auros: OK, that puts me back to Edwards for sure...

Auros (

auros) wrote,
@ 2007-10-31 10:03:00

Current mood:

annoyed

OK, that puts me back to Edwards for sure...
Another lesson in why you shouldn't listen to those consultants. Like Edwards did in '04, but didn't this round.

ETA: I should add, I'm not completely opposed to Obama's proposal, to remove the FICA earnings cap, making it less regressive. But I'm strongly opposed to heated rhetoric suggesting that Social Security is in dire trouble, when in fact the threat -- under ridiculously pessimistic assumptions set up by the Bushies -- is that in 35 years, if we do nothing before then, benefits would suddenly have to be trimmed by ~20%. Getting into a tizzy over SS is a mistake because it plays into right-wing framing. SS is not one of our big problems right now. Iraq, healthcare, and the need for a sustainable economy are all far larger problems.

(Post a new comment)

	siphet 2007-11-01 04:34 am UTC (link)
	well argued. (Reply to this)

	stephdray 2007-11-02 03:24 am UTC (link)
	Obama quite frequently falls right into right wing frames. He does it about 100% more than Edwards and about 80% more than Clinton. It really aggravates me about him. (Reply to this)(Thread)

auros
2007-11-02 03:39 am UTC (link)

I could argue the "more than Clinton" idea. I mean, she's the one who says that taking money from lobbyists is OK because it doesn't influence her, that a potential future president should not say he's willing to talk to "dangerous" leaders (like Chavez and Ahmedinejad), etc. And while I'm annoyed that Obama decided to miss the vote on the vote designating a part of the Iranian military a terrorist organization (thus giving Bush a potential pretext to start another war), Clinton actually voted for it, and has generally sounded bellicose about Iran.

I'd have no problem with nominating somebody with Obama's policies, as long as they learned to talk about them in a way that move the overall debate back towards the center, and away from the nutball rightwing fringe where lunatic thugs like Giuliani get taken seriously.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

stephdray
2007-11-02 02:56 pm UTC (link)

</i>I could argue the "more than Clinton" idea. I mean, she's the one who says that taking money from lobbyists is OK because it doesn't influence her</i>

Are you sure that's a Republican frame? I'm pretty sure that one is independent of party from time immemorial.

I'm not always on board with all of Clinton's policies, but I think she (and particularly her husband) are pretty good at reframing issues when and where they can. At least, I would say they are better at it than Barack Obama, who has never passed up an opportunity to diss the party when one is presented to him.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

auros
2007-11-02 03:16 pm UTC (link)

I'm pretty sure that one is independent of party from time immemorial.

Are you kidding? It's only been adopted fully by Dems in this decade. Prior to that, Dems quite consistently supported (and used) the presidential public matching funds system, and consistently favored McCain-Feingold style restrictions on campaign donations (or stronger versions). And even in this cycle, every Dem (including Hillary, actually) has endorsed Clean Money reform for federal legislative and presidential elections.

I think she (and particularly her husband) are pretty good at reframing issues

Sometimes; but Bill also did a lot of the "triangulating" thing, which meant adopting the opposing frame. e.g. He outflanked the Republicans on the right on welfare reform, and bought in, far too much, to the idea that we should push those in poverty towards the traditional nuclear family model (without consideration for whether the men in the picture were actually prepared for that). And the downfall of Hillarycare 1.0 was, in large part, caused by adopting the conceptual framework of the insurance companies. If Bill had outlined a simple plan during his first week in office, based on a frame of moral responsibility and shared risk, he might've been able to get that passed -- we still had a majority. Instead, he let Hillary spend a year dickering with people who never wanted any plan to pass anyways, because they're terrified of people realizing that government healthcare works; and as a result, they came out with a plan that they couldn't even get Dems to support.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

stephdray
2007-11-02 04:25 pm UTC (link)

Are you kidding? It's only been adopted fully by Dems in this decade.

I think you're taking an historically short view of the "corruption is ok" frame. Influence peddlers have been around longer than public financing and neither party has had clean hands there. Moreover, the influence of 'big business' wasn't always most keenly felt in the Republican party. The party's have changed sides and names over time.

Sometimes; but Bill also did a lot of the "triangulating" thing, which meant adopting the opposing frame. e.g. He outflanked the Republicans on the right on welfare reform, and bought in, far too much, to the idea that we should push those in poverty towards the traditional nuclear family model (without consideration for whether the men in the picture were actually prepared for that).

Sure. I did plenty of teeth gnashing at the Clintons and some of their choices during the 90s. But this isn't the 90s. This is today, and when I compare the current field, I think Hillary Clinton adopts GOP frames about 80 percent less often as Barack Obama, but more than John Edwards.

My feeling is that if you want to adopt a GOP frame in order to use it as jujitsu to make it work against them, that's fine. And if you need to have a Sista Soulja moment for the greater good, I can even understand it. But otherwise, you're just cementing these ridiculous ideas into the public psyche.

GOP pablem is so effective because the Democrats unwittingly help it along!

And the downfall of Hillarycare 1.0 was, in large part, caused by adopting the conceptual framework of the insurance companies. If Bill had outlined a simple plan during his first week in office, based on a frame of moral responsibility and shared risk, he might've been able to get that passed -- we still had a majority. Instead, he let Hillary spend a year dickering with people who never wanted any plan to pass anyways, because they're terrified of people realizing that government healthcare works; and as a result, they came out with a plan that they couldn't even get Dems to support.

To take this in a slightly different direction, I always think the HillaryCare debacle gets used against her in unfair ways. It's fine to point out that when presented with a big opportunity, she failed. But it seems like the media wants to have it both ways. Either she's a panderer who will say anything for political efficiency, or she's so uncompromising that she killed public health care because she refused to compromise.

Mrs. Clinton is not likely to be my choice in the primary, but I think people don't give her a fair shot.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

auros
2007-11-02 05:07 pm UTC (link)

I'm not having it both ways: I'm saying she killed healthcare by trying to compromise. She could've gotten the Democratic majority lined up behind a better plan than the one she submitted. But between the complexity and opacity of the plan, and the fact that it was crafted in a manner reminiscent of Bush (did you read the DeLong link?), she lost any chance at passage.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	stephdray 2007-11-02 07:26 pm UTC (link)
	I wasn't accusing you! I've heard it on the news over and over again lately, and the common assessment by Democrats who were in Congress at the time that they had a compromise on the table they could have passed, but she wouldn't take it. (Reply to this)(Parent)

Mini Sitemap:

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…