Earlier in the comments, john asked for "any succinct and direct argument that you could write to further solidify" votes for Obama. I've made my pitch a few times now, but most directly here; in a year where voters have completely turned on the Republicans, when the Left at last has the capacity to fundamentally redraw that political map in our favor, we need someone who hasn't been tainted by fifteen years of vitriol and hate. To make the sorts of sweeping changes we need, we need a candidate who will enter office at the head of a popular movement, not someone who squeaks in after a nasty, ugly campaign with 50.001% of the vote, if at all.
That person at this moment is Barack Obama.
Jaimee sent me a link to George Lakoff at the Huffington Post, saying much the same thing much better than I can:
There is a reason that Obama recently spoke of Reagan. Reagan understood that you win elections by drawing support from independents and the opposite side. He understood what unified the country so that he could lead it according to his vision. His vision was a radical conservative one, a vision devastating for the country and contradicted by his economic policies.If it would help, you might also point them to the National Journal's ranking Obama today as the most liberal senator in America.
Obama understands the importance of values, connection, authenticity, trust, and identity.
But his vision is deeply progressive. He proposes to lead in a very different direction than Reagan. Crucially, he adds to that vision a streetwise pragmatism: his policies have to do more than look good on paper; they have to bring concrete material results to millions of struggling Americans in the lower and middle classes. They have to meet the criteria of a community organizer.
The Clintonian policy wonks don't seem to understand any of this. They have trivialized Reagan's political acumen as an illegitimate triumph of personality over policy. They confuse values with programs. They have underestimated authenticity and trust...
Posts
|