Obama's Refusal to Guillotine--Where's the "Rush to the Middle"?
Confronted with the media uproar of this week (so far), Wesley Clark's declaration about military service not automatically qualifying a politician for leadership, Obama today passed up a perfect (from an opportunistic point of view) opportunity to apply the guillotine to the back of the general's neck. Ben Smith at Politico posts this from Obama's press conference today, "responding to a reporter who asked the candidate why he hadn't called on Wesley Clark to apologize for his remarks yesterday":
"I guess my question is why, given all the vast numbers of things that we've got to work on, that that would be a top priority of mine?" Obama said. "I'm happy to have all sorts of conversations about how we deal with Iraq and what happens with Iran, but the fact that somebody on a cable show or on a news show like Gen. Clark said something that was inartful about Sen. McCain I don't think is probably the thing that is keeping Ohioans up at night."
A lot of progressives have been wincing, and some yelping, that Obama's positions on the Supremes' Second Amendment decision, the companies-wiretap bill, and the war appropriation manifest a grim and counterproductive march toward the middle. (Here's Arianna Huffington, for example.) It's going to be a long campaign and an even longer presidency. Stuff, and politics, happen. But isn't it evident that the rush to conclude that Obama's dashing toward "the middle" is overgeneralized and overwrought? The toughest he went was "inartful."
Deep breaths, everyone.
Comments (26)
Maybe, yes, everyone is hyperventilating over nothing. And maybe he's gotten a little hint or two about how a lot of his strong supporters feel.
In any case, I like this response of his.
July 1, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
He sees a much bigger picture while too many of us see thumbnails.
July 1, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well put, Barefooted. He's learning not to play their stupid game. The thing that will drive the media types and Repukes most up the wall is to shrug off their crappola. Saying it was "inartful" at worse is an elegant way of flipping them off. I like it a bunch. "Oh please," would be another hip response.
July 3, 2008 3:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe Clark was a member of the Clinton's center-right DLC campaign.
July 1, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Federal funding for faith based charities.
July 1, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup; and any faith-based recipient of such federal funds will be required to comply with all EEO mandates.
July 1, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good for Obama! Great answer. Who cares? Clark's comment is irrelevant to any important issue. A useful, would-be president has much bigger things to worry about, and so do all Americans.
Not only that, these sorts of diversions are one of the main reasons we've got such much to worry about. We know more about Paris Hilton than we do about FISA --and some want it to stay that way.
July 1, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the umptenth time General Clark was responding to Bob Schieffer who said McCain had 'rode on a jet and got shot down' and ergo was specially qualified to be President.
Clark responded: "... I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."
Not a guillotine offense. I seem to recall the Republicans wearing Purple heart band-aids at their convention in 2004, and claiming Kerry 'just shot a kid in the back' and didn't deserve his Silver Star. Clark merely responded to Schieffer, who brought up the plane shootdown. Get over it Todd.
If you don't like Obama's position on FISA or anything else vote for another War President and get McSame.
July 1, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I couldn't go from Hardball to KOS without hearing and seeing someone say that Obama will soon "flip" on Iraq and essentially take up the Republican position.
You just can't make this stuff up. Civil liberties, guns, "faith", war, trashing the far left.
Tell me again the difference, instead of McSame I get O'Same? Is that it?
July 1, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The MSM is 'sold' on McCain war time hero credentials so that's why Obama had to "agree" with McCain and the MSM.
Let's face it, the MSM do NOT like these two things....1) Liberalism, and Obama being Black/ the fight is also about perceptions. The Obama campaign are smart enough to understand to the point that 'swift boating' is now a verb.
July 1, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
What was especially "inartful" was the lack self-criticism the media suffers from.
As has been pointed out Bob Schieffer made the claim that getting shot down and spending time as a POW was qualification to be president to which Gen Clark--rightly--pointed out that he did not think that it was.
Instead of asking Bob Schieffer what he meant by his stupid question (really inane), they go gunning for Gen. Clark.
Recall how Schieffer responded to Clark’s answer with an outraged “oh really!?” (as in “oh really” you don’t think getting shot down and spending time as a POW qualifies you to be commander in chief? Yes Bob really it actually is irrelevant.
They are insufferable!
The closest I saw in media self-examination was on Dan Abrams' show, where Dan and most of his "panelist" (including Buchannan) agreed that what Wesley Clark said was true.
What nobody in the MSM seemed to do is ask Schieffer to explain himself. GOD FORBID that the all-too-chummy media club should criticize one of their own. Reminded me of the five whole days of deification of Russet we just went through. Absurd!
Note: I would point out that the media as a whole swift-boated Hillary out of the race and nere a peep about it except for the obligatory mention that "some people think that the media was unfair to Hillary....blah blah”.
I know I will be told by the TPM'rs that I should "get over it". Sorry I take note of injustices and do not "get over it". Getting over it is a prescription for moral lassitude
July 1, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please don't get over it.
July 2, 2008 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
But isn't it evident that the rush to conclude that Obama's dashing toward "the middle" is overgeneralized and overwrought? The toughest he went was "inartful."
No. The brushback on Clark is fine but there is all the rest of it. And we haven't even talked about the latest turd, the tv ad on "the dignity of work" that praises "welfare reform".
It would still be a mistake to go third party in the face of this, but also a mistake to clam up, IMO.
July 1, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've confused me, Todd. So... he didn't hit Clarke that hard. Okay. He shouldn't have, given that Clark is one of his supporters.
Going easy on Clark is, at best, a minor gesture. There's nothing about Clark that effects my 4th Amendment rights and there's nothing about Clark that entitles me to collect some penalties based on the Telecom Act of 1984.
Heck, if I judged things in terms of importance it seems like I should be rather miffed if Obama lets Wesley Clark off the hook while still allowing the government more spying latitude while denying me a legitimate legal claim against a telecom provider that broke the law.
July 1, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah probably overreacting. I am sure that being "The Pandering Candidate" who is willing to change his positions like he changes his underwear will do nothing but enhance his message of "The Audacity of Hope". Yeah this is what America really wants another DC politico who stands for nothing except pandering for votes. I know that is what attracted me to his campaign to begin with...I thought "Gee we don't need a politician who will do the right thing, just another one who will thinks it is more important to say whatever is needed to get elected."
I will not soon forget what he did on FISA. When given a chance to be a reformer and make a stand on behalf of the American people and our rights he said "Nothing wrong with domestic spying. Carry on." Just another Washington politician.
I feel like I've been sold a bill of goods. I feel swindled and it is giving me this wonderful nauseous feeling in the pit of my stomach (the same feeling I got when Kerry didn't respond to the Swiftboating)...much more of this and I am gonna lose my lunch in sheer delight.
July 2, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purists, superior moral beings and others will find themselves in good company re Obama. Maybe.
It's hard to find anyone with a more dour regard for our current situation than Seymour Hersh. Given his decades of experience in and contacts within domestic and foreign military/security circles that range far beyond our borders, his grim assesments are food for thought. The fact that he is hated by the neocons and some of their fellow travelers as a matter of faith only recommends him, IMO.
Seymour Hersh has caught what is to some, Obamania. Yet, and surprising to me, Hersh was suprised by Obama's AIPAC performance. In addition, Hersh was harsh about Obama's act yet he has hope that Obama will prevail. What's most interesting to me is that Hersh doesn't point to Obama's policies at all when discussing his reasons to support Obama, it's all about personal attributes.
FTR, Here's a sample of (somewhat contradictory ) reactions to Hersh's comments re Obama from his recent First Amendment luncheon lecture to the Assiociation of Alternative Weeklies:
"And he offered a somewhat surprising indictment of Barack Obama, whom he had previously supported.
'I normally would be optimistic about Obama, but he gave a speech that was a nightmare two days ago,” he said, referring to the presumptive Democratic nominee’s controversial speech on Wednesday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, in which he pledged his support for Israel and asserted that Jerusalem must remain its “undivided” capital, thus angering many Palestinians. 'It’s very depressing because I’ve been a big supporter".”
http://philadelphia2008.aan.org/?p=112
"On the presidential race, he spoke glowingly of Barack Obama while expressing deep frustration over Obama’s recent sucking up to AIPAC. He said Obama is tough and extremely disciplined and that he is smart enough to know how to play his campaign..."
http://carystemle.blogspot.com/2008/06/sy-hersh-on-why-journalism-matters.html
"Hersh lamented the mess Obama will inherit if he wins in November, and the centrist positions the Democratic nominee may take before then to attract voters."
http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A259493
"But he was in a somber mood at Friday's lunch, not only about U.S. affairs in Iraq and Iran but about what he described as the "nightmare" of Barack Obama's obsequious, saber-rattling speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in the wake of his clinching the presidential nomination. "He didn't need to do that," said Hersh. "He may have thought he needed to do that, but it just wasn't necessary."
Yet Hersh described himself as an Obama supporter – "Let's get him elected, then we can start to kick him around"
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A635127
"Hersh left us with a little beam of hope — that if successful, Obama at least has the ability to think outside the box."
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/issues/2008/06/26/my-lai-abu-ghraib/
I guess I 've spent way too many years deep into the Israeli weeds to think that being doctrinaire is anything but self defeating. One deals with what is and takes note of positive indicators where applicable. Which is why as Hersh looks at Obama, I see Tzipi Livni's attributes and hope that she prevails as Israel's next Prime Minister, for instance.
Same deal with Obama.
"Let's get him elected, then we can start to kick him around"
Yup.
July 2, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry Todd I can't agree that "inartful" is an accurate description of what he did on FISA. I have many ways I could describe it...inartful isn't one of them. Being willing to allow continued violation of our constitutional rights has made me look at Obama in a whole new, less than favorable way. Yep...I am f'ing pissed!!!!
Inartful?
July 2, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Libertine, a little artfulness--and accuracy--on your part would help. I didn't say "inartful" was accurate, only that it was a refusal to guillotine.
July 2, 2008 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Todd, I do understand your use of "inartful". Yes it was in the context of Gen. Clark. But I have no major problem the way Obama has handled the Clark faux 'controversy'. Nor would I say that the way Obama handled it, no matter how he did, would be an indicator of whether he was moving to the center or not. But it was part of your summation of a post trying to say that Obama wasn't running to the middle. Judging by his FISA vote, and some of the other positions he has staked out lately, he has run right of center on some issues. Yes inartful, and in fact truthful, does describe Clark's remarks about McCain...but it also describes Obama's obvious run to the center, and away from principled stands, also.
July 2, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
2008 was all primed to be the first time in our history that we had, simultaneously, a progressive president and a progressive majority in both houses of Congress. That scenario offers so many possibilities for moving our great nation forward into the 21st century, and trying to at least close the civilization gap that now exists between us and most of Europe.
Now, we are learning the hard truth, that Senator Obama is not a progressive, but just another centrist. True, he is a centrist with the skills to actually lead us in a direction we might not otherwise go, but being a centrist he isn't likely to chose to do that.
Yes, I'm feeling disappointment and a hollow feeling in the stomach, having spent several months early last year working so hard trying to push his candidacy forward. Realizing that you probably made an important mistake does that to you.
July 2, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Folks complaining that Sen. Obama is now moving to the center would have more room to speak if he hadn’t been at the center all this time. I saw a similar thing happen with Howard Dean (someone whose candidacy I supported). Dean was a centrist governor, even praised by the NRA, who happened to be against the war. Like Obama, once you are against the war - no matter your other moderate positions on the issues - the right and the press consider you a radical liberal, perhaps just a few steps away from someone like Dennis Kucinich. Unlike President Clinton, Sen. Obama isn’t seriously moving on any issues. He’s been in that center-left position for his whole time on the national scene. Now you may or may not agree with his stance on some issues (I don’t like his FISA stance but have little to no problem with everything else), but let’s not pretend his position is something it never was.
July 2, 2008 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Repugs fear a true wartime NATO commander with strategic experience, who not only was right in his disagreement with the tragic war in Iraq, but taught economics at West Point. This is their way to take General Clark out of the running for Veep.
July 2, 2008 3:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is hard to make sense of Todd's argument. Obama has quite obviously engaged in a series of gestures toward the middle and a way from the left in recent weeks. Is Todd really trying to argue that, simply because Obama elected not to throw Clark under the bus in this particular instance, that manifest move to the middle has not actually been occurring?
The logic escapes me. For one thing, Clark's politically inept, but ultimately rather unimportant statement about McCain was neither left, right or middle, and Obama's position on the statement is neither left, right or middle. Clark's comments were more in the nature of a personal characterization of McCain.
For another, it simply no refutation of the claim that a candidate has been making a pronounced general move to the center to point out that there are still a few issues left where he is not in the center.
If Todd wants to argue that the harsh realities of political necessity require that Obama make this pronounced move to the center, that's fine. But it is insult to our intelligence to imply that the dash to the middle is not actually happening, and that we're all just imagining it and overreacting.
I'm also put off, and somewhat perplexed, by he large number of posts on the topic of the Obama move to the center that have advanced one of these "take a deep breath", "calm down" "get over it" lines.
The folks who need to calm down and take a deep breath are those who can't seem to intellectually or emotionally negotiate any position between hostile opposition to Obama and slavish devotion to Obama. Most of us, on the other hand, can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can criticize Obama vigorously for positions we disapprove, and yet still vote for him. It's not like there has been some massive wave of idiot defections to Nader. So I think it is the kneejerk defenders of all things Obama need to "take a deep breath."
July 2, 2008 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan,
The distinction you make is fair, and it's certainly no proof that Obama isn't "moving to the middle" that he refrained from tossing Clark overboard. But I want to distinguish between (1) questions of substantive and legitimate concern about Obama's practices and positions (the alarm bells for me are the AIPAC pander on perpetual unification of Jerusalem and the apparent rightward swerve of his foreign policy team, insofar as we know who they are) and (2) rushing to judgment on Obama's trajectory across the board.
In this brief post I was addressing (2), the danger of overgeneralizing about Obama, as if it were self-evident that a new gestalt was forming, hardening--"he's the new pander bear." That's too simple.
I'm keeping my eyes on what's happening in his foreign policy universe and will be writing about this--writing critically and, I hope, in an informed way.
TG
July 2, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
dan i never looked at it from that angle...perhaps i am overtaken pessism....i surely hope we can manage to criticize obama, yet keep our eyes on the prize...
i maintain and i repeat--it is not obama's fault if he choose to misread him and make him out to be God and then feign anguish when he disappoints us! obama has asked us from the very beginning to trust in ourselves and to understand that there will be times that he will disappoint us; however, a look at the alternative-McCain- should sober us right up! he asks us to hold him accountable and i am pleased to see that we are, so long as we don't defect and act like spoiled brats when we don't our way 100%. we cannot win if obama does not meet non-believers in the middle on some issues...every issue that is important to u will not make my list and visa versa...
i believe it is naive and counter productive to define OBAMA and make him fit into a neat little "progressive" box-whatever the heck a progressive is or may not be....i have always known that obama is simply that obama..he weighs each issue and make a determination independent of our fancy little pigeon holes..two examples come to mine---.he personally doesn't care for abortion, but he vouches staunchly for women's right to choose..he is not a fan of gay/lesbian lifestyle and believes that marriage should be b/w a man and woman, but he is all for giving gays/lesbians fair rights to protect each other as domestic partners..he is a christian and he makes no apologies for it, but he goes out of his way to demand tolerance of all beliefs even if they differ from his...the man does his best to walk the talk of inclusiveness..... .sometimes it will rub you the right way and other times, it will frustrate you....
keep griping/whining/expressing your disconcent, but do not stop donating your time and money and your vote towards an obama presidency...as long as we continue to hold him accountable....as a side note, too much griping/whining sends a negative signal to the opposition...if we tear obama apart on every little thing, we will do him in before McCain camp..it is a fine line and Obama has been walking that fine line from Day 1...keep in mind that the MSM is for McCain, so constant bickering among Obama supporters and constant discontent among his supporters will get ample play in MSM.....that can't bode well for Obama's image..that is not to say, we should express our outrage, just do it constructively and be mindful of those who are not as sold on Obama as you are!
July 2, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Being easy on much-ballyhooed dubious Democrat Wes Clark is hardly proof of principle. And although I have supported Obama on his decision not to be McCain's sucker on campaign finance, I do NOT think that criticizing the most RW Supreme Court since the legacy of the 20s, and maybe moreso, for being too NARROW on the death penalty, or his weakness (admittedly his ass is covered by the changes in the bill) on FISA, or his odd willingness to compromise on money to religious organizations (NOT an issue beneficial to fudge on) are good moves STRATEGICALLY OR IN PRINCIPLE.
Obama's area of greatest weakness in polls against McCain are in the area of "strong and decisive" leader. I am of the view that, including with a really personally popular progressive political figure who voted NO on the Iraq War Resolution back then (Barbara Boxer, but if not then someone else who NEVER supported IWR)
Obama wins if the election is about Republican v Democrat. If it is about whether or not a negative image of Obama as shrewd (or even not-so-shrewd) political opportunist and flipflopper, then Obama could surely lose. Obama has personal appeal that will shine through in an ideological election no less than a personal one. But McCain's direction for the US is NOT the one people want. Personally, many find McCain likeable, and the press has peddled his persona with great success and will no doubt continue to do so, unless McCain does something AMAZINGLY stupid (and even then, the press covered for W Bush, eg when he didn't even know who the head of state of India was). It is VERY telling when even the Pataki/Hillary Clinton/Bloomberg endorsing NY Times editorial board takes Obama to task for too much triangulating!
July 5, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink