No, it would be letting the process work itself out and the electorate having their voices heard. He is not a “king maker”. He is a former President with a vast following. It would be inappropriate for him to “choose” a candidate right now. Unless Michelle Obama decided to run, that is.
5 Likes
They should be.
[quote=“redemptionsong, post:15, topic:87240”]President Obama is certainly more expert in the field of politics and knows more about the intricacies of many of the issues that affect our country than you do.
[/quote]
For the most part yes, although I certainly do disagree with him on some of his decisions and choices, even in political matters.
I only dismiss his opinion if that is all I get. I want the opinion and the substance behind it. Does that really seem so unreasonable? If so, why even have a primary. Let us just have Obama pick our nominee for us.
2 Likes
Anyone trying to use their influence to get you to do something is, by definition, peddling their influence.
2 Likes
Obama has endorsed no candidate. He will not choose the nominee. What is unreasonable is for you to suggest that an endorsement from him is akin to Matthew McConaughey doing a Lincoln Navigator commercial.
1 Like
I think there is a fundamental difference in considering the opinion of an individual who is not only the last POTUS (who didn’t make a complete pig’s ear of it), but is also the most recent POTUS of the party whose candidates you are in the process of vetting for that exact office.
Versus listening to a retired SPORTS! player on the virtues of a reverse mortgage.
2 Likes
If that is all he provides, and no substance behind it, it is only a little better, but only because I have so little regard for Matthew McConaughey (and those ads are particularly awful).
2 Likes
The Headline should be corrected to read “Obama tosses Biden Another Bone…”. The first Bone was the Vice Presidency.
1 Like
There may be some difference in degree, but absolutely no difference in principle. (There might be somewhat better motivations behind one than the other, but how can I be sure without the additional information?) Both presume that the audience isn’t able to evaluate information, or worse, that they might be able but reach a different conclusion in so doing. (But make no mistake, if I were I a candidate, I would certainly want Obama’s recommendation in my favor, because most people really are sheep.)
1 Like
sigh…This conversation has devolved rapidly.
To depict the political opinions of President Obama and any eventual endorsement from him as mere “influence peddling” is certainly bizarre. Anyone claiming to be “informed” would certainly evaluate the reasons that would accompany any such endorsement from the former President. “Peddling” such influence suggests that it comes with a fee attached.
4 Likes
Well bless your little heart…
1 Like
That’s false, on it’s face. Such endorsements would be part of the evaluation process. They don’t end the evaluation process but are a part of it. Your opinion of others and their logical reasoning skills appears to be shaded by the lofty opinion of yourself. Most of us use such endorsements in our evaluation process, not as the end of it. Your statement that most people (but not you, of course) are sheep reveals a profound arrogance.
1 Like
Not getting better concessions from banks in exchange for the bailouts is just one example.
1 Like
I fundamentally disagree,
If I am listening to the opinion of someone who held a particular job on who they think I should choose to fill that exact job, then I am relying on their experience not their “celebrity”
If I am listening to someone’s opinion on a product to buy simply because I liked a movie they were in then I’m relying on “celebrity”
No matter how informed I am, there will be gaps in my knowledge that someone, who has experience in the exact thing’s” opinion is going to be useful absent any “additional information” from them specifically , because their opinion is additional information, versus someone who is literally being paid to sell me a specific product.
4 Likes
It is NOT false, on its face or otherwise. Indeed, it is so obviously true that I am hard pressed to see how this protracted discussion is even necessary, and yet it is. Any endorsement that is accompanied by the information is as useful as that information. (The value of the authority is in being able to provide that information and the supporting analysis, clearly digested and considered, and ready for evaluation.) Any endorsement that is unaccompanied by the information is also as useful as that information, which is to say not at all (emergency situations where there is no time for consideration being a notable exception). (I also accept that in matters of national security, it may not be possible to share key information, which is also a special circumstance that does not invalidate the underlying principle. On the other hand, it must be admitted that the idea of national security has been used, from time to time, to hide many facts that are merely inconvenient to see the light of day.) The fact that I have to defend what should already be clear merely supports my lack of confidence in some/many/most voters.
I foresee a great future for you in party leadership.
1 Like
And you are fully entitled to do so. (I would argue, however, that there are gaps in everyone’s knowledge, as no one knows everything. If I don’t see the information that was used, I can have no idea what those gaps might be. The privilege of omniscience has been reserved for one entity, not really speaking in the current round of elections.) I really don’t see how the very idea of wanting more information, when that information is presumable available to the person issuing the statement, is being painted as a negative.
1 Like
Democrats and Democratic supporters hate each other enough that they don’t need any excuse to fracture. Don’t believe me? Head on over to Daily Kos and look at any comments under Biden-related entry posts.
3 Likes
I see a great future for you in self-promotion.
You said that the the opinion of someone who was the last president and someone paid to advertise a product are a “difference in degree but not in principle… because they presume that the audience isn’t able to evaluate information…”.
Most us use an endorsement of a credentialed individual such as President Obama as part of our evaluation of an issue or candidate. Most of us form our opinions from our life experiences, our studies, and the knowledge we attain. The endorsement of a an expert in a particular field for a particular issue or candidate is evaluated through those prisms.
Perhaps you should cease gazing at your visage for a moment and realize that others perform vigorous evaluations of serious matters, too. And for us, the opinions of those with earned credentials are a distinct part of such evaluations.
But then again, we’re just sheep and what do we know, amirite?
1 Like
Looking Back, Obama wasn’t overtly helpfull to his Secretary of State during the 2016 Primaries: https://www.businessinsider.com/obama-endorsement-democratic-primary-hillary-clnton-bernie-2016-1
At least Biden gets a ‘bone’.
She did win the nomination. I’m sure it meant something to her in places like South Carolina.
I’m sure that B.S. would have given his eye teeth (did he have them removed when he started wearing dentures?) for President Obama’s endorsement in 2016.
I have said, and continue to say, that any mere recommendation without the substance behind it is basically worthless (outside of special circumstances, examples of which I have noted). What other explanation for not providing the information can be offered? (Maybe there are 20 good reasons for endorsing a decision, and one or two of them are more than sufficient. I will take that over nothing.) If I want to convince someone of an idea at work, I do so with a summary of my reasoning. I expect no less of anyone making a political recommendation, which likely will have greater consequences.
And apparently in the happy vacuum of additional information. (I can tell you some real horror stories about medical experts who were ultimately proven to be entirely wrong. That doesn’t mean that I reject my doctor’s advice, merely that I want to know what backs it up, at least to the degree that I can understand it without deep training.)
How is it so egotistical to simply want a substantive explanation and not just a sound-bite endorsement? If it is egotistical to think that the idea of making a decision based on information is better than abrogating my obligation as a voter to make informed decisions, then so be it. The alternative is merely foolishness, and worse.
1 Like