If you're a politician from Illinois, you want to be compared to Abraham Lincoln. That's why Barack Obama announced his candidacy at the Old State House in Springfield, Ill. a site closely associated with the Lincoln legend. You don't want to be compared to Adlai Stevenson. But on Tuesday, Ed Rendell, in a conversation with The Washington Post, likened Obama to Stevenson.
Who is Adlai Stevenson and why wouldn't you want to be compared to him? The former governor of Illinois ran for president twice, in 1952 and 1956. And lost twice. Decisively.
He was loved by many in the Democrat Party at the time because he sounded like an intellectual, giving erudite speeches about the political system and the nation's problems. He was, in fact, a shrewd politician, and he came from a family of politicians. But he seemed, at times, more like a candidate for philosopher-king than president. His downfall, other than the misfortune of running against a seemingly apolitical and wildly popular war hero named Dwight Eisenhower, was that he had trouble connecting with working-class people.
Sound familiar? This is the caricature of Barack Obama put forward by his critics. The elitist. The professor. The philosopher, The one who can't connect with downscale white voters. The man who prefers complex answers to one-liners. And in November, this may turn out to be the political epitaph of Barack Obama, if he comes up short at the ballot box. It must be said, though, that no one ever thought of Stevenson as a rock star.
When you watch the video of Rendell making the comparison, it's obvious that he wasn't doing so maliciously; within the ranks of the Democratic Party, being likened to Stevenson hardly qualifies as a slur. It was more that Rendell was expressing his fear that Obama isn't connecting on the gut issues, and Rendell wants to see that change. If it doesn't, he could wind up like Stevenson. And come in second....
Who is Adlai Stevenson and why wouldn't you want to be compared to him? The former governor of Illinois ran for president twice, in 1952 and 1956. And lost twice. Decisively.
He was loved by many in the Democrat Party at the time because he sounded like an intellectual, giving erudite speeches about the political system and the nation's problems. He was, in fact, a shrewd politician, and he came from a family of politicians. But he seemed, at times, more like a candidate for philosopher-king than president. His downfall, other than the misfortune of running against a seemingly apolitical and wildly popular war hero named Dwight Eisenhower, was that he had trouble connecting with working-class people.
Sound familiar? This is the caricature of Barack Obama put forward by his critics. The elitist. The professor. The philosopher, The one who can't connect with downscale white voters. The man who prefers complex answers to one-liners. And in November, this may turn out to be the political epitaph of Barack Obama, if he comes up short at the ballot box. It must be said, though, that no one ever thought of Stevenson as a rock star.
When you watch the video of Rendell making the comparison, it's obvious that he wasn't doing so maliciously; within the ranks of the Democratic Party, being likened to Stevenson hardly qualifies as a slur. It was more that Rendell was expressing his fear that Obama isn't connecting on the gut issues, and Rendell wants to see that change. If it doesn't, he could wind up like Stevenson. And come in second....
Posted by Larry Eichel @ 6:36 AM
Permalink |
28 comments
As a candidate George Bush was that type of guy you might see yourself grabbing a beer with, and we all know how that came out. McCain reminds me of Bush in other ways by talking tough at the expense of foriegn relations. I would prefer "a professor, a philosopher" as president.
You mean a patsy.
Comment removed.
Outside of Philly, Rendell is not well liked at all. I personally think he is a good Gov., but with family in friends in areas of N.E. PA and Central PA, they can't wait to vote for McCain. Had Hillary won the Dem. nomination they would have voted for her, but since Obama won, that made up their mind for them, especially with the backing of Rendell. They DONT like Obama's socialist agenda or his apparent lack of leadership experience.
While I understand there is a need to get to the point, the majority of people, in my experience (and others) are the lack of intellectual capacity. This isn't elitist, this is educated. It is fine to get to the point. It is fine to reframe from complicating issues, but the GW approach is the "smoke them out of their holes." I am left wanting after a statement like that. I expect this from my gas-station attendant or high quality food provider at the diner, but not from the president. The president should have the intellectual capacity that leaves you in awe and wondering how you could become more like them.
Shabba, that logic doesn't make sense, considering Rendell backed Hillary in the primaries. Of course he's going to back his party's candidate in the general election, did your friends think otherwise?
Steverawthar: Logic makes perfect sence. Most are working class Dems. and they wanted Hillary as she had the experience and "conservativism" they looked for in their dem leaders. They never believed in Obama and his "change" platform and his (or his wifes) socialist views. Now with Rendell's support, they like Obama even less. Now all those voters are swinging over to McCain...as he is better then the unproven socialist Obama. Just wait until the election, McCain is going to walk away with this election...no matter what the liberal media wants you to believe. The Democratic party has been hijacked by liberal socialists.
I beg to differ that no one thought of Adlai as a rock star. That's exactly the effect he had on young people in college, the more left of center upper class. He was best described as a "rock star" and the appeal of his looks and charm was remarked upon by his opponents to discredit him as a man without real substance, proven ability, or who had stood the test of time. Adlai lost because he had a funny name, ran against a war hero during a time when Americans were afraid of being attacked, because he was thought to be too young and idealistic at a time that called for pragmatism. Adlai also failed to coalesce support into the monolith that drove Ike into office.
I think Shabba is saying that people are picking up on the highly qualified support by Hillary backers like Rendell and other Dem centrists. Hillary herself is not really closing the deal on her support, with not so subtle sabotage of her own message at the convention. Don't believe me? "My friends it is time to ORANGE PANTSUIT take back the country we ORANGE PANTSUIT whether you voted for me or you voted for ORANGE PANTSUIT the time is now to unite as a single ORANGE PANTSUIT with a single ORANGE PANTSUIT." And what happened to the linen suit she toured the stage in? Too perfect, apparently.
Liberal media....lol.....all the outlets are owned by conservatives. And even the conservatives will admit that 4 years of MCain will be exactly like the previous 8 years. The Republican Party is in trouble because Bush wrecked it.
Ronbo: Your so naive. The media is completely liberal and has been for decades. That's what sells knucklehead. What planet are you from? Bush (is an idiot) but he did'nt wreck the Rep part. The US economy is capitalist in nature therefore the President has (and should have) very little control over it.
Shabba.....you use the term "Socialist" as if you were referencing the Communist Party....and you couldnt be further from the truth. There is absoluley nothing wrong with Socialized health care or Socialized education. Everyone citizen of these great United Stated should have good health care and a good education beyond high school. And if anyone does not agree with this in my opinion is UNAMERICAN
Shabba.....the "Liberal Media" is an old myth that has been proven to be just that....a myth. Can you say Rupert Murdach?
Rendell = EPIC FAIL.
That is all.
Ronbo. There is EVERYTHING WRONG with socialized health care (Education is already socialized, but look at its performance over the past few decades. Testing rates have dropped astronomically in this country). Universities or post HS should be strictly private as not all people want to or should attend college. Why should hardworking tax paying people pay for people that DONT WORK and are simply milking the system. I would agree with a univ. healthcare plan that is like unemployment (6 months coverage max for major medical only) but NOT indefinitly. Just look at Canada, France, Norway, etc..where is takes 6-12 months for a basic check up. Socialized HC isnt all its cracked up to be. P.S. Regarding "Liberal Media"...can you say Time Magazine, NY Times, Hollywood...all a bunch of tree hugging liberals.
6 to 12 months for a check up? Come on - who told you that? So how do they also have lower infant mortality rates and longer life expectancies? Stop drinking the Kool-aid and get the facts right.
Shabba.....you say look at "Canada....France...Norway. LOL....They have THE best healthcare in the WORLD!!! It is an absolute myth that it takes 6 months or longer for a basic checkup....who told you that? You may want to talk to a Canadian or even a France Citizen.
How can you say that school test scores have "dropped astronomically" when that is not the case...some states are better than others. Each state has its own system.....some systems are good and others not so good. But to make a broad false statement like that is false.
College isnt for everyone...but that has nothing to do with the argument at hand. What about the hard working citizens who cant afford healthcare or a college education?
Your ignorance shines thru with every post you make....please continue.
Comment removed.
Myth One: Universal Health Care Would Be Too Expensive
* Fact One: The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care
* Fact Two: Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.
* Fact Three: State studies by Massachusetts and Connecticut have shown that single payer universal health care would save 1 to 2 Billion dollars per year from the total medical expenses in those states despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits
* Fact Four: The costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were identical to the United States when Canada changed to a single payer, universal health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the United States, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canada’s.
* Conclusion: Single payer universal health care costs would be lower than the current US system due to lower administrative costs. The United States spends 50 to 100% more on administration than single payer systems. By lowering these administrative costs the United States would have the ability to provide universal health care, without managed care, increase benefits and still save money
Myth Two: Universal Health Care Would Result In Government Control And Intrusion Into Health Care Resulting In Loss Of Freedom Of Choice
* Fact One: There would be free choice of health care providers under a single payer universal health care system, unlike our current managed care system in which people are forced to see providers on the insurer’s panel to obtain medical benefits
* Fact Two: There would be no management of care under a single payer, universal health care system unlike the current managed care system which mandates insurer preapproval for services thus undercutting patient confidentiality and taking health care decisions away from the health care provider and consumer
* Fact Three: Although health care providers fees would be set as they are currently in 90% of cases, providers would have a means of negotiating fees unlike the current managed care system in which they are set in corporate board rooms with profits, not patient care, in mind
* Fact Four: Taxes, fees and benefits would be decided by the insurer which would be under the control of a diverse board representing consumers, providers, business and government. It would not be a government controlled system, although the government would have to approve the taxes. The system would be run by a public trust, not the government.
* Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care administered by a state public health system would be much more democratic and much less intrusive than our current system. Consumers and providers would have a voice in determining benefits, rates and taxes. Problems with free choice, confidentiality and medical decision making would be resolved
Myth Three: Universal Health Care Is Socialized Medicine And Would Be Unacceptable To The Public
* Fact One: Single payer universal health care is not socialized medicine. It is health care payment system, not a health care delivery system. Health care providers would be in fee for service practice, and would not be employees of the government, which would be socialized medicine. Single payer health care is not socialized medicine, any more than the public funding of education is socialized education, or the public funding of the defense industry is socialized defense.
* Fact Two: Repeated national and state polls have shown that between 60 and 75% of Americans would like a universal health care system (see The Harris Poll #78, October 20, 2005)
* Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care is not socialized medicine and would be preferred by the majority of the citizens of this country
Ronbo: Considering I have family and friends that live in both Canada and France, I am fairly confident in the positions being reflected and that your arguements are baseless. There is a reason people from all over the world come here for their medical needs. The statistics (theoretical at best) you throw out are simply smoke and mirrors. Single payer health care is a sham based on "massaged numbers". The CBO, as you allude to, also states that individual, couples, and corp. taxes would SKYROCKET (just like in Canada, France, Norway, etc...) were approx. 50% of GROSS INCOME is paid to taxes. Your SOCIALIZATION practices would cost healthy working tax payers MORE MONEY to support the non-healthy non working deadbeats of this country. Plus you are not factoring in the amount of people that will flood the system if it did go universal. I bet you even want to cover illegal aliens too! If you want sociaized medicine that bad, go live in France or Canada...just dont come back when it takes you a year to have a basic medical need treated and your paycheck is cut in half.
Rondo. PS not everyone needs/wants/deserves a college education. Those who do need a college education can go after it themselves, take out loans, get financial aid etc. Those who want to go to college can do the same thing. Those who deserve to go to college get scholorship, grants, and assitance. Dont go spending my any everyone elses tax dollars so someone who doesnt deserve or cares to go to college can. A college education is NOT a unaliable right. Moron.
LoL...you think the Government is going to SAVE MONEY?!?!? YOUR ARE AN IDIOT. You just want to make government bigger WHEN IT NEEDS TO BE SMALLER. Let's look at those fine institutions that the goverment manages: Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac = boarderline bankrupt; Social Security = ditto, Medicare = ditto and NOW you want to create a whole new government agency to manage health care!!! YOUR ARE SO NAIVE!!! Less government NOT MORE!!! VOTE McCain!!!
Hey Ronbo, you forgot a brand new car, a new house, a laptop computer, free daycare for your children, etc... Let me know if I missed anything... You liberals are ridiculous!!! Geez!!! As far as the media being conservative??? Have you watched MSNBC, CNN or NBC lately??? To make that comment, you have to be as far out there on the fringe as you can possibly get... Wow!!! Don't you realize, the American reject the huge entitlement/hand-out/nanny system in general... They realize that the gov't is incapable of providing all the necessities in their everyday lives, they want to strive and try to accomplish things on their own without the gov't handing them everything on a silver platter.... Obviously, you also don't realize the reason the Demerals continue to get rolled up in elections... They keep running these far left liberals out there that CANNOT possibly win!!! Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry and Obama---as far left as they come!!! The only reason Clinton won 2 terms was because he was an absolute genius in hiding his far-left liberal tendencies!!! Love him or hate him, he is perhaps the best politician in the last 50 years---period...
Yes lets continue the Fascist march that Bush has put us on by voting for John McCain, war hero , waverick, bribe taker, womanizer, for God sakes the policies Bush has shoved down our throats over the last eight years makes China look as open and free. look up the word Fascist and you will see Bush and McCain goose steppipng towards a US without a Bill of Rights and a Constitution.
delaware vol , your talking points are just so fictional they are almost funny. 45 million people without healthcare! That stresses the whole system , I know i work in healthcare, you don't go into healthcare to get rich , but to help people, and when those people without healthcare come in morally you can not turn them away, so guess what we have socialized med now, the cost are just pushed into your 400.00 xray. Open your eyes!
we can all breathe easier after this election....the fear mongering ill informed neo cons will officially be extinct...and you all will have George W to thank.....thats what happens when you go to bed with the religious right....lol
28 comments | View All By Latest | Paginate Comments
About Inquirer political writers
The Inauguration: Jan. 20 blog brings you coverage of President-elect Barack Obama's transition into office.
It's written by political journalists from the Philadelphia Inquirer. Send us your comments -- and news tips -- at this address.
Thomas Fitzgerald joined The Philadelphia Inquirer in 2000, and has covered Harrisburg as well as city, state and national politics for the newspaper. He was a “boy on the bus” in the 2004 presidential campaign and during primary contests in 2000 and 1996.
Nathan Gorenstein has covered politics and government in the city, state and nation for the Inquirer. He's worked in the city hall bureau, had a stint on the business desk, and once covered the suburbs. After serving as assistant regional editor, he was named editor of the "Politics" web site.
Get it now
Philly.com Promotions
- News | Sports | Business | What's Happening | Restaurants & Food | Entertainment | Living | Marketplace | Jobs
Site Services:
Classifieds:
- Jobs | Cars | Real Estate | Rentals | Marketplace | Celebrations
Partners:
