How hope and change became fear and inertia

rockin'robin · 05-29-2012, 08:58 PM

.In 2008, Barack Obama ran against the hated establishment. In 2012, he is the hated establishment
We have seen the opening salvos of the 2012 presidential election, and the results have been stunning for Obama — and not in a good way. The vaunted Obama campaign organization that put together a miracle win in the 2008 Democratic primaries and then easily beat the Republican nominee has stumbled out of the gate. What happened? 2012 Barack Obama has to overcome 2008 Barack Obama, and it may prove an impossible task.

In 2008, Obama came almost out of nowhere to overturn the established order — first in the Democratic primary, and then in the general election. When he first announced his intention to run in January 2007, most people assumed Obama wanted to gain visibility and organization for a later presidential run. At that early stage, a year before the Iowa caucuses, most believed that Democrats would turn to Hillary Clinton as a salve for eight years of George W. Bush.

SEE MORE: Will Obama's attacks on Bain Capital backfire?

The most significant competition, at least on paper, to the former first lady came from New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who had the widest breadth of experience of any candidate in either party. Richardson had the executive experience both Clinton and Obama lacked, along with formal diplomatic experience and a track record on the legislative side as well. However, he turned out to be a mediocre campaigner and never threatened in the polls.

The 2012 Obama campaign has become the antithesis of the 2008 campaign.

Then there was John Edwards, who had performed well as John Kerry's running mate in the close but unsuccessful race in 2004, although he still only had a single term as senator on his resume. In 2008, the soon-to-be-disgraced Democrat ran as both a populist and as the battle-tested campaigner who could beat Republicans in an open election — and presented a strong challenge to Clinton.

Clinton had just started her second term as a senator from New York, while Obama had just finished his second year in national office. Clinton chose to emphasize her leadership experience, claiming that her eight years in the White House gave her the kind of executive experience most of her competitors lacked. But Obama, whether out of choice or necessity, ran against the very idea of executive and legislative experience.

SEE MORE: 5 reasons a Jeremiah Wright attack on Obama would fail

Instead, he ran on Hope and Change, attacking his opponents implicitly and at times explicitly for two wars and the economic downturn which later turned into a collapse. Economically, Obama argued, the U.S. needed a fresh look at the middle class from someone not beholden to the interests of the wealthy. Diplomatically, Obama pledged to use his unique experiences abroad to connect on a personal level with leaders of nations arrayed either disfavorably inclined or fully opposed to the U.S. He successfully convinced Democrats that Clinton and Edwards represented an old order of politics that needed to be discarded, and then cruised through the general election by painting John McCain as another George W. Bush.

Obama won in 2008 against the collected heavyweights of both parties by offering an optimistic vision of the future, which included an attack on the entire American political establishment. Regardless of whether some found it naïve or lightweight, American public sentiment had clearly shifted in Obama's favor. Seven years of war in the necessarily ambiguous terms of fighting terrorists and a sharp recession that turned into a financial meltdown angered voters, who wanted to hear that life would get better. They were understandably hungry for change.

SEE MORE: Did Cory Booker sandbag Obama by calling the Bain attacks 'nauseating'?

That's why Obama's struggles now have more than a taste of irony. If anything, the American public has grown more anti-establishment in sentiment. Obama can't take advantage of it, however, for two reasons. First, Obama became the establishment, co-opting the very institutions against which he once railed — the Clintons, Wall Street, his party's entrenched Congressional leadership, and lobbyists. That was more or less inevitable; even the most fervent anti-establishment politicians have to get other politicians to assist in passing legislation, or risk being seen as isolated and ineffective.

Obama's bigger problem is his lack of a coherent and positive vision. In 2008, Obama's team didn't need to produce a complicated and nuanced agenda for his presidency; not being the establishment was enough. This time, Obama has to either produce a real agenda to justify a second term after three years of economic stagnation, or he has to make his opponent look scary and weird.

So far, Team Obama has opted for Plan Scary. They have painted Mitt Romney as a heartless "vampire capitalist" and dug up stories of high-school bullying. They have used Ann Romney's passion for horses as a way to remind voters of just how wealthy the Romneys are. But those attacks have largely backfired as Democrats objected to attacks on private equity, an industry on which they rely for donors, and the mean-spiritedness of the personal attacks stoked sympathy for the Romneys, especially Ann.

