The Obama Phenomenon and the 2008 Presidential Campaign

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Well, I was going to respond to this (since I was the first one to raise the "having his cake and eating it too" impression), but there isn't much to say after that. Thanks for posting it, nel.

[Cerin]

it's not that I doubt her statement in support of same-sex marriage; it's that I question her reasons for voicing them in the time and way she did (strikes me as the Edwards campaign having its cake and eating it too), and frankly, I doubt her husband's non-position position more than hers.

It seems to me like a fairly obvious and appropriate time and place for her to have addressed the subject. Having said that, I don't doubt that public statements issued by all of the candidates are planned and considered for potential effect. Any candidate not being careful and deliberate in that way in the current political environment would have to be considered extraordinarily naive if not a sort of political fool (I saw Al Gore in a recent Charlie Rose interview, and he described perfectly what politics has become and therefore why it is so unappealing to him). Again, I don't think the fact of a candidate (or candidate's wife) taking into account considerations of timing and effect necessarily indicate that the view expressed is not sincere. I mean, what would you think of her choice if she'd raised the subject in front of a VFW crowd, for example? That wouldn't make as much sense to me; politicians tend to talk about what their audiences are interested in, I think.

As far as the notion that she was trying to imply that her stated view was her husband's real view, I see even less grounds for suggesting that. Her husband's remarks as reported from the Stephanopoulos segment seem to be consistent with what he's said before.

I don't quite understand the comment 'having their cake and eating it, too' as relates to the timing of these particular remarks. I understand that comment in relation to the suggestion that Mrs. Edwards' stated position is false (i.e., they want to represent both views on same-sex marriage but one or the other of them doesn't really hold the stated view), but not in the other context.

The Tonight Show With Jay Leno last night with wife Elizabeth and, according to the Associated Press, said that he did not know she supports same-sex marriage. Indeed, the presidential candidate said, he was surprised to learn of her position when he read news reports of her remarks just before San Francisco’s pride parade on Sunday.

I suppose it would be helpful to know exactly what Edwards said in response to exactly what remark of Leno's. It seems clear from the reported Stephanopoulos exchange that Edwards, and everyone else who watched that show, would have known that Mrs. Edwards at least found same-sex marriage 'less problematic' than he did. I don't know enough about their relationship or the amount of time they spend together in the campaign to speculate on how likely it would have been that they didn't go over her planned remarks together. However, she is a public personality in her own right and has appeared extensively in the media discussing her views and experiences on a wide range of life issues. Apparently she didn't consult with the campaign before confronting Anne Coulter the other night on television, so who knows.

This is not the first issue on which Edwards’s sincerity could be legitimately called into question. His “Two Americas” campaign is beginning to reveal two Edwardses: one who seems genuinely impassioned about the plight of poor Americans yet builds a multimillion-dollar mansion and gets famously expensive haircuts. He’s the candidate who won awards ranging from $6 to $60 million as a trial lawyer filing cases against doctors and hospitals. Yet he is concerned about the vast number of Americans who lack health care insurance because they can’t afford sky-high rates and was the first Democratic presidential candidate to offer a detailed plan for universal health care.

This drives me absolutely crazy!

When in history has another politician been accused of hypocrisy for caring about the poor while being rich?

How I hate the role of the media in creating non-issues around candidates (such as the myths about Gore's propensity to 'exaggerate') when we have serious matters to consider! It was probably that more than anything else that lost Gore the first election, and now it's this ridiculous business about hypocrisy and haircuts. They hated Gore, they obviously hate Edwards and are busy manufacturing and supporting this myth of insincerity and hypocrisy that is absolutely baseless. And it looks like you two are buying into it. The media is also responsible now for effectively restricting our choice to either Hillary or Obama.

If either of them ends up being the nominee, I'm going to write someone else in, on principle. I am really sick of this media manipulation of the process!

[solicitr]

I think the hypocrisy referred to is Edwards' attacking the high cost of health care, which he has personally contributed to while making a small fortune. Health-insurance customers built that mansion.

[Cerin]

No, I don't believe that has been the focus of the media claims of hypocrisy. They seem to simply fault him for being wealthy while championing the interests of those less well-off. I've never heard another candidate criticized in that way.

As for the rightness or wrongness of attorneys fees, or malpractice lawsuits as a factor in our national health care disaster, I guess those would be topics for separate discussions.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That has very much been the focus of assertions of hypocrisy. And one that I think has a degree of validity.

And Cerin, I do not appreciate your statement that my beliefs are the result of "media manipulation". I actually have the ability to think for myself (as does nerdanel, for that matter). It is fine for you to disagree with my opinions, but I would very much appreciate it if you would restrain from accusing me of being manipulated by the media. That is quite offensive to me.

[Cerin]

I apologize to both you and nerdanel, Voronwë, for suggesting that your opinions about Edwards are influenced by the media.

As for it being hypocritical for someone who has become rich by representing people in malpractice suits to express concern for our health care system, I think that idea is just outrageous. But maybe that is because I consider it legitimate for doctors and hospitals to be held accountable for their mistakes, and because I would hope to be able to do so if my life were profoundly damaged due to a medical mistake, and because I don't think patients seeking redress for medical mistakes that severely damage their quality of life is one of the chief problems with our health care system, and because I don't consider it unethical that attorneys receive compensation when they successfully represent their clients.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thank you, Cerin.

I obviously agree that it is not unethical for attorneys to receive compensation when they successfully represent their clients; that would be a pretty hypocritical position for me to take. And I agree that patients should be able to seek redress for medical mistakes, just I think that employees should be able to seek redress for discrimination and harassment (as I said in another thread recently). But some medical malpractice verdicts have been excessive, in my opinion, contributing to the high cost of health care. But that is, perhaps, the subject for another thread.

[solicitr]

Unfortunately, Cerin, the big med-mal operators like Edwards have gone far beyond merely holding doctors accountable for their mistakes, inventing things like the class-action shakedown scam (which insurers are forced to settle regardless of merit, because litigating it would be costlier; and the nominal plaintiffs receive pennies while the attorneys (the ones who put up TV commercials with "have you ever taken Damitol? Call 1-800-...) rake in millions. *That* was Edwards' racket. He's a highly successful bottom-feeder.

[Cerin]

Isn't it the pharmaceutical companies that produce the medications, rather than patient insurers, who settle class action suits against specific medications? It seems to me that I fairly frequently hear of such cases being litigated rather than settled.

[solicitr]

Only sometimes. Anyway, the cost of damage settlements/awards are just passed on to the public. And sometimes others- how about those Dow Corning workers laid off when the company went under? "Oops, sorry- turns out silicone implants weren't a health hazard after all. Too bad about your jobs and everything."

[yovargas]

For good or bad, this is what I'm expecting from our country in the next year or so:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YqOHquOkpaU

(a MadTV sketch)

[elfshadow]

That was genius.

[nerdanel]

Had no idea where to put this, but it seemed worthy of a mention. India this weekend elected its first female President, as described here. Of course, India's President is a largely ceremonial position; India has already had a female Prime Minister, the intrepid Indira Gandhi. It sometimes strikes me that some countries (who in their own right are more advanced than the US on this point) have a female head-of-state glass ceiling - that they have had ONE, but no more (e.g. Israel, UK, Pakistan, and India.) It's heartening to see India begin to break down that glass ceiling (even as we in the US have not even managed to work our way up to that ceiling.)

Particularly in a country where equality for women - in practice, not merely as a matter of law - is still a work in progress, this is wonderful news. And, President-elect Patil's stated commitment to gender equality and willingness to focus on where India continues to fall short in that regard, will ensure that women are represented at the highest level of India's government. Progress may be a slow-moving train, but at least it's moving.

(As I said, this may be an ill-placed post, so I consent to moving it wherever might be more appropriate.)

[Padme]

http://www.tmz.com/2007/07/21/mitt-catc ... hing-sign/

I don't know if anyone else saw this or not, and I am not sure it belongs in this thread or the Mitt thread.

[Faramond]

It took me awhile to figure out why they called H Clinton "Chelsea's Moma". So it would rhyme with Osama and Obama.

This does nothing to help my already low opinion of Mitt Romney.

[Primula Baggins]

This whole campaign process is leaving me cold. Sometimes it seems as if the candidates (both parties) are campaigning for the vote of a completely different kind of person than me.

Maybe it's just too soon—my highly logical brain wants to wait to go to the effort of sorting out whom to support when there aren't quite so many to choose from.

[Cerin]

I just heard about an announcement from a conservative Christian group that they won't support Giuliani if he gets the nomination. (Unfortunately, I didn't catch who the speaker was representing.) This seems to go against all of the 'wisdom' I've been hearing on the various political talk shows, from pundits who say they've had no indication so far (from the polls, I guess) that the religious right will have a problem with Rudy, or that any problem they have won't be outweighed by his perceived strength on terrorism.

[Túrin Turambar]

There are some deep divisions in the GOP, similiar to what the Democrats faced in 1968. It's what happens to a party which has been in power for too long - they do everything that their entire base likes, but then start fighting over what to do next. Rudy Guiliani has a history of supporting socially liberal causes and sordid personal past to boot - he represents a direction which many in the GOP don't want to see the party going. Thompson, Brownback and Hunter are as strong on terrorism without that added baggage.

[Primula Baggins]

It's merely a power play, I'm betting—they will indeed support Rudy in the end, if he's the nominee, but they want him to make some moves in their direction.

[Frelga]

These days, it's like Dan Quail's (?) offer to come and campaign either for or against the candidate, depending on which will do more good. I would suspect reverse psychology at work, except that the conservative religious groups tend to be so utterly literal and humorless.

In related news, McCain drew fire from Muslim and Jewish groups for saying that he would prefer a Christian president (CNN article).

"I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles, personally, I prefer someone who has a grounding in my faith," the GOP presidential hopeful told the Web site in an interview published Saturday.

After a scathing response by Jewish groups, he restated with the following;

On Sunday night, McCain sought to clarify his remarks while campaigning in Hollis, New Hampshire. "What I do mean to say is the United States of America was founded on the values of Judeo-Christian values, which were translated by our founding fathers which is basically the rights of human dignity and human rights," he said.

That still didn't make the Muslim groups feel any better. Or anyone else, for that matter.