Is Obama finally taking the populist stand?
The man who held that position was of course John Edwards. His message was clear: there are two America’s. With prices rising for almost everything and wages stagnating for years now, the time was ripe for a populist candidate within the Democratic Party and Edwards proudly filled that role.
Barack Obama would logically have a hard time filling that role. If he did attempt to put out a populist message, the MSM would most likely label him “the black candidate”. The Clinton’s already did that in South Carolina..thankfully it back-fired on them. I have been waiting to see if Obama would grab the populist mantel in spite of the pitfalls that stood in his way. As Manning Marable, a Columbia University history professor stated:
“That’s because once Obama parroted Edwards’ attacks on greed and inequality, he would “be stigmatized as a candidate mobilizing race,” David Sirota adds: That is, the media would immediately portray him as another Jesse Jackson — a figure whose progressivism has been (unfairly) depicted as racial politics anathema to white swing voters.
Sirota’s piece addresses the pitfalls that a populist message would create for Obama with the press and with the Clinton campaign:
Remember, this is always how power-challenging African-Americans are marginalized. The establishment cites a black leader’s race- and class-unifying populism as supposed proof of his or her radical, race-centric views. An extreme example of this came from the FBI, which labeled Martin Luther King Jr. “the most dangerous man in America” for talking about poverty. More typical is the attitude exemplified by Joe Klein’s 2006 Time magazine column. He called progressive Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., “an African American of a certain age and ideology, easily stereotyped” and “one of the ancient band of left-liberals who grew up in the angry hothouse of inner-city, racial-preference politics.”
Well, I am here to say that Tuesday night in Madison, WI Obama finally hit a populist note. From his speech:
It’s a game where lobbyists write check after check and Exxon turns record profits, while you pay the price at the pump, and our planet is put at risk. That’s what happens when lobbyists set the agenda, and that’s why they won’t drown out your voices anymore when I am President of the United States of America
It’s a game where trade deals like NAFTA ship jobs overseas and force parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wage at Wal-Mart. That’s what happens when the American worker doesn’t have a voice at the negotiating table, when leaders change their positions on trade with the politics of the moment, and that’s why we need a President who will listen to Main Street – not just Wall Street; a President who will stand with workers not just when it’s easy, but when it’s hard.
Obama is now officially the front-runner. He needs to go after Hillary’s base of support; The blue-collar workers, the folks making under 50k a year, retirees, older women, immigrants and even white collar workers. Obama is also now taking aim at John “weathervane’ McCain as well he should:
John McCain is an American hero. We honor his service to our nation. But his priorities don’t address the real problems of the American people, because they are bound to the failed policies of the past.
George Bush won’t be on the ballot this November, but his war and his tax cuts for the wealthy will.
When I am the nominee, I will offer a clear choice. John McCain won’t be able to say that I ever supported this war in Iraq, because I opposed it from the beginning. Senator McCain said the other day that we might be mired for a hundred years in Iraq, which is reason enough to not give him four years in the White House.
He needs to remind people of NAFTA and its consequences, like he did tonight in Madison. He sounded confident and today he is supposed to deliver a major policy address. I will watch and listen to him and what he says and doesn’t say.
Because this time around..I want to vote for someone, not just for the lesser of two mediocre evils. If I don’t hear what I need to hear from Obama, it will just be another Presidential Election where one of my felines gets my vote, as was the case with John Kerry. For me, this Presidential election isn’t about race or gender..its about who is delivering the populist message that we can no longer tolerate ‘two America’s’ which is represented by the growing economic inequality in our nation. Obama got my attention when he returned campaign contributions from lobbyists. I hope he gets my vote by addressing the problems that affect hard-working Americans on a daily basis and ending the war in Iraq as soon as humanly possible.
I don’t want just rhetoric..I want substance. He will need to not only address the issues, he will need to tell me how he plans to fix them and pay for them. He has the style and he is a mesmerizing speaker..but for my vote he will need much more than that.
February 13th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Obama is now officially the front-runner . He needs to go after Hillary’s base of support; The blue-collar workers, the folks making under 50k a year, retirees, older women, immigrants and even white collar workers
The only way to get support from this group is to promise more stuff. But what about people who make 60-100k. They should try and target these people as well because they aren’t entitled to anything but to shell out more money. You don’t think the “majority are these folks who are also struggling to get by?
It’s not just about the poor and the rich. The majority are in between.
February 13th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Obama already has the high-end folks Lisa. And no, I do not think people making 60-100k are ’struggling’..not by a longshot. They might feel a slight pinch..but they sure as hell aren’t struggling. Like my yuppie sista who’s combined income is 100K for instance..her struggle is that she can’t really afford to eat out at expensive restaurants lately since costs are rising, or she is cutting down on Starbucks. BFD. Middle Class folks are feeling the pain..as are folks on fixed incomes.
Last night Obama took the majority of all groups..all of them even the white old women. He is making inroads and for that I am glad.
February 13th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
She must live in a low taxed area and does she have kids? In my democrat run state of NY our a-hole governor wants to raise property taxes to give out more food stamps. Needless to say people are outraged especially when your property tax starts at 6500 00 a year and in less than 6 years tops out at 11,000. Not to mention electric which is an average of 300 a month for most plus oil which is about 350 a month. So people especailly with kids making between 60 and100k are lucky to have enough for their own food. Now they have to chalk up more.
Oh and add a mortgage payment to that. It ain’t looking all that great now is it?
That is why many people are moving out of NY. Young couples can’t afford to love here unless they make 150k and more. But the sad thing is not that many fit in that catergory.
Oh and the high end folks that the democrats get are the very rich who don’t feel the pinch. I hardley call less than 100k high end.
February 13th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Why do you assume about her?
She lives in San Diego..she has a teenage son that will be going to college in a year and a half and a daughter that graduated college and went straight into the Army. I don’t care how you paint it..people that make 100k a year have more choices than folks at the lower end of the payscale. It also depends on how many dependents you have and their ages. Everything is averaged Lisa.
Cali, SF and SD specifically, have a higher cost of living than NY Lisa.
February 13th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
And they work they’re asses off for it too. I am talking mainly under 100k but more than 50k. Big difference.
Maybe higher than NYC but not Long Island where we need A/C for at least 4 months a year and heating oil all year long.
I know we pay double property tax than my Uncle who lives in Arcadia.
February 13th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
You know what I was just thinking if you make 100k a year you should have more choices. It’s not free money you know. And people that make 200k have even more choices and so on and so on. That’s just how it has always been. You want someone who works in McDonalds’ to have the same choice of say a home with a mortgage and 4 or 5 kids as someone who has a high pressured job with many responsibilites/ If that’s the case then we shpuld all work at McDonalds or Walmart.
February 13th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Jesus Christ Lisa..everyone works their ass off for what they get. No one group has a lock on that ok?
Once again..you make it a class issue..typical neocon bullshit. Nice job with the freeper talking points! Talk about narrow-minded bs..
February 13th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Here is a table that allows you to compare two cities cost of living:
http://www.bestplaces.net/col/?salary=150000&city1=37100&city2=35620
I did Thousand Oaks and Long Island. Who has the general highest cost of living? Cali’s cities..housing is the kicker. Its 2% cheaper to live in L.I than Thousand Oaks or Oxnard.
I used a salary of 150K in one..and 75K in the other..FYI, the salary doesn’t really factor into the equation.
So give it a rest about L.I being more expensive than a corresponding sized city in Cali.
February 13th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
I sure won’t be retiring to either.
Cost of liveing is still high for either if you make under 150
February 13th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Jesus Christ Lisa..everyo ne works their ass off for what they get. No one group has a lock on that ok?
That may be true but I been there done that and didn’t think l deserved what my doctor was making. And still don’t
February 13th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Sour grapes Lisa..you have a bad case o’ that it seems.
The cost of living is relative to your income..your income mandates where you can afford to live..jeez. Sort of like folks buying a home they know damn well they can not afford if you ask me.
February 13th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Try telling that to my neighbor who’s husband was out of work for 6 months and son is in college.He took a job as a stock boy in home depot amkeing a shit loss less than their taxes and utilities.
Anyway speaking og high taxes I got to get back to work.
Always a pleasure Dusty
February 13th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Your last comment reminds me of one of my latest gripes..that good jobs are being replaced with shittay jobs..but don’t tell BushCo that..a job is a job to those morons if you go by his SOTU speechifying.
Have a good day Ms. L.I!
February 13th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Well he persevered and now he got a good job. He just did what he had to do in the meantime.
Sorry but a stockboy can’t make the same as a graphic artist.
February 13th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
No kidding? Gee..I never would of realized that all on my own
February 13th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
I like how when you were talking about the Schipp program they were saying that a family of 4 in NY making 80k was considered below poverty. I guess for that it’s convenient. Just an after thought.
February 13th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Convenient for whom? Your changing the subject now Lisa..When all things are considered, it isn’t impossible for a family of four making 80k a year to be cash-strapped..whether they are below the poverty line..I don’t know. But your boy Bush didn’t seem to think they needed any federal help providing insurance for their kids..not me chica.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Here’s a thought don’t have 4 kids if you can’t afford them.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Why don’t you tell that to the fundi’s, theocrat’s and Catholic’s? Its also off-fucking-topic again.
If you want to bitch and moan about large family’s, SChip and anything else..write a blog post ok?