound as Precinct Co-Chair to work for Kerry.

[David Zephyr]

5. Your thread clearly implies that the other Dem candidates have "EXTREME VIEWS"

Who are you talking about?

Which candidates would not provide a "break from ideology"?

Either you are setting up a straw horse in order to promote these two (who your threads seem to do anyway) or you are actually referring to a real, flesh and blood Democratic candidate for President.

Is it a straw horse or is it:

John Edwards?
Governor Bill Richardson?
Congressman Dennis Kucinich?

[KoKo]

6. No, just pointing out that Obama and Hillary are working to appeal to Centrists.

Edwards is now carving out a position on the left by bowing out of Fox News Sponsored Nevada Dem Debate and Kucinich is going for those of us who want us out of Iraq ASAP.

Richardson is yet to carve out a position but he's always been affiliated with DLC...so assume he will want to be in the center. But, the MSM has Obama and Hillary as the Frontrunners (because those are the two they cover the most) so Biden and Dodd are kind of the sideliners.

I'm for Al Gore...which I state all the time here. But, if Al doesn't come in...it's interesting to think about how the candidates who are running are "positioning" themselves.

I thought it was an interesting point for discussion. :shrug:

[karynnj]

8. There are also Dodd and Biden

Although I can see that he has foreign policy experience, I am less than impressed by Biden because I have watched many SFRC meetings. Exasperating is the word that most comes to mind. He can be very good, but he can also be awful. I have also seen some personality characteristics that are not good - I have seen him lie about the positions of others and he is very poor about giving credit to others. He was awful cutting off Obama and Kerry in the meetings - because they were competitors. He also is now taking credit for positions on Iraq that he mocked less than a year ago.

Dodd has been very strong on getting out of Iraq since returning from Iraq and other middleeastern countries. He will vote for the Democratic amendment, but his statement says he wants something faster. He also had the strength to go to Syria with Kerry when the RW was bashing anyone who did. If people end up thinking that neither Obama or Edwards have the foreign policy experience needed, Dodd may be a possible anti-Hillary with experience. (Richardson has been mentioned as well - but he is very connected to Clinton.)

[BeyondGeography]

9. You make a lot of good points

I think we're finding out, particularly about Obama, that his centrism is in fact deeply felt, which is fine by me. His "vessel for Democratic beliefs" line is more than a calculation. He genuinely feels he is uniquely positioned to bridge the gap between the public and private realms, and argue for both a helping hand from government and more individual responsibility. It's a healthy approach for the Democrats in general, particularly coming from an individual who has led an exemplary life, in my view. Obama is taking aim at the conservatives in a strategic way here, who use extreme behavioral examples in the service of their real goal, which is to de-fund programs and generally impoverish the public sector.

But then there are times, like yesterday, when caution overwhelms common sense, and candidates punt on the question of homosexuality and immorality, which I and many others found depressing. I really don't see the downside to saying that homosexuality is a question of orientation and biology rather than preference and peccadillo and, as such, should not be considered immoral.

What's still missing in a big way, as we make our break from ideology, as you put it, is a strong and steady critique of conservative ideology, whose bankruptcy has long been apparent. We are at the tail-end (or, at least, we should be) of nearly three decades-worth of exaltation of the private sector at the expense of good government and public life. This all started in England, with Thatcher, who proclaimed there is no such thing as society. What we need to point out, as we gird ourselves for yet another financial crisis, this time in the debt markets, is that unrestrained private behavior was never a good idea. The ideology of selfishness (which is the real immorality plaguing this country) that we have been sold by the Republicans needs to be reversed. Of all the candidates and non-candidates, only Gore has really given a strong voice to this view.