In one sense, it's similar to Obama's 2008 campaign, but with a very big difference. Obama wanted to paint the Romneys as part of an existing establishment, as he successfully did with Clinton, Edwards, and McCain in 2008. This time, though, Obama isn't presenting an alternative to the status quo. Without a positive vision for a second term — or really any vision for a second term — the strategy looks a lot more personal than political, and a desperate attempt to distract from his record in the new establishment. The Daily Beast's Lloyd Grove wrote this weekend about the emergence of an Obama "mean streak," and quoted Larry Sabato comparing Obama's campaigning to high-school bullying.

We have a long way to go until the election in November, and the Obama campaign has plenty of time to change direction, so it's far too early to count them out. However, the 2012 Obama campaign has become the antithesis of the 2008 campaign, based this time on Fear and Inertia rather than Hope and Change. Unless they can come up with a better argument for four more years, the American electorate will choose Hope and Change again and give this establishment the boot.

How hope and change became fear and inertia - Yahoo! News

airportcop · 05-29-2012, 09:35 PM

The destruction of four more years of Obama and his tactics and people is something that this country can't stand for! It seems he is bent on bringing this country to it's knees so that he can rebuild it his way. My opinion is that it's time for the highway for Mr. Obama! Ever wonder what life in America under McCain would have been like? At least he understands war and politics! Hopefully Romney can rally the American people around again and make us feel a sense of pride that some seem to have lost. We need to focus on our economy first, then the other issues will not seem so big! Here's to four new years of freshness ahead without Obama at the helm!

**Foxrac** · 05-29-2012, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by airportcop

The destruction of four more years of Obama and his tactics and people is something that this country can't stand for! It seems he is bent on bringing this country to it's knees so that he can rebuild it his way. My opinion is that it's time for the highway for Mr. Obama! Ever wonder what life in America under McCain would have been like? At least he understands war and politics! Hopefully Romney can rally the American people around again and make us feel a sense of pride that some seem to have lost. We need to focus on our economy first, then the other issues will not seem so big! Here's to four new years of freshness ahead without Obama at the helm!

Neither of Romney or McCain will help you.

At least, you should glad about Obama is better than many leaders in European countries.

America is growing as Europe is dooming.

It is just other right wing nut.

**Foxrac** · 05-29-2012, 10:32 PM

I found one is interesting.
The Political Compass - US Presidential Election 2012

That shows Obama isn't hard left or socialist so I'm going find a candidate that is very hard left or socialist.

I wish that Sam Webb was our president so you are free to yell... SOCIALIST SOCIALIST SOCIALIST!!!!

I know, it is true.

**Jiro** · 05-30-2012, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by airportcop

The destruction of four more years of Obama and his tactics and people is something that this country can't stand for! It seems he is bent on bringing this country to it's knees so that he can rebuild it his way. My opinion is that it's time for the highway for Mr. Obama! Ever wonder what life in America under McCain would have been like? At least he understands war and politics! Hopefully Romney can rally the American people around again and make us feel a sense of pride that some seem to have lost. We need to focus on our economy first, then the other issues will not seem so big! Here's to four new years of freshness ahead without Obama at the helm!

how did you feel this country was under 8 years of Bush? and 8 years under Clinton?

airportcop · 05-30-2012, 06:36 AM

Well, other than I didn't agree with the bailing out of the banks or the car makers I thought life was pretty good under GWB. I know that may not make a lot of sense but that is just my opinion. Under Clinton well, I think he was basically an embarassment to the USA. But at least he did some good things for our country that Obama hasn't.

**Jiro** · 05-30-2012, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by airportcop

Well, other than I didn't agree with the bailing out of the banks or the car makers I thought life was pretty good under GWB. I know that may not make a lot of sense but that is just my opinion. Under Clinton well, I think he was basically an embarassment to the USA. But at least he did some good things for our country that Obama hasn't.

life was pretty good under GWB? how? we had 9/11, 2 wars, and horrible recession.

but I guess life was good for you because it means big business for security/defense sector and lot of action. must be really boring during peacetime.

caz12 · 05-30-2012, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

I found one is interesting.
The Political Compass - US Presidential Election 2012

That shows Obama isn't hard left or socialist so I'm going find a candidate that is very hard left or socialist.

I wish that Sam Webb was our president so you are free to yell... SOCIALIST SOCIALIST SOCIALIST!!!!

I know, it is true.

though SOCIALIST was blasphemy in the states,i lived under tony blair goverment so called socialist who had more in common with old george. so hard tell if living in socialist country old david much the same as tony

**Foxrac** · 05-30-2012, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caz12

though SOCIALIST was blasphemy in the states,i lived under tony blair goverment so called socialist who had more in common with old george. so hard tell if living in socialist country old david much the same as tony

Tony Blair is more left than Obama.

I'm disappointed that Republican Party already made Obama looks bad and they blocked everything that Obama tries to fix our economy. The two years of Democratic controlled in the congress (Jan 2009-Jan 2011) was not impressed because of filibustered by conservatives and the stimulus package will works so well if there is a lot of funds, especially for serious economy downturn/serious recession. We got out of recession in 2009 but there wasn't much growing, only in small percent, pretty much minimum to fix it.

Romney isn't going to be pretty for our country and we will go back to recession if they adopt austerity measure, however not possible if the congress, either house only or senate only are democratic controlled that enough to block many of his agenda from goes effect.

**Foxrac** · 05-30-2012, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

life was pretty good under GWB? how? we had 9/11, 2 wars, and horrible recession.

but I guess life was good for you because it means big business for security/defense sector and lot of action. must be really boring during peacetime.

My life under GWB Admin is worst ever but Obama Admin is just still bad, not worse as GWB.

I have best life under Clinton Admin and I love 1990's.

caz12 · 05-30-2012, 12:13 PM

if you see tony at the levenson enquiry this week you would review that statement foxrac. FriendS of murdoch that dichotmy if you socialist. I think old tony need to look at his socialist roots they very shallow.Obmama from what i read just needs to find his

**saywhatkid** · 05-30-2012, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

life was pretty good under GWB? how? we had 9/11, 2 wars, and horrible recession.

but I guess life was good for you because it means big business for security/defense sector and lot of action. must be really boring during peacetime.

That is the Conservative way.

**saywhatkid** · 05-30-2012, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by airportcop

Well, other than I didn't agree with the bailing out of the banks or the car makers I thought life was pretty good under GWB. I know that may not make a lot of sense but that is just my opinion. Under Clinton well, I think he was basically an embarassment to the USA. But at least he did some good things for our country that Obama hasn't.

So GWB threw money at wealthy businessmen, and that was nothing compared to Clinton cheating on his wife? And how did that cheating affect you personally, compared to the many billions thrown into the toilet of Iraq war, bailing out big business, etc? Just curious. Seems that priorities are a bit skewed.

Oh, I know, Clinton was an embarrassment because of his sexual stupidity. I thought it was embarrassing when we reelected GWB after he started drawing up battle plans all over the globe, and thumbing his nose at allies that pleaded with us for discretion.

**saywhatkid** · 05-30-2012, 08:56 PM

We could name the AD current events forum: "How debate and discussion on various topics became race baiting and a pulpit for Conservatives to post endless drivel."

kokonut · 05-30-2012, 09:06 PM

Nobody forcing anybody to read threads or posts. You do have the option to ignore threads, posts or members.

**saywhatkid** · 05-30-2012, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Nobody forcing anybody to read threads or posts. You do have the option to ignore threads, posts or members.

Thanks for the reminder, Dad.

Thing is, someone might stumble on this pile of Conservative crap that keeps piling up here. I like to keep them thinking there is another way, rather than playing the good soldier and robotically voting for the GOP.

kokonut · 05-30-2012, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saywhatkid

Thanks for the reminder, Dad.

Thing is, someone might stumble on this pile of Conservative crap that keeps piling up here. I like to keep them thinking there is another way, rather than playing the good soldier and robotically voting for the GOP.

So? No one is complaining...well, almost no one.

