Obama's plan to "tone down" his "liberal image."

[wyldwolf]

You've heard about the questionable "plan" Bill and Hillary Clinton hatched to make them the first husband and wife presidents, revealed in the new book Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Clinton. Well, now we are finding out that her popular presidential campaign rival, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, had one too. But unlike the tale told by Clinton's New York Times biographers, whose plan claim has been disputed, Chicago Tribune Obama biographer David Mendell charts Obama's in detail from the initial days of the senator's arrival in Washington in 2005.

The first job in the Plan: Attend to Illinois duties. Next up, avoid controversy and tone down his liberal image...

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2007/6/19/obama-had-a-presidential-plan-too.html

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. what liberal image? i guess he has succeeded in his toning down.

dont get me wrong, i like obama a lot. i just would call him or hillary or edwards a liberal.

[Captain Hilts]

2. No one gets to the White House without a plan. No one. Don't trust a candidate that says...

they haven't got one.

[beachmom]

3. So I guess that explains his vote agains the Kerry/Feingold amendment.

I was really disappointed in him on that one. But it appears that this happens to all Democrats who are still in the Congress and running for president. They have to politically calculate every vote. Well, Obama would have been in a FAR BETTER position politically had he voted yes to K/F.

[zulchzulu]

18. Obama voted for the Levin-Reed Amendment instead...

"Obama, by contrast, voted for a second, more centrist version by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.) that merely called on the president to submit a troop-exit plan by the end of the year. This proposal was non-binding, and according to its supporters, did not impinge upon the commander in chief's authority. It failed by a vote of 60-36. But if it had passed it would have sent a powerful message to the White House that it was time to change course on Iraq."

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2006/06/obama_and_durbin_divide_on_ira.html

Unfortunately, both amendments didn't pass...

[ripple]

4. Good. That tells me that he will be even more progressive once elected

This is something I've long suspected, due to his civil rights activism and record in the Illinois State Senate.

[leftwing9]

7. I respectfully disagree...

...Once elected, he will be subjected to the scrutiny that was once split among many candidates.

If he can't stand up to the media now, it's unlikely he'll stand up to them later.

[ripple]

15. He HAS stood up to the media

He refuses to appear on Fox to this day, due to their attempts to smear him. In the msnbc debate, he also chastised Matthews for asking a question that served no purpose other than to pit people against each other (the english as a national language question).

Obama is holding his own quite well with the media, as far as I'm concerned.

[Radical Activist]

21. Exactly.

Some people on DU seem to think that anyone who doesn't scream and shout about how they're more liberal than everyone else is a conservative.

[iconocrastic]

28. Che was a thug and a murderer.

[Radical Activist]

34. So was most British royalty

Your point?

[JeffR]

39. Amazing. You apparently have the ability to type with your arse

at least, that's where the words appear to be coming from.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

23. That is a faith-based initiative

We shouldn't elect someone to the most powerful position on Earth based on "faith" in them.

We know he would change his vote for political gain (unless you believe his friends are part of the vast HRC conspiracy). That suggests he will be another Clinton I and follow the polls as president.

==In the Statehouse, Obama promoted himself as a defender of abortion rights, but he encouraged fellow Democrats to vote "present" on abortion bills. Friends say the strategy was designed to protect lawmakers, including Obama, with designs on higher offices.==

http://nwitimes.com/articles/2007/06/20/news/illiana/doc10881caf8f501bcf862573000004931d.txt

[ripple]

25. Well, you're accepting your candidate at his word,

rather than based on his record. That's about as faith-based as one can get.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

27. Not exactly. I mainly go by what they intend to do as prez

Since, after all, they are running for POTUS, not freshman class president. I look beyond marketing, generic poll-tested rhetoric and at their platforms, which are statements of intent for what they want to do as president.

You (based on that last post), and some others, ascribe what you hope they will do to your candidate. That is faith. There is no evidence that they will somehow turn out a different way based on some theory concocted by one individual (there are various theories out there. Candidate X will be more progressive when he wins, candidate B will be more right-wing when he wins, etc.).

[ripple]

29. And politicians don't stretch the truth?

:rofl:

Actually, as I indicated earlier, I'm basing my expectations on my candidate's record. I doubt you can say the same.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

30. The flaw

First, saying you are basing your support on a record is far different than the "faith" you mentioned earlier. Looking at records is rational. The flaw, though, in the hyping of BO's state senate record is that people are assuming a politician functions the same as an obscure local politician representing an urban Democratic district as he does when he is a national figure seeking the highest office on the planet. The constituency is far different (hence him shifting to the right, as the OP shows), the stakes are higher, the ambition is greater. Politicians will make the necessary adjustments needed to win on the new stage. After all, Obama is a politician right? ;)

History teaches us that presidential candidates keep, or try to keep (there is a legislative branch!), the vast majority of promises they make. That is why their platform is the #1 thing to look for. There is a book that compared presidential promises to performance (as opposed to empty labels) and found this so I didn't just pull this out of thin air.

[ripple]

32. You brought up faith, not me

Please re-read post #4 for a refresher.

Of course one must look at a candidate's record, in order to have an idea of how they will govern in the future. You appear to be saying that platform promises are more important than the person's actual record. :wtf:

That makes no sense whatsoever, except perhaps to the woefully naive.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

36. You have to look at both and put the record in context (especially if it is very short) nt

[ripple]

37. I have. Edwards loses both the short distance and the marathon

And he's my second choice.

[jefferson_dem]

5. Smart move by Obama and his team. Kudos to them.

n/t

[zanne]

6. I haven't seen this much negative spin since Bill Clinton...

Somebody's scared.

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. Well, he's off my list then. Go Dennis!

[Kingstree]

10. I agree there has been so much negative Spin

sounds like someone is getting scared of Obama.

[TwilightGardener]

9. Oh gee, he didn't just stumble his way into positions of power--

he had nefarious PLANS and ambition! As someone said above--how do you get to run for prez without a career path plotted out? What's wrong with any of them having long-term goals to run? And so what if he wanted to "tone down" his liberal image--he's just making adjustments for the current market--that's smart. You have to figure out what sells and market yourself that way. As long as he didn't betray his principles or make calculated votes, I'm cool with it. Kind of like running to the left or right in primaries, and back to the center for the general--they all do it.

[madrchsod]

11. that`s the way things are done in politics

always has been always will be. it`s naive to think that anyone running does`t plan ahead and adapt to changing circumstances.

[gratuitous]

13. Not according to the Republican myth

The Republican myth is that certain men (and for some strange reason, it's always overrich, well-connected white men, but such matters are too deep for the likes of us) are annointed by the powers of the universe (which they will cheerfully allow you to believe means God) to lead and to be placed in positions of authority.

It's not stated in quite such bald terms, at least not routinely. No, it's more often stated in the negative: "Candidate X is too calculating" or "Candidate Y will say or do anything to get elected." These statements are usually offered by political opponents who just got out-manuevered, but they're picked up by the pundits as a way of saying that a candidate is too "packaged" or "slick." Oddly though, it seems to be applied almost exclusively to Democratic candidates like Al Gore or John Kerry. And usually it comes up when the media have been obsessing about some obscure bit of something or other and the candidate has to address the silliness and explain why the media obsession is overblown hype.

But a Republican can say one thing on abortion (for example) when he's running for the governorship and something else entirely when he's on the stump for the presidency, and those same pundits will nod sagely and stroke their chins thoughtfully, and offer up the opinion that this proves the Republican candidate's gravitas and seriousness about a Very Serious Issue and isn't pandering or a flip-flop, and anyone who says different is that worst of all things: Not Serious.

[seasat]

12. It shows that he has political skills, something needed in a president.

If Jimmy Carter possessed political skills, the general public would have viewed him as one of the greatest presidents. He would have accomplished much more than he was able to do. If this is true, then it shows that Obama possesses very good political skills and can translate more of his ideas into legislation. You combine that with his intellect and communication skills and it makes him a very viable general election candidate.

Most candidates try to position themselves in the primary in a way that separates them from the rest of the pack. Obama already has a pretty good liberal record in the Illinois senate and a left of center record in the US senate. He has positioned himself in the middle of the Democratic candidates based on his policy. This makes it easier to move to the center in the general election. The more difficult position would be to position himself to the more liberal side of the spectrum to get the Democratic nomination and then try to swing back to the center for the general election.

added on edit: It's interesting to note that all candidates are running to the left of the Democratic platform in 2004. While most Repugs are still trying to maintain the status quo, our candidates and the general public have moved closer in agreement.

[Adelante]

14. Don't tell me he's a politician!

I couldn't bear it :cry:

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

20. Wait, I'm no longer supporting Obama, I didn't know he was a politician

Such a conservative tone on Ethics Reforms, how can I ever support him?

Obama Proposes Sweeping Ethics Reforms
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3333304&mesg_id=3333304

[zulchzulu]

16. Good to see you keeping a close eye on Obama...

I can't wait to see him get the nomination and on to Denver!

[mckeown1128]

17. This is brilliant...

If he successfully tones down his Liberal image he can get extra indie and repuke votes come the general....remember Reagan having the Reagan Democrats didn't make him govern any less repukish. It is better that Obama tone down his image instead of toning down his policies like others running.

[underpants]

31. US News is carry the water of labeling him a Liberal

which they and everyone they talk to over cocktails are convinced is a bad thing.

Nice bait but I'm not biting.

[Politicub]

19. Did he not get the memo?

You don't start that until *after* you win the primary (tongue planted firmly in cheek)

[Bonobo]

22. Wouldn't a post from you about Obama be automatically suspect? Honestly?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

26. 1) He didn't write the article 2) Articles should be judged on merit nt

[draft_mario_cuomo]

24. Obama is allegedly a solid progressive who says what means, means what he says

Now it seems he is someone who seems to think there is something wrong with being associated with the progressive movement and decided to shift to the right to appear more centrist. The response to this? Well, he's just a politician. He is and he isn't. He is marketed as being "above" other politicians. He is marketed as someone who says what he means, means what he says. Now it appears that isn't the case. That matters, especially when you have an individual he is more of a brand than a candidate (how else do you explain him being in the 20's in the polls before he uttered a single word about what he would do as president?). One of his main selling points should be off the table now. If it isn't, it certainly will be if he makes it to the GE.

What is more disturbing than this is the apparent fact (unless we believe HRC, the Illumanti, and the Freemasons forced his own friends to lie about him...) that he changed his vote on abortion for political gain--and encouraged others to do the same. This was in one of WW's other threads and it was lost in the headline about his ties to a crook. The real story wasn't the crook but him changing his vote. Changing your vote for political gain. Isn't that one of the things Obama supporters attack others for allegedly doing (with no evidence...)?


==In the Statehouse, Obama promoted himself as a defender of abortion rights, but he encouraged fellow Democrats to vote "present" on abortion bills. Friends say the strategy was designed to protect lawmakers, including Obama, with designs on higher offices.==

http://nwitimes.com/articles/2007/06/20/news/illiana/doc10881caf8f501bcf862573000004931d.txt

[spanone]

33. and I'll be toning down my liberal contributions.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

35. Exactly. If he is ashamed of the label "liberal", liberals should not support him nt

[ripple]

38. LOL...by that definition, liberals shouldn't support your candidate, either.

Go Kucinich?

[illinoisprogressive]

40. I am simply shocked! Obama, an ambitious politician! oh my!

so disturbing. especially when no other policians are ambitious. for shame!

[Forkboy]

41. That shouldn't be hard.