Obama’s addition to the Democratic hymnal
Since before his inauguration I, like many Democrats, had been waiting for President Obama to make his mark on our Democratic psyche. John F Kennedy and Franklin Roosevelt before him used their eloquence to help us understand who we are as a party and a people. They left us with words and phrases that became part of our Democratic identity and our national identity. After eight years of the aspirational desert of George Bush, that responsibility fell squarely and heavily on the shoulders of Barack Obama.
Perhaps feeling untested, and that the words might seem insincere, he passed on the opportunity during his inaugural address. But last night I heard the words that will endure. I heard the words that form a bulwark against the greedy and grasping brutality that Republicans envision for our future.
As Americans, we believe we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, rights that no man or government can take away. We insist on personal responsibility, and we celebrate individual initiative. We’re not entitled to success. We have to earn it. We honor the strivers, the dreamers, the risk- takers, the entrepreneurs who have always been the driving force behind our free enterprise system, the greatest engine of growth and prosperity that the world’s ever known.
But we also believe in something called citizenship — citizenship, a word at the very heart of our founding, a word at the very essence of our democracy, the idea that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another and to future generations. …
We, the people — recognize that we have responsibilities as well as rights; that our destinies are bound together; that a freedom which asks only, what’s in it for me, a freedom without a commitment to others, a freedom without love or charity or duty or patriotism, is unworthy of our founding ideals, and those who died in their defense.
As citizens, we understand that America is not about what can be done for us. It’s about what can be done by us, together — through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government. That’s what we believe.
Republicans will be gobsmacked and angry when they finally realize they have lost their claim to being the Party of Personal Responsibility. Just as they still can’t deal with the fact that they are no longer the party of a strong national defense. They have nobody to blame but themselves and their own overreaching.
I think you are right. They’ll be surprised to find out that most people don’t view personal responsibility through the lens of being responsible for kicking people on the rung below you on the economic ladder.
I hope it also dawns on them that there is such a thing as corporate citizenship, and the Democrats are the champions of that as well.
They have nobody to blame but themselves for outsourcing their own civic responsibilities to a segment of the 1% who are working overtime to shut the door for pretty much any path for the opportunity of upward mobility.
Unfortunately, his celebration of failure party which ended last night will leave him waking up with a big hangover this morning with the new dismal jobs report being released. After 43 months in office, no where to look to blame someone except in the mirror
After watching Markell’s speech the other night, he needs to work on his stage presence. He’s not going to go far in the 2016 primaries like that.
I agree. Although he was early in the program. I’ve seen him much better.
Also, I think him primary run in 2016 will be a set up run anyway. So he has plenty of time.
Interesting thought of it being a set up run. With Jeb running in 2016, the Republicans might be strong, regardless if the economy is in great shape. Also, 2020 would definitely be without Hillary.
Even 4 years from now, I can’t imagine that the country will be willing to put another Bush within a two days drive of the White House.
True, but Republicans might be willing to nominate him. The only way he’d win is if we put up a weak candidate. It could happen. Democrats have been spoiled by gifted candidates like Obama and Clinton.
puck, the Dems have more than the Republicans. I can think of Cuomo, Booker and Villaraigosa right off the top of my head.
Andrew ain’t your father’s Cuomo. Cuomo and Booker are the kind of weak centrist Democrats who will lose to Jeb. I don’t know enough about Villaraigosa to comment.
puck are you thinking an unabashedly left-wing Democrat could win? I don’t think so. The future is to be left of center. The Republicans are learning a hard lesson about being far right. If they want a chance in the future, they have to move right of center. That’s why I think Cuomo and Book are good possibilites. The Democrats have NEVER gone far left and candidates Kucinich-like candidates can’t win primaries.
McGovern, the last left-wing candidate the Dems put up got trounced badly.
Obama ran from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party in 2008 and he is doing it again now (let’s ignore for the moment that he governed from the center-right).
If Obama wins on a platform of tax increase for the rich, protection of social insurance, reining in Bain-style business, LGBT rights, diplomacy over war, womens’ right to choice – I’d say he’s got a mandate and we’ve got ourselves a Democrat (although one who will bear watching once the Senate is back in session).
Oh and by the way, your invocation of Kucinich is a flaming straw man. Just saying.
The terms left/center/right aren’t very helpful. Dean could have won by simply being an apologetic Democrat.
Voters are attracted to clarity and forthrightness. They are repelled by hedgey wish-washyness.
Bush didn’t win ebcause he was to the right. He won because his views were more clear than Gore’s.
Why Dems STILL don’t get this, I’ll never understand.
I’d say he’s got a mandate and we’ve got ourselves a Democrat
He had a mandate the first time and he was always a Democrat. Unfortunately a Congress with a say in the matter and Republicans hell bent on obstructing everything get in the way.
