Is Obama the anti-establishment candidate???

[polichick]

Bill Schneider (CNN) is reporting that Obama's rise has to do with Independents seeing him as the anti-establishment candidate. Do you see him that way?

[Blue_In_AK]

1. Personally? No. n/t

[BootinUp]

2. Not me. nt

[BeyondGeography]

3. Anti-fucked up status quo is more like it

The mediawhores are always the last to know.

[Lord Helmet]

20. "anti-fucked up status quo" describes it perfectly

[Fresh_Start]

4. if you define establishment as WASP

maybe he is anti-establishment...but you'd pretty much have to define it tightly for Obama to be an outsider.

[polichick]

5. Yeah, if Schneider is right about Indies...

Obama must have convinced them that it won't be "business as usual" if he's elected.

[PATRICK]

6. Probably a lot simpler

People might just settle on anyone young and nearly physically outside without knowing a thing about them really- which is where most of the electorate is, actually. The instinct is one that is quickly taken advantage of or else they would go for real outsiders whom they DO know about and the actual reality scares them.

Some campaigns have imploded, others modestly, dangerously, capitalized on the soft-brained sentiment. "Where's the beef?" Where's the experience? Buyers' remorse. Ironically some brought this with them and against their actual first ideas brought with this inchoate desire for "change" into reality(FDR). JFK offered, physically, change and only narrowly beat a monstrously detestable Veep Nixon.

No one is going to be able to do business as usual. The question is how they will respond or be rolled over by history. JFK gave us the bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis and LBJ got to deliver new Frontier agenda policies with some change edited out. FDR tried to conciliate the business world until the war gave him a boost to combine victory in the war with victory of the New Deal.

If you are going to ask me to read tea leaves here I can only go by the surmises of Tom Hartman and say the most potential for sweeping social change goes with Edwards. Obama might, but he is not starting out that way by any means with unnecessary enthusiasm for the Third Way and off-putting progressives.

Right now, in this time and place, it is only clear as a campaign meme that ties into a public mood.

[polichick]

11. Interesting post!

Of the top three, I would guess that the most sweeping change would come with Edwards too ~ but when it comes purely to STYLE, I can see where those who are only watching and not reading might view things very differently. Edwards' style is down home compared with Obama's urban chic ~ that could be perceived as old-fashion vs cutting-edge.

[jefferson_dem]

7. Yes.

If only because of this:

He's the anti-Hillary candidate. Therefore, he's the de facto anti-establishment candidate.

That one's easy peasy.

[readmoreoften]

8. No. I see Obama as even more passive than the status quo. /nt

[Forkboy]

9. Not in the slightest to me.

Other people's mileage may vary. :shrug:

[ozone_man]

10. No, Kucinich has that honor.

Kucinich is the anti-establishment candidate. Edwards is next, being a populist progressive, and the most anti-corporate next to DK.

Obama is a centrist, but is still left of Clinton, who is on the extreme right wing of the Democratic Party. As close as one can be to being Republican, while still being Democrat. :)

Obama may have the best chance to connect to a large disenfranchised part of the electorate. And that is very important, to bring them back into the process.

Edwards seems to have the best chance to rally progressives and to beat the Republicans, if polls are accurate. But he has to make it past the primaries to get there.

[rndmprsn]

12. i do not see obama as the anti-establishment candidate, edwards/kucinich really is...

but it seems that obama' campaign has morphed into the anti-hillary/anti-establishment candidacy in the eye's of most democrats in iowa and now new hampshire...i think obama is gathering momentum and the clinton camp is now bringing out the daggers in desperation...less calculated a bit more panicky, but nonetheless desperation.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

13. Maybe not the anti-establishment candidate

I think an more accurate description would be establishment-reformer candidate(as the current establishment is in serious need of some reform)

And before somebody attacks my comment with a 'he can't do all that in his term(s) as president, my counter will be: True, but he can start making the changes as somebody needs to start it for it to happen(and i see him as the most likely to manage that)

[bigwillq]

14. No.

A big NO!

[LWolf]

15. No. FUCK no. n/t

[Pushed To The Left]

16. Yes I do! He is drawing people into his campaign from all different political persuasions

He is also attracting people who aren't normally politically active or haven't been before. My girlfriend is going to be voting for the first time this February. The reason: Barack Obama!

[Nimrod2005]

17. Sure

[MzShellG]

18. Yeah..

Although some refer to it being inexperienced. He is basically a Washington outsider.

[Cameron27]

19. No, not even close.

[Maven]

21. He's the pretend anti-establishment candidate.

And his followers are too busy worshipping his image to notice.

[AX10]

23. Exactly!

[goodgd_yall]

25. Yep

[TeamJordan23]

22. Yes, he is. He doesn't have allegiance to any of the interest groups. nm

[goodgd_yall]

24. Nope

He's very establishment.