Fake Left, Cut Right
Now that patriotism has been appropriately squared away, Senator Barack Obama is scheduled to deliver a major address on motherhood. It will be the mother of all addresses. He will disparage feminists of the bygone 70s for demeaning the role of women as care-givers, because the children are the future. Let's say we shouldn't be surprised if it happens.
It would obviously be too much to expect Obama to defend the 60s left. But not too much to wish he didn't say stupid things about the struggles of the era. The same sort of foolishness can come back to bite you on the arse. The Vietnam War was an awful thing. Criticism of it did not simplify to "blaming America for all that was wrong with the world." The Iraq War is an awful thing. An attack on Iran would be awful too. If your mind is muddled on one, or two, where will you be on the third?
And what is up with doing a Sister Soldjah number on MoveOn.Com? Or sawing off the limb that General Clark was sitting on? Even Bill Clinton is shocked.
General Clark was making a serious point that, on the merits, is central to Obama's case. Leading a fighter group does not qualify you to command the combined strategic and tactical forces of the world's greatest military power, much less govern its domestic affairs. Gabby Hayes didn't ride Trigger. Binzer didn't get to drive Dan Tanna's T-bird. Just because you get shot out of a cannon doesn't mean you should be the ringmaster of the circus.
In the centrist drift vein, Professor Krugman was right on target today. The wonder is how he ever thought Ms. Clinton would be any better, or even as good.
I suppose we have to get used to this. The FISA fold. The Supreme Court ruling on the D.C. gun ban. Death penalty for rape. NAFTA not so bad f'ya. The untouchable McCain. Triangulation. The list is getting longer, isn't it. Who said Bill Clinton wasn't a transformational figure?
Thus far the Obama campaign's political and organizational smarts have been awesome. Mere mortals would be foolish to question their tactics or strategy. I'm clueless about such things. But I'm getting a few whiffs of policy decay. There's still an epic to unfold. I'm hoping Obama won't be my last Democrat.
If this continues, it looks like Kerry will have been my last democrat. I don't think I could be any more disgusted with Obama.
June 30, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
actually Rotwang has it backward: Fake right and (hopefully)rule left.
Obama NEVER espoused a LEFTY agenda. He espoused a transcendent agenda. Above, beyond left, right.
That was always bullshit and if you bought into it you are naiive
July 1, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am glad you understood Obama's agenda so clearly. I have not had your ability.
July 1, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, we old 60's left types are just not cool enough. I will just have to hide my Wellstone t-shirt under my parka and sneak into the polls to vote for my leftie congressman and then slink off without my usual "I voted" sticker lest any cool young person fear to be associated with old liberal ideas like peace and social justice. Not cool, not cool.
June 30, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leading a fighter group . . . .
I'm going to keep asking this question until someone answers: What/which "fighter group" did McCain lead? For that matter what "fighter" squadron was McCain ever attached to?
And please, no VA-174 answers.
June 30, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
As far as I can find out, McCain flew A4 ground support aircraft, flying from aircraft carriers, in Vietnam. He was a pilot of a tiny bomber, in other words, not a fighter pilot. Prior to that he flew the old AD, propeller driven close support aircraft, again, not a fighter aircraft.
This is all irrelevant because no one, to my knowledge is denigrating McCain's military service in any way. In fact everyone who comments on it is noting that he was a war hero, who endured his POW time with heroism. None of us, to my knowledge, has the credentials to criticize his flying skills, or his ability as a command pilot, if he ever was one. He was a navy pilot in Vietnam who served with honor and heroism.
New subject: McCain's qualifications to be president.
July 1, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wikipedia can be your friend too, if you let it.
McCain was commanding officer of the the Replacement Air Group in Jacksonville, Fla., 1976-1977 a training squadron which by various accounts was the Navy's largest for whatever that is worth. (not sure of the exact dates, in 1977 he became the Navy's liaison to the US Senate)
July 1, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
what is really sad about the "new" Obama, is that there does not seem to be any NEED politically for his Sister Souljah attack on the progressive left. He is beginning to fit in well with our wonderful congressional DC Dems. I think Congress has issued their 437th subpoena to no effect. A suggestion: if you do not intend to follow up maybe you should stop pretending and just stop the farce of oversight altogether. It just makes Dems look weak and stupid.
June 30, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
All I can say is that this comes as no surprise at all to the many who pointed out that the whole "transcendent" bit was just that: schtick. It is now becoming abundantly clear far earlier than I had expected certainly. Seems Obama wants to tank early for some reason. I don't get it.
July 1, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would be nice to see a little spine in our candidate.
June 30, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try a little spine in yourself.
I was a Hillary supporter precisely because she never backed down easily. She has the courage of her convictions.
Obama was always a flip flopper.
You were one of those "enchanted" with Obama, now that the man is doing the same thing he (and other conventional politicians) is apt to do, you are disillusioned. Too bad.
I support Obama's distancing himself from Clark's remarks.
Obamas successful tactical strategy is to let his surrogates do the dirty work while he himself stays above the fray.
You did not know that? Give me a break. Where have you been?
July 1, 2008 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another coward who is afraid Obama will break if we dent him a little. I support Obama, but I expect him to lean my way. If that means I have to criticize him in public to get there then I damn well will.
Clinton was wrong on the Iraq war and the Iran resolution. If her unwillingness to admit that is spine in your eyes, so be it. To me it was obvious stupidity.
Obama has sold himself as principles above petty politics, so he ought to expect the buyers to demand a few principles.
July 1, 2008 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
You want him to show a little spine in NOT distancing himself from a non-issue like whether getting shot down in a plane and spending five years in the Hanoi Hilton qualifies him to be president?
Are you serious?
I hold Obama accountable on Fisa for example. That's substantive. For you to nitpick about the guy because his surrogate was “impolitic” is rather lame.
You did NOT hold Obama responsible when his surrogates where calling Hillary a monster, Calling Bill a racist, etc. etc...but all of a sudden you do a 180. You are a hypocrite and probably a Republican.
Obama is going to need all the help from us he can get to make it into the White House. Check out the focus groups Peter Hart and others are doing on what the average cross section of whites think about Obama, and you will see it is going to be tough. He does not need your whining about trivial matters.
Hillary would have been the stronger candidate against McCain, but you were viciously against her. Now Obama is the nominee and you turn on him. You are not credible.
July 1, 2008 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
"probably a republican"... nice. Hillary is not the candidate... time to get over it. And don't be an ass.
July 1, 2008 4:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama being left was always a projection of the left. Yes he has a leftward record in the Senate, but a quick review of what actually came up for a vote would have been less inspiring for the left. Also, during the nomination campaign the competition was who could appear more left. The general election campaign will be very different.
I feel sorry for the man. All the "promises" attributed to him are a large burden to carry.
July 1, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a very sterile and ultimately counterproductive line of attack, which is why your beloved leader has backed off of it faster than to his criticism of NAFTA.
Here is what The Los Angeles Times wrote about it, warts and all:
But those Navy records also cast some doubt on the importance of a claim McCain makes in his autobiography -- that he took bold steps to improve the readiness of the squadron. Some of McCain's contemporaries don't recall key parts of a management initiative that he describes in that book. And although the squadron was well-run under McCain, it appeared to be no better managed than before he arrived or after he left, according to interviews and records.
But there's no doubt it was a big job. Running the squadron, with its 1,000 personnel and fleet of 75 jets, was like managing a small corporation.
"It speaks for itself," McCain said in a recent interview. "You implement the principles of leadership. You address issues. You work hard. You try to inspire the people under your command. It is not any different from any other leadership role. It all boils down to treating people the way you would want to be treated yourself. It is one of the essentials of leadership."
So OK, neither of the candidates is exactly Michael Bloomberg, but McCain has at least managed something relatively big.
July 1, 2008 2:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seaton makes a good case, assuming the facts are accurate. A thousand people is more than most legislators ever supervise. It ain't the Executive Branch, but it's something.
I don't want to ignite an HRC vs. BHO tempest. It's past time to put that to bed. From where I sat, Obama's positions were slightly left of HRC's, the exaggerated exception being on health care. Some of Obama's rhetoric smacked of centrism, which is what originally put off Krugman, IMO.
I wasn't dazzled by BHO. Originally I was for Edwards.
No single one of the right-ward leans is all-important. But they are accumulating. At some point the camel starts to complain.
July 1, 2008 6:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
same
July 1, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you didn't want to ignite a HRC v. BHO you should not have have lit the match.
Anyone who has read Obama's books, should know that he is no liberal by any standards set before 1996. He is a track to the center democrat.
July 1, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
While there may be some truth to Clark's remarks, Obama is smart to distance himself from them. There's nothing to gain by questioning the value of McCain's war service.
I am worried, however, about the new tack Obama's campaign seems to have taken since the primary victory. There are two things that bother me: (1) his rightward drift on certain important issues like FISA and(2) his attempt to recast himself as Mr. Whitebread (by giving speeches on patriotism, for instance). Obama's appeal is that he is different. Now he's trying to be the same. I don't see how that helps him. If Americans want more of the same, they'll vote for McCain. Americans are attracted to Obama because he seems so unlike other politicians--so much more thoughtful, so much more honest. Now he's trying to obscure his differences and, in doing so, he seems more trivial and more calculating--more like all the other politicians we're sick of. I think that will cost him in the long run. I hope he snaps out of this soon or I fear his fate will be similar to Kerry's.
July 1, 2008 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good counter-argument to my post here:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/is-obama-becoming-generic-democrat.html
July 1, 2008 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I posted about this problem at the beginning of this year on my blog.
Basically, Obama, who is a year older than me, missed the 1960s, like I did. He was in Hawaii, and I was in Alaska, neither of which had direct dial access until late in the 1960s, or early in the next.
As such, we both missed the 60s, and his conclusion is that there were "excesses".
He does not understand those times, and does not understand that the backlash against them was driven almost entirely by racism, so he gets his political points from dissing an era that changed the nation for the better.
July 1, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was disappointed to hear on public television last evening that Obama is more than willing to listen and take advice from past political hacks -Warren Christopher, Madeline Albright, and Athony Lake and supposedly pushing aside the more progressive foreign affairs advisors. And what's with this pandering to the Christian Right (although, they are going through some interesting transitions on some of the issues).
July 1, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where does it say he is pushing aside anyone?
July 1, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
As many celebrated Obama's appeal among independents and his ability to turn Colorado and Virginia blue, there must have been some understanding that this would not occur were his platform catered to the fine electorate of Berkeley.
The thorn under Krugman's skin is nevertheless justifiable. Every factoid about 2008 assured a Democratic victory even with a liberal platform. Obama will deny Krugman the liberal vindication to which his life is dedicated. Nothing will be more bitter to Mr Krugman than Obama's reconcilation of the left with the right.
July 1, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Saroff writes:
"we both missed the 60s, and his conclusion is that there were 'excesses'.He does not understand those times, and does not understand that the backlash against them was driven almost entirely by racism, so he gets his political points from dissing an era that changed the nation for the better.
This is absolutely true. Too often, those who "missed the 1960s" buy into Reagan's revisionist and deeply racist view of that era. It is too bad that Obama seems to belong to that group.
I agree that Krugman saw this before many others were willing to acknowledge it.
Now, the centrist rhetoric is piling up--along with the pandering to the Christian Right. I dread the speech on Motherhood.
Those of us who are left of center need to speak out and keep reminding Obama that we are an important part of his base.
July 1, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly the point. Obama may be "centrist" but he needs to think carefully about abandoning those who support him. Two (so to speak) can play at the "my way or the highway" game. Obama needs us.
July 1, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of excess, I apologize for calling you a Republican. It is just that you were so partisan in favor of Obamain the primaries, that it seems odd to see you do a 180 given that Obama's style has not changed all that much.
His rhetoric gave off an "aura" of progressiveness but he was always careful to not get into specifics. I recall Obama supporters telling us, if you want to see the specifics, go read his website.
Now that we are effectively in the general, he is moving towards the center right. I really can't fault him for that. He is doing what anybody in this country who is a Democrat has to do to win in the general. It is not a guarantee, but it is necessary.
It is the ease in which he does it that bothers me. I wonder if he is more politician than statesman. But I would say, give the guy a break. Having walked the bride to the alter it is not the time to refuse (or threaten to refuse) to put on the ring.
July 1, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Republicans are right and the Democrats are center-right that just affirms my increasing determination to support meaningful change on the left. Since the only way I can do that on a Presidential ballot is to vote third party, I will begin to do that this year. If Obama is the unity candidate, let him find some unity with the left. If he doesn't need us, why should we waste our votes affirming just one more move to the right? He either needs us or he doesn't.
July 1, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree Maggie.
For all the centrism that Hillary has been accused of, she is in fact a person--as am I--that lived and experienced the 60's.
It was definitely a positive time, if not substantively, at least spiritually. It was a unique moment in history in which we all let our hair hang down and liberate ourselves from eons of cultural repression. It was a Dionysian times. Of course there was excess. But the direction was right.
Starting with Reagan and ending in Bush Jr. there were excess in the Wrong direction. That's the difference.
The 60’s like anything else had to be experienced to be appreciated just like anything else unique and novel that comes and goes in time.
July 1, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's too late Professor.
The events of the past couple of weeks makes it quite clear that Obama doesn't care about anything but Obama. All these self defeating rightward actions are designed (so he thinks) to strengthen his candidacy. In my opinion, experience clearly shows the opposite to be the case, but hey, he's got all those guys with all that Washington experience advising him now right? Uh huh.
Those who are left of center have no place to go in November so he doesn't care what they think. I think this was most glaringly revealed when he, for no good reason at all, took that swipe at Moveon yesterday. What an ungrateful and really dastardly stab in the back that was to an organization that came to his aid big time when he needed help the most! Do you think he would have made that remark prior to Super Tuesday or prior to their endorsement of his candidacy vs Hillary? Not a chance he would have pulled a stunt like that. Not a chance in a million.
I hope I am wrong, but believe there's no reason to think Obama is going to listen to anyone but those fools in DC who have wrecked the chances of so many others before Obama came down the pike. Their fingerprints are all over the dumbass leap to the right he's making. I just don't think the evidence of the past couple of weeks can be ignored.
July 1, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was watching a 3 hour focus group by Peter Hart on C-span that explored working-to-middle-class white people's (men and women) "views" on Obama v McCain.
Trust me Axelrod knows what he is doing. These people still think that Obama is a secret Muslim and that he is going to fuel riots in the ghettos.
Most of them do think that getting shot down and becoming a POW qualifies as foreign policy experience.
It is going to take a whole lot of massaging to get these people to put the x mark next to 'Obama'.
For better or for worse he is doing what he thinks he needs to do and there is some evidence out there that supports his tactic.
Just remember this: McCain is NOT an option for us, right?
July 1, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviouly Obama is better tha McCain, the problem is that is not what the choice was supposed to have been. Primary voters were sold a bill of goods.
I wish I shared your confidence in team Obama, but I do not believe Axelrod, et al do know what they are doing. They are following a tired Washington script that has failed over and over. They have never run a national campaign before. It shows in part because they are committing the sae mistakes Democrats committed in 2000 and 2004. This strategy didn't work well for Kerry and it didn't work well for Gore. It is even less likely to work well for Obama in my opinion. Focus groups have their uses, however, without any general focus group to rely on, we still know what mkes Americans tick and we know the kinds of things that are necessary to make sure they vote the right way. Cowering and trying to defend one's self from te attacks of the right wing by becoming more like them weakens Democrats because it does nothing to prevent the attacks one is trying to stave off and only makes the Democrat look like a pussy quite frankly.
That's the whole Republican strategy: make the Democrats look like pussies. The easiest way to do that is by getting them to back down and support things they don't really support, etc... In other words you don't do precisely what it is Obama is doing.
Yes, he will be attacked but so what? Does that come as a surprise to anyone? It shouldn't. For their leader, Americans want someone who will stick to his guns, they don't want someone who is going to back down---as Democrats do consistently which only makes it easier for the opposition to say to the voters: "See? I told ya! Democrats aren't really interested in defending the country. They only say they will when election time comes around..." Then they trot out the series of flip flops on things like FISA, etc... to prove it.
July 1, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is indeed the same mistake. Tacking to the center has never won an election for the Dems before. Clinton won in '92 not because he was centrist but because Ross Perot got so many votes. He won in '96 partly due to Perot's presence and partly because he was the incumbent in an era of peace and prosperity. Carter won because of Watergate. When was the last time a Democrat actually won because of their positions? It was Johnson in '64 and he won big promising the "great society." Sure, people were scared shitless of Goldwater, but Johnson didn't run to the center to confront him. No, history is clear, in the absence of mitigating factors, a Dem will only take the white house if he stands on principle. The only thing Obama has going for him now is that McCain is even more unprincipled than he is. That is the meme that the Obama surrogates should be repeating endlessly: McCain is the real flip-flopper.
July 6, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Throwing me and my issues and my pals at moveon etc. under the bus isn't an option either, not if he wants my vote.
July 1, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is going to take a whole lot of massaging to get these people to put the x mark next to 'Obama'.
I'm afraid no amount of massaging is going to give Obama white skin. And the only time these folks who believe Obama is a ghetto-agitating Muslim are going to put an "x" next to his name is when they're comparing him to Malcolm.
July 1, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
WOW! We certainly are a fickle bunch!
All of a sudden Obama is tacking right and we're jumping off his ship like it's the Titanic!!!
Did you really think Obama was perfect? I know I didn't but I also know that he is the best choice to be the next president. His platform is one of inclusion, not alienation, and he realizes that when bush is gone, it won't be time for the left to exact revenge on the right, it will be time to heal and fix the trail of destruction left behind. Alienating anyone but the far right will make this difficult if not impossible to do.
July 1, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama’s cut right occurred after he finally put Hillary to bed and gave her a peck on the cheek. I guess the DLC of the Clinton campaign moved their deck chairs to Obama’ suite of offices. Obviously Barack must be more inclusive to rule over the Beltway. He must bring in AIPAC/Israeli support, free traders, defense contractors, prison guards and the 23 per centers who vote based on sound bites. Obviously those who want justice, healthcare, and fair taxation or would defend the Constitution can be talked over because they’d vote for the Devil in lieu of McBush. So Barack, if elected will continue the interrupted term of Billy, I never saw a politician I didn’t love, Clinton, and call compromising on anything and everything he had previously stated were his principles, because he’s “Asking you to believe.”
July 1, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's most important to me that I have a real leader to follow and not some omega wanna be. It would be great if Obama saw everything the same as I do but that isn't very likely and I'm going to do what I want anyway.
It's not likely that Obama is going to see the world like a person entering adulthood in the late 60's because he is the product of the Disco generation and, as far as I'm STILL concerned, DISCO SUCKS! and so did that generation's values. Having said that, my college age kids will have a greatly more hopeful future if Obama's elected than if Lt. McGoo is.
I going to do whatever the fuck I want beyond that. All you 60's friends out there let the kids do what they think is best; dig out "On the Road", put on some Buffalo Springfield and chill. Everything's going to be all right so long as he gets elected. If he doesn't, it's back to the streets baby!!!
July 1, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Streets? No way! Going Up The Country -- and check out the Motown dance steps at 0:41.
July 1, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is doing what every Democratic candidate for president does. He is using the collective wisdom of the party leaders to help him to get elected. This is a tried and well used technique, and it can be credited for the historical administrations of President Kerry, President Gore, etc.
I'm extremely disappointed in Obama right now, after first becoming disappointed in him in the middle of last year. I had regained my enthusiasm for him early this year, but in the back of my mind I did know that he is not a liberal Democrat.
He is our candidate. He has my vote in November. To vote for McCain would be far beyond anything I would ever consider.
July 1, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, get wild and crazy, Hoppy, you can find a third party on your ballot. He obviously doesn't need us so what's the difference?
July 1, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bluebell, I understand your frustration (I feel it too), but voting for a third party isn't really a good option either. Obama gives us a better chance of putting liberals on the Supreme Court and even if he screws up everything else, it's worth voting for him just for this. Another rightwinger appointed to the bench by McCain would be a disaster.
July 1, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've had it. I campaigned for Kerry right up and through election day but I vowed I would never do it again for someone who reframed himself center right most particularly on the constellation of fear and war issues. And the disgrace for a Congress we've got now? It doesn't matter. If they have to denounce Roe V Wade to win 2 Catholics in Cleveland, they'll do it. They have given the Republicans the argument. They can't argue a different message. They don't have anything to say. It's "change" and "hope" and the Republicans come at us with movement conservatives who are passionate true believers to the core and we're no match for them because we do not believe in anything. The meme today seems to be that we are non-partisan. That means something? It's hopeless. I'd rather vote for some idealistic flaky nerdy green. Whoever it is he deserves a vote for his passion and commitment.
July 1, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I guess I won't hold it against you if do vote third-party. I've been tempted to do the same myself. Still, if the Republicans get one more radical rightest on the Supreme Court, we'll be suffering the consequences for years to come.
July 1, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am thoroughly disgusted and disillusioned with the direction the Obama campaign has taken. I always knew he wasn't a progressive. He is a center to center-left pol. But on a dime he changed from the candidate of 'vision and change' to Captain Pander.
But we don't matter Hoppy...we are just 60's counterculture relics to be dismissed and scorned. Right? Standing on principles is WAY overrated when there are so many potential voters to please. Yep...watching Obama now trying to be everything to everybody reaffirms my belief that this country is truly f*#!ed...in a biblical sense.
July 1, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is incredibly painful to watch Senator Obama getting ready to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Much more of this he'll probably wish he didn't opt out of public financing...
July 1, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
OT, but presumably Rotwang will be delighted by this news:
http://www.thelocal.de/12847/20080702/
A complete version of Metropolis has been found in Argentina.
July 2, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wait till you see the music video version.
July 2, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink