Obama doesn't have to dilute his principles for "bipartisanship."

[ClassWarrior]

What Counts as an "Issue" In the Clinton-Obama Race?
by George Lakoff

...This nomination campaign is about much more than the candidates. It about a major split within the Democratic party. The candidates are reflecting that split. Here are three of the major "issues" dividing Democrats.

First, triangulation: moving to the right -- adopting right-wing positions -- to get more votes. Bill Clinton did it and Hillary believes in it. It is what she means by "bipartisanship." Obama means the opposite by "bipartisanship." To Obama, it is a recognition that central progressive moral principles are fundamental American principles. For him, bipartisanship means finding people who call themselves "conservatives" or "independents," but who share those central American values with progressives. Obama thus doesn't have to surrender or dilute his principles for the sake of "bipartisanship."

The second is incrementalism: Hillary believes in getting lots of small carefully crafted policies through, one at a time, step by small step, real but almost unnoticed. Obama believes in bold moves and the building of a movement in which the bold moves are demanded by the people and celebrated when they happen. This is the reason why Hillary talks about "I," I," "I" (the crafter of the policy) and Obama talks about "you" and "we" (the people who demand it and who jointly carry it out).

The third is interest group politics: Hillary looks at politics through interests and interest groups, seeking policies that satisfy the interests of such groups. Obama's thinking emphasizes empathy over interest groups. He also sees empathy as central to the very idea of America. The result is a positive politics grounded in empathy and caring that is also patriotic and uplifting...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/what-counts-as-an-issue_b_84177.html

NGU.

[AndyTiedye]

1. If Obama Wasn't Diluting His Principles by Bringing in Donnie McLurkin…

…then are we to assume that Obama actually agrees with Donnie McLurkin.

[bigwillq]

3. Zing!

:thumbsup:

[ClassWarrior]

5. Wow, that's all you got?

I expected a much more vigorous reaction than just a months-old bit of flamebait.

:shrug:

NGU.

[AndyTiedye]

8. Yes, That's All I've Got that Stops Me From Supporting Obama

It wasn't a "reaction". It was a question. I would like to believe what the article says about Obama.
We have all had it with all the triangulation. Obama is being presented as the candidate who does not triangulate.

If so, then what WAS he doing by inviting Donnie McLurkin to preach his homophobic crap at his fundraiser?

Either he was attempting to appeal to homophobic blacks at the expense of GBLT's, which is triangulation,
or he actually believes what McLurkin was preaching, which would be even worse.
Can you think of any other explanation?

You have an opportunity to convince me (and probably quite a few others). Do not waste it.

Calling it old news and "flamebait" is not an answer.

I am not working for any candidate at this time. All the candidates I supported are out of the race.

[ClassWarrior]

9. If that's all it takes for you to support the Rape-Publicans...

...then there's no convincing you.

NGU.

[AndyTiedye]

10. Who Said Anything About Supporting Republicans?

Triangulation has been presented as a reason to support Obama over Clinton.
The McLurkin issue invalidates that as a reason to do so.

I am currently neutral between Obama and Clinton.
I think they both have electability issues, so that isn't a reason to prefer one over the other either.

I know the Repiggies are far worse on every issue, and I'm going to vote Democratic in November.

[ClassWarrior]

12. Actually, the article claims it's Clinton who's triangulating. But you'd have to...

...actually read the article with an open mind to understand that. And you've made it quite clear that gotcha politics is preventing you from doing exactly that.

And if I misunderstood your comment about not supporting a Dem, I apologize.

NGU.

[AndyTiedye]

19. Of Course Hillary Clinton Triangulates

We know Hillary Clinton triangulates. Never claimed otherwise. That is beside the point.
The part of the article that you quoted claims that Obama does not.

Please help me out here, because the McLurkin thing looks like triangulation to me.
Can you explain why it is not?

I will be voting for whichever triangulator wins the nomination in the general election,
but I wish it did not have to be that way.

[ClassWarrior]

20. I have no idea whether it is or not, because I don't know the details.

I didn't pay the McLurkin much attention when it happened, because it looked like a giant flame-fest to me. :shrug:

I don't know that the article says anything about triangulation, but what it tells me is that Obama believes that he can gather bipartisan support while maintaining his positions firmly, while Clinton believes that she must move to the right in order to gain bipartisan support.

And, as a follower of Lakoff, I believe that Obama's approach is the correct one. In fact, Lakoff suggest that the ONLY way to gain broad, bipartisan support is by standing one's philosophical ground.

NGU.

[AndyTiedye]

25. Oh Dear

I didn't pay the McLurkin much attention when it happened, because it looked like a giant flame-fest to me.

Let me fill you in a bit.

Donnie McClurkin is a homophobic "ex-gay" preacher. He regards homosexuality as a "curse", and urges gays to "pray the gay away".
He was invited to be the headliner and emcee at Obama's fundraiser in South Carolina, where he preached his homophobic stuff for over half an hour.
McClurkin also performed at the 2004 Repiglickin Convention.

Was Obama triangulating when he invited Donnie McClurkin to be the headliner at his fundraiser?

I don't know that the article says anything about triangulation

The part you quoted in your OP does. From your OP:

First, triangulation: moving to the right -- adopting right-wing positions -- to get more votes. Bill Clinton did it and Hillary believes in it. It is what she means by "bipartisanship." Obama means the opposite by "bipartisanship." To Obama, it is a recognition that central progressive moral principles are fundamental American principles. For him, bipartisanship means finding people who call themselves "conservatives" or "independents," but who share those central American values with progressives.

Obama believes that he can gather bipartisan support while maintaining his positions firmly, while Clinton believes that she must move to the right in order to gain bipartisan support.

Really?

[REDFISHBLUEFISH]

11. "attempting to appeal to homophobic blacks "

Nail meet hammer.

Hit that one right there!
Right on in your observation.

[ClassWarrior]

18. Hey, thank you so much...

...for helping me keep the thread kicked! :thumbsup:

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

2. Kicking for Progressive Values, properly framed...

:kick:

NGU.

[Donna Zen]

4. Perfectly framed

I read this article the other night and was pleased to see Dr. Lakoff speaking for me. He understands this dynamic.

[UALRBSofL]

6. Hillary and Obama fight for principles

I have never seen her dilute her principles and I have followed her career for 20 years. She fought for health care for everyone from day one and I haven't seen that change. She fought for higher education for everyone in arkansas and it worked. Example:Central High School in Little Rock Arkansas, where the 9 AA students made history for desegregation, a public high school but is the best academic school in arkansas with prestige and it has the rich students and the poor students together because they want to go there. As the first lady of arkansas she drove home these principles, never backed down to a republican ran arkansas delegation. Dr. Lakoff should really do a little more research on Hillary before making these statements. That said, I believe in both of our candidates and I believe they will do what they say they will do. Whomever is our nominee I will support. And, you can take that to the bank.

[ClassWarrior]

7. Please read the entire article and try to understand what it says before posting.

The "diluting" part specifically refers to the concept of "bipartisanship."

It says that Sen. Clinton's idea of "bipartisanship" means shifting her position to the right. Sen. Obama's idea of it means standing his ground and finding the areas of common agreement with those on the other side.

NGU.

[MagsDem]

13. Does Obama have principles to dilute?

Because all I see is a guy that says whatever seems politically expedient at the time. I mean that is this guy's entire history, even dating back to the state lege in Illinois.

He really missed his calling -- should have been a cult leader.

[ClassWarrior]

14. Did you even bother to read the article? Apparently not, since...

...what you're claiming is exactly the opposite of what Professor Lakoff says, and all you're bothering to answer is the thread title.

Oh well, another cheap shot from people who have nothing else.

NGU.

[MethuenProgressive]

15. "It is what she means by bipartisanship. Obama means the opposite by bipartisanship." < Horseshit

[ClassWarrior]

16. Wow, your airtight logic is breathtaking!!

:rofl:

But thanks for helping keep the thread kicked...

NGU.

[cooolandrew]

17. Yes, by negotiating with republicans he's managed to pass good legislation for ethics.

[KennedyGuy]

21. No..he just lies his ass off...

[Kittycat]

22. Projecting again.

[KennedyGuy]

24. Oh Kitty cat..

poster child for neutering...

[rinsd]

23. Obama principles includes being an advocate for single payer until he was in power.

Obama principles include being pissed at the MoveOn resolution but not bothering put his name down in the Senate record against it.

It includes calling KylLieberman dangerous yet not bothering to show up to vote against it.

Its the present vote strategy to fool voters.

Obama never met a fight with actual stakes that he hasn't avoided.