Also remember that BushCo won on that Compassionate Conservatism bushwa. Few people saw him as a stalking horse for the far right agenda he ended up pushing. And how much of that agenda would have been implemented if Congressional Dems had refused to go along?
Obama will not win on that platform. He will win because people trust him more than they do a gazillionaire who won’t release his tax returns. The platform has nothing to do with votes for most of America. Sure, there are a few single issue types, but they’re a minority. The big picture has to do with trust and confidence.
That’s why Kerry lost. Why Dole lost. Why Bush I lost. Why Dukakis lost. Why Mondale lost. Not because more Americans agreed with their opponents on the issues, but because their opponents stood up, backs straight, chins up, chests out, and strode forward with the firm belief that America would follow.
McGovern didn’t lose because people thought he was a hippie. He lost because people saw him as a wishy-washy flipflopper on Eagleton and other issues. By contrast, Nixon’s campaign was sharp, presidential and disciplined. He acted like a president should (in public, at least).
The nominee in 2016 will be Andrew Cuomo or Cory Booker, if he beats Christie next year.
puck, two things.
First, Obama did not govern for the last four years from the center-right. Think equal pay for women, abolishment of don’t ask don’t tell, health care and the recovery act. these four major pieces of legislation are no where near the right.
Second, I disagree with Kucinich being a flaming straw man. Back in 2009, we had plenty of arguments here at DL regarding why the Dems were more like Kucinich.
And Cassandra, agreed. That pesky check and balance thing keeps on coming up. But far left readers of DL will never understand that.
BTW did you all see how I diverted this thread from RD’s nonsense?
Did RD say something?
Obama has a handful of minor center-left victories, but on the big policies affecting our economy he is(was?) a moderate Republican. Signing tax cuts for the rich is the crown jewel of conservative Republican economic policy. The magnitude of that conservative act alone, weighed against his center-left accomplishments, places Obama in the center right. And then there is the moderate Republican concept of the individual mandate, which cements Obama’s feet right of center.
First, Obama did not govern for the last four years from the center-right.
Obama hasn’t committed any major governing act at all since settling the debt standoff by agreeing to the automatic budget cuts. Which now seems like an act of genius, but only because he has now evolved a spine.
I’m scoring this SussexWatcher 1 Nemski 0 at the half.
Nemski and Puck seem beholden to the left/right frames Karl Rove put in their heads. Mushy centrism is the end product of thinking in terms of left/right.
Having clear and genuinely held beliefs are what is important to undecided or persuadable voters.
Why otherwise brilliant Dems like Nemski STILL don’t get this, I’ll never understand.
I did notice, Nemski. Well done!
One more thing about the voting public… they like to vote for the winner. They like to be on the winning team.
One of the biggest things the average voter will take away from these conventions is the chatter surrounding them – and the positive chatter surrounding the DNC will influence people. Of course, this feeling can be lost at any time before the election, but as it stands now the DNC won the battle of conventions.
Great point Pandora. Issues and votes mean much less than the average voters perception of the candidate as a person.
The minutia of issues only matters in so far as they either motivate or demotivate the base.
Obama has done more than enough to motivate the base.
Jason, stop playing the “both parties are the same” game. You know it isn’t true. I got your point about voters going for the candidate with the clearest beliefs. It’s the old HST quip about voters going for the real Republican over the fake Republican. That’s why we need Democrats who are willing to clearly differentiate themselves from Republicans. (I’m still baffled about John Carney though).
If John Carney baffles you, then Tom Carper must blow your mind. 🙂
I’m talking about getting low information voters and you know it.
You just lost the argument with the DL equivalent of the Godwin rule. I’m not saying and never said that both parties are the same.
No, Carney just honestly bumbles into speaking Republican platitudes. Carper is more a knife-in-the-back guy, using his committee positions to move perfectly good Democratic bills to the right and then voting Yes.
If Carper lived in any other state, he’d be a Republican.
The R’s had a great opportunity this year. However, they squandered it.
Wrong candidate + Wrong message = Defeat
Barack Obama: President of the United States 2008-2016
Squandered it how? By not having a single person in their entire party who looked competent enough to do the job?
I think there were a couple people who looked fairly competent enough, but sat out knowing the odds against unseating an incumbent.
Looking competent is relative, of course. Chris Christie looked like a fairly safe choice on competency, but given a little bit of scrutiny, his record would have been in tatters by now.
“Squandered it how? By not having a single person in their entire party who looked competent enough to do the job?”
In that way, yes. It doesn’t get any better than running against an incumbent president during high unemployment, etc.
My favorite Bill Clinton quote doesn’t get repeated nearly often enough, but deserves to be video-clipped and placed in the hymnal.
State of the Union, January 27, 2000: