2008 USP(G)ET pt. II: counting the days to 2012 primary thread 1

Open this thread completely and you'll see every kind of argument for/against Obama's stance.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Sunday, October 12, 2008 5:58 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

I believe I already have read everything, following it from the beginning. But I'll start over...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081012/pl_politico/14495

Thus, McCain’s running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, spent Saturday morning in Johnstown — an industrial area in southwestern Pennsylvania dominated by the type of older, white, working-class, socially conservative voters who favored Clinton over Obama in the primary — where Palin blasted Obama’s support for abortion rights as “absolutely radical.”

http://www.basementarcade.com/arcade/auction/Pw2005/Radical.jpg

and

The problem is that Obama dropped $2.2 million in the first week of the month, his third highest total behind Ohio and Florida, and his campaign has 79 offices in the Keystone State — nearly twice McCain’s total, which could give Obama an edge in the get-out-the-vote battle.

Le Bateau Ivre, are you American? The issue is much more complicated in people's minds here than logic would seem to dictate. Bottom line, openly supporting same-sex marriage is not a safe position for a (national) Democrat to take.

Alfred, I see now, missed this all entirely. Sounds to me Sara Sara Sara was OTM with "Nader supported gay marriage (in 2000, 2004, 2008) and didn't hide behind that "state's rights" cop-out like Obama is (the irony of which is kind of fucking tragic)"

followed by Shakey and

"but I mean, in fairness, I gotta say that according to me anybody who doesn't support gay marriage vocally & publicly is a total fucking asshole & I wish there were a Hell for them to roast in, so I'm not really the most realistic dude on the subject

― J0hn D., Friday, September 19, 2008 10:29 PM (3 weeks ago)"

i think obama had given his position regarding gay marriage back in the primaries, when all the candidates had the latitude to address any number of social issues that ultimately haven't driven the general campaigns -- and i can't recall where it was published, but i seem to get the impression that obama stated that gay marriage was not something that he, as the head of the executive branch, could advocate in a way that is appropriate -- the idea being that there is a constitutional framework for these issues to be addressed through the courts, legislature, and local governments, from the bottom up so to speak, and that to impose a top-down revision to the constitution based on electoral politics would ultimately hurt the cause

someone correct me if i'm wrong but this is what i hazily recall, interlaced with my own interpretation....

@Doctor Casino, no I'm not American. I'm European ;) As I said, I could understand losing votes over this being a reason for Obama to not openly support same-sex marriage (hell, over here most people say America has to choose between a right-wing president (Obama) and a far-right-wing president (McCain)). But yeah, I was dissapointed to learn this, even so.

@Elmo, that's a very clear take on it, I believe I read something very similar to that in NYT.
That last sentence though, "and that to impose a top-down revision to the constitution based on electoral politics would ultimately hurt the cause", makes me simply wonder: why? How would that hurt the cause?

most people say America has to choose between a right-wing president (Obama) and a far-right-wing president (McCain)

"most people?" i call bullshit.

(hell, over here most people say America has to choose between a right-wing president (Obama) and a far-right-wing president (McCain)).

Most people over there are wrong.

xpost: hi-fives

How would that hurt the cause?

Because a constitutional amendment would never in a million years get through Congress. If you shoot too high and miss, the opposition only becomes more entrenched.

I've met very few people in the UK who would describe Obama as right wing, but then I don't roll with the Stop The War crowd.

Actually, make that zero people.

@Mr. Que and GBX: "Most people" being (talking heads and journalists) in The Netherlands, where there's just a different spectre of politics, with what, nine parties in parliament from (extreme) right-wing to (extreme) left-wing. Obama - in the Dutch book - is definitely not left-wing, more right to the middle. But ofcourse I understand him not being so in the American politics spectre. No need to get all upset about it.

@Kenan: thanks, understood.

no one's getting upset--i just think comparing Dutch & American politics in completely and totally pointless and stupid

this fantasy that europe is soooo progressive and left wing that nader would be like a moderate democrat over there is pretty annoying

@Mr. Que, ofcourse it's pointless to compare! I just used it to illustrate that I can understand why Obama won't out himself as pro same-sex marriage because it could cost him votes, in America. That was all, really.

xpost Yeah, and what about that bloodthirsty fascist Kucinich?

google his interview in the advocate where he goes into more detail

this fantasy that europe is soooo progressive and left wing that nader would be like a moderate democrat over there is pretty annoying

― joe 40oz (deej), Sunday, October 12, 2008 6:30 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

Did I say that? Oh well, carry on *sigh*

i mean, marriage will have to be continually be addressed on a state-by-state basis, and it will take a challenge through the courts on a federal matter before the SCOTUS will weigh on the issue and not before, and even then it will probably be addressed on a matter of federal vs. states powers -- which, as much as I would like to see it universally recognized, is really the way to get it done

you actually *did* suggest that nader would be like a moderate lefty "over there"---obliquely, at least

In answer to the question "why were people so hopeful re: Kerry '04?" when the graph posted upthread suggests he never really got close, well, it's true that he always seemed to trail in nationwide polls (but usually within the MoE) but several battleground states seemed to be turning his way in late Oct. See this from Oct 31st, for example (which is why I'm taking e-v.com's current projections of 343 EVs for Obama with a huge pinch of salt).

On the night itself, the exit polls gave Kerry the edge in Nevada, Ohio, New Mexico and Iowa - he lost the lot (those polls also showed double-digit leads for Kerry in PA and NH, which he barely scraped home in). We had a huge thread here on ILX in the last few weeks of 2004 where a few of us (myself included) rather naively thought this was the biggest con of all time and it would all inevitably come out before the inauguration. The "recalibrated" CNN exit polls (which, once recalibrated with real numbers, aren't exit polls at all, of course) confused the heck out of everyone - figures changing before our eyes in the small hours of Nov 3rd. All a bit odd.

you actually *did* suggest that nader would be like a moderate lefty "over there"---obliquely, at least

― the valves of houston (gbx), Sunday, October 12, 2008 6:35 PM (1 minute ago)

In that I pasted a comment from Sara? Which I repeated because it was about same-sex marriage? Who was talking about Nader?

I don't deal oblique cards.

With McCain on Letterman and Palin on SNL, it seems like they're attempting to make nice with the MSM + raise their plummeting likability numbers.. will it work?

It's apples and oranges and a completely useless observation, but it is true that were nader to promote his policies in the UK he would be more within the overton window here than he is in the US.

"Obama - in the Dutch book - is definitely not left-wing, more right to the middle. But ofcourse I understand him not being so in the American politics spectre. No need to get all upset about it."

^^^ implicitly suggests that Nader would fall more to the moderately left-wing end of the Dutch political spectre. i'm not even trying to be a jerk or anything, nor am i upset, it's just that you're pretty obviously saying that our lefties aren't as left as yours.

but yah, apples, oranges, etc. none of this will be relevant until O's installed a world gov't anyway, in which case all your dutch are belong to us and the apples will be oranges

^^^ implicitly suggests that Nader would fall more to the moderately left-wing end of the Dutch political spectre. i'm not even trying to be a jerk or anything, nor am i upset, it's just that you're pretty obviously saying that our lefties aren't as left as yours.

Not being a jerk here either! :) I was in no way trying to make a 'comparison', because between countries they are obviously useless. Yes, Nader would indeed fall into the moderately left-wing here, I agree. But I am in no way making, or want to make, the point that " 'our' lefties are more left as yours". That's ridiculous.

Obama likes civil unions. I don't know if it's for the same reasons that I do; I think everyone who wants 'marriage' in the legal sense should have to get one a la Europe town hall/no religion service. If you wanna do anything 'under God', take it up with your church leaders (and I know 'marriage' is tied up in all sorts of property associations but this IS the 21st century). Keep church and state separate as the Constitution and the Bible clearly demand.

All my friends in London ask me with the trepidation of those who do not realize that they are concern-trolling, 'is America really ready for a black president?' and in each and every case I have to point out most Americans are not as racist as the tornado bait they see bitching on television, but that I can see why anyone in the EU might ask, considering all these countries' stellar records in launching candidates of colour for their own higher offices. That and a side order of 'my Congressman's an African-American Muslim. Suck it.'

"tornado bait"

wow

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/update-thursday-debate-open/742065/

This last week's SNL debate sketch

I would call that woman from Lakeville 'tornado bait' to her face.

now that's upping the discourse

I know. ILX: where longtime posters come to vent.

I don't see how stating that obama would be considered pretty rightwing in certain european countries could be at all contentious, then I'm not sure what it has to do with anything either.

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/update-thursday-debate-open/742065/

This last week's SNL debate sketch

― the RHETERIC (kingfish), Sunday, October 12, 2008 1:54 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

pretty good stuff

I don't see how stating that obama would be considered pretty rightwing in certain european countries could be at all contentious, then I'm not sure what it has to do with anything either.

― sonderangerbot, Sunday, October 12, 2008 2:08 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

because its utterly meaningless. "what if this person was working in an entirely different political system in an entirely different context?" as if that wouldn't somehow impact his outlook. his beliefs don't exist in a vacuum, they're a response to the conditions around him

Re the gay marriage thing: Have I got it all wrong if I read it as he wants full equality in the civil sense, but won't force churches etc to accept and implement equal rights in the religious sense (which seems consistent with true church/state separation)?

Skipping past the dumb europe/america debate -

That last sentence though, "and that to impose a top-down revision to the constitution based on electoral politics would ultimately hurt the cause", makes me simply wonder: why? How would that hurt the cause?

On a variety of issues, Americans have historically been more reactionary when things are, or are framed as being, "imposed from above" at the federal level. Typically this has to do with the Supreme Court doing things, since it's rare that Congress can act unilaterally to do anything particularly severe in either direction.

America's state-level governments are much more numerous, developed, and significant than any comparable thing in Europe, and people can be convinced that "state's rights" are being taken away, or simply that a handful of people In Washington - which seems VERY far away from most people's lives, just geographically speaking - are deciding things "for the rest of us."

Not to say that any of that is necessarily fair, or rational, but we've seen it again and again - school desegregation, abortion rights, etc. Some advocates of gay rights may believe that their long-term chances are better with states gradually bringing rights on-line (as happened this week in Connecticut). That's not to say that Brown v. Board of education was a bad ruling, or that nobody would cheer if the US Supreme Court suddenly ruled in favor of gay marriage (it was a big deal when they killed all sodomy legislation a few years ago) - but it would also really harden the resistance of the opposition at a time when it seems like the state-by-state strategy is slowly producing meaningful gains which have - mostly - not been reversed in this decade.

(It is also producing meaningful losses as countless voter referenda and state constitutional amendments have blocked further progress in conservative states - this is where things get very tricky.)

I hope that offers some clarity!

Anatol - I think that's the idea - civil unions as a "marriage in everything but name" to avoid offending churches. This is a curious position for a constitutional law professor to adopt but I think he is trying to be pragmatic. In the long run, only judges will be able to articulate hardline equal-protection standpoints without losing their jobs.

Offers clarity a plenty, Dr. Casino, thanks. If the implementation in state law of gay marriage is ultimately, however slowly, gaining ground, then I can see why forcing it into the law country wise would throw it all back ten years.

it was a big deal when they killed all sodomy legislation a few years ago

Lawrence v. Texas, if that's what you're referring to, did not "kill all sodomy legislation" a few years ago--they merely ruled that Texas's anti-sodomy statutes were unconsitutional.

Yes, Lawrence v. Texas (I didn't want to get into the details for the sake of our foreign friend). It overturns Bowers v. Hardwick and leaves no clear ground AFAICT for any criminalization of homosexual sodomy to remain on the books. For the purposes of this discussion what more do you want it to do?

and by "legislation" here I'm reading your use of that word to mean a law which has been proposed by a legislative body but has not been enacted upon rather than a "statute" which is enacted law. Lawrence wiped clean the sodomy statutes. so to speak.

sorry xpost--i was mainly referring to your use of the word "legislation."

Re: Europe being more leftwing than us -- I'll buy it. As long as Europeans also admit that their rightwingers are much more rightwing than us. We don't have Prime Minister's who express admiration for fascist governments (Berlusconi), nor do we have serious Nazi-sympathetic parties. Part of this is obviously due to the fact we have a two party system (and not parliamentary) but we also don't have the national myths/mysticism that seem to show up in Europe every few years.

(We obviously do have a myth of American exceptionalism, but that's also related to our myth of pluralism and the Great Melting Pot.)

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/11/politics/fromtheroad/entry4515246.shtml

After Palin finished her remarks this morning, the man holding the stuffed monkey seemed to notice that a video camera was pointed at him, at which point he removed the Obama sticker from the doll’s head and crumpling it up in his hand. He then handed the doll to a young boy who was watching the rally from his father’s shoulders. The boy’s parents later told CBS News that they weren’t acquainted with the man who gave their son the stuffed monkey.

― eman, Sunday, October 12, 2008 2:33 AM (13 hours ago) Bookmark

...

We obviously do have a myth of American exceptionalism

Palin frequently references this approvingly but removes the "myth" part.