**saywhatkid** · 05-30-2012, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

So? No one is complaining...well, almost no one.

Certainly not the Obama bashers. It feels like a special club that I don't want to join. Sorry to rain a little bit on the Mitt parade.

Back to Amos and Andy!

kokonut · 05-30-2012, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saywhatkid

Certainly not the Obama bashers. It feels like a special club that I don't want to join. Sorry to rain a little bit on the Mitt parade.

Back to Amos and Andy!

Well, again, you don't have to read a thread you don't like. It'll save you an ulcer or two.

kokonut · 05-30-2012, 10:53 PM

..

05-29-2012, 08:58 PM	#1 (permalink)
rockin'robin Registered User Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Jacksonville, Florida Posts: 15,298	How hope and change became fear and inertia .In 2008, Barack Obama ran against the hated establishment. In 2012, he is the hated establishment We have seen the opening salvos of the 2012 presidential election, and the results have been stunning for Obama — and not in a good way. The vaunted Obama campaign organization that put together a miracle win in the 2008 Democratic primaries and then easily beat the Republican nominee has stumbled out of the gate. What happened? 2012 Barack Obama has to overcome 2008 Barack Obama, and it may prove an impossible task. In 2008, Obama came almost out of nowhere to overturn the established order — first in the Democratic primary, and then in the general election. When he first announced his intention to run in January 2007, most people assumed Obama wanted to gain visibility and organization for a later presidential run. At that early stage, a year before the Iowa caucuses, most believed that Democrats would turn to Hillary Clinton as a salve for eight years of George W. Bush. SEE MORE: Will Obama's attacks on Bain Capital backfire? The most significant competition, at least on paper, to the former first lady came from New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who had the widest breadth of experience of any candidate in either party. Richardson had the executive experience both Clinton and Obama lacked, along with formal diplomatic experience and a track record on the legislative side as well. However, he turned out to be a mediocre campaigner and never threatened in the polls. The 2012 Obama campaign has become the antithesis of the 2008 campaign. Then there was John Edwards, who had performed well as John Kerry's running mate in the close but unsuccessful race in 2004, although he still only had a single term as senator on his resume. In 2008, the soon-to-be-disgraced Democrat ran as both a populist and as the battle-tested campaigner who could beat Republicans in an open election — and presented a strong challenge to Clinton. Clinton had just started her second term as a senator from New York, while Obama had just finished his second year in national office. Clinton chose to emphasize her leadership experience, claiming that her eight years in the White House gave her the kind of executive experience most of her competitors lacked. But Obama, whether out of choice or necessity, ran against the very idea of executive and legislative experience. SEE MORE: 5 reasons a Jeremiah Wright attack on Obama would fail Instead, he ran on Hope and Change, attacking his opponents implicitly and at times explicitly for two wars and the economic downturn which later turned into a collapse. Economically, Obama argued, the U.S. needed a fresh look at the middle class from someone not beholden to the interests of the wealthy. Diplomatically, Obama pledged to use his unique experiences abroad to connect on a personal level with leaders of nations arrayed either disfavorably inclined or fully opposed to the U.S. He successfully convinced Democrats that Clinton and Edwards represented an old order of politics that needed to be discarded, and then cruised through the general election by painting John McCain as another George W. Bush. Obama won in 2008 against the collected heavyweights of both parties by offering an optimistic vision of the future, which included an attack on the entire American political establishment. Regardless of whether some found it naïve or lightweight, American public sentiment had clearly shifted in Obama's favor. Seven years of war in the necessarily ambiguous terms of fighting terrorists and a sharp recession that turned into a financial meltdown angered voters, who wanted to hear that life would get better. They were understandably hungry for change. SEE MORE: Did Cory Booker sandbag Obama by calling the Bain attacks 'nauseating'? That's why Obama's struggles now have more than a taste of irony. If anything, the American public has grown more anti-establishment in sentiment. Obama can't take advantage of it, however, for two reasons. First, Obama became the establishment, co-opting the very institutions against which he once railed — the Clintons, Wall Street, his party's entrenched Congressional leadership, and lobbyists. That was more or less inevitable; even the most fervent anti-establishment politicians have to get other politicians to assist in passing legislation, or risk being seen as isolated and ineffective. Obama's bigger problem is his lack of a coherent and positive vision. In 2008, Obama's team didn't need to produce a complicated and nuanced agenda for his presidency; not being the establishment was enough. This time, Obama has to either produce a real agenda to justify a second term after three years of economic stagnation, or he has to make his opponent look scary and weird. So far, Team Obama has opted for Plan Scary. They have painted Mitt Romney as a heartless "vampire capitalist" and dug up stories of high-school bullying. They have used Ann Romney's passion for horses as a way to remind voters of just how wealthy the Romneys are. But those attacks have largely backfired as Democrats objected to attacks on private equity, an industry on which they rely for donors, and the mean-spiritedness of the personal attacks stoked sympathy for the Romneys, especially Ann. In one sense, it's similar to Obama's 2008 campaign, but with a very big difference. Obama wanted to paint the Romneys as part of an existing establishment, as he successfully did with Clinton, Edwards, and McCain in 2008. This time, though, Obama isn't presenting an alternative to the status quo. Without a positive vision for a second term — or really any vision for a second term — the strategy looks a lot more personal than political, and a desperate attempt to distract from his record in the new establishment. The Daily Beast's Lloyd Grove wrote this weekend about the emergence of an Obama "mean streak," and quoted Larry Sabato comparing Obama's campaigning to high-school bullying. We have a long way to go until the election in November, and the Obama campaign has plenty of time to change direction, so it's far too early to count them out. However, the 2012 Obama campaign has become the antithesis of the 2008 campaign, based this time on Fear and Inertia rather than Hope and Change. Unless they can come up with a better argument for four more years, the American electorate will choose Hope and Change again and give this establishment the boot. How hope and change became fear and inertia - Yahoo! News airportcop likes this.

05-29-2012, 09:35 PM	#2 (permalink)
airportcop Registered User Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Springfield, MO Posts: 1,088	The destruction of four more years of Obama and his tactics and people is something that this country can't stand for! It seems he is bent on bringing this country to it's knees so that he can rebuild it his way. My opinion is that it's time for the highway for Mr. Obama! Ever wonder what life in America under McCain would have been like? At least he understands war and politics! Hopefully Romney can rally the American people around again and make us feel a sense of pride that some seem to have lost. We need to focus on our economy first, then the other issues will not seem so big! Here's to four new years of freshness ahead without Obama at the helm! __________________ Romans 12:12 (NIV) Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer.

05-29-2012, 10:32 PM	#4 (permalink)
Foxrac Need Stormtroopers? Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Zaphias Posts: 32,556	I found one is interesting. The Political Compass - US Presidential Election 2012 That shows Obama isn't hard left or socialist so I'm going find a candidate that is very hard left or socialist. I wish that Sam Webb was our president so you are free to yell... SOCIALIST SOCIALIST SOCIALIST!!!! I know, it is true. __________________ In Moto We Trust

05-30-2012, 06:36 AM	#6 (permalink)
airportcop Registered User Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Springfield, MO Posts: 1,088	Well, other than I didn't agree with the bailing out of the banks or the car makers I thought life was pretty good under GWB. I know that may not make a lot of sense but that is just my opinion. Under Clinton well, I think he was basically an embarassment to the USA. But at least he did some good things for our country that Obama hasn't. __________________ Romans 12:12 (NIV) Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer.

05-30-2012, 09:06 PM	#15 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	Nobody forcing anybody to read threads or posts. You do have the option to ignore threads, posts or members. __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

05-30-2012, 12:13 PM	#11 (permalink)
caz12 Registered User Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 2,838	if you see tony at the levenson enquiry this week you would review that statement foxrac. FriendS of murdoch that dichotmy if you socialist. I think old tony need to look at his socialist roots they very shallow.Obmama from what i read just needs to find his

05-30-2012, 08:56 PM	#14 (permalink)
saywhatkid Emerging from the sun Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In space Posts: 7,242 Blog Entries: 2	We could name the AD current events forum: "How debate and discussion on various topics became race baiting and a pulpit for Conservatives to post endless drivel."

05-30-2012, 10:53 PM	#20 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	.. __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode