Reader Posts

« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »

What's becoming a little more clear about "change"

Noticed in the coverage over Wes Clark's comments on McCain's military
experience, with which it's hard to disagree, a reference to Obama
backing away from said comments. I was a little surprised. They're
being misconstrued, intentionally, no surprise, and I thought Obama
might be supporting them, since they do undercut McCain's claims to
national security superiority.



So, followed The Hill link
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/obama-criticizes-moveon.org-in-patriotism-speech-2008-06-30.html
and checked it out.



From being a little bit angry that Obama wasn't backing Clark, it
dawned on me that Obama is simply not interested in a 'fight'. I don't
mean that he's a coward, but that it seems to me what he's intuiting,
and risking all by basing his campaign on it, is that America is tired
of polarization, and he's trying to rise above it by simply walking
past opportunities to get in 'fights'. 



Of course, we've heard the rhetoric about moving past partisan
division. But many seem to be confused about what Obama has been doing
lately: triangulating, moving to the center, what have you. I don't
think he's reaching out, per se. I don't think he's maneuvering. I
think this is actually a large part of "change": refusing to encourage
the sniping, the point-scoring, the narrative of nasty, bickering
division and entrenchment.



And naturally, after the last eight years, most of us are spoiling for
a fight. But I don't think Obama is interested in that moment of
vindication/payback. I think he's more interested in actually being
able to go to work to do what's achievable, and in trying to transition
the country into a "post-partisan" mindset.



Of course, it's not very emotionally satisfying. And it can seem bereft
of principle. But given the realities of how paralyzed and divided our
politics has become, how petty and maddening, it actually seems to me
to be the direction we need. It's like, "What if they put on a war and
no one showed up?"



So much of what we'd like to see and hear...In truth, it would only
prolong hostilities and deepen rancor. And this is where I think
Obama's coming from.  It's simple, and it makes sense. Sort of like
saying to estranged relatives, "Look, you can come home for
Thanksgiving again. No one will be throwing potato salad, and Uncle
Dave and Aunt Jenny have agreed to stop calling each other names."



Not that Aunt Jenny didn't have a point when she said Uncle Dave was a neocon thug.


Comments (13)

Interesting points. Thanks. It makes me feel better about the disappointment.

It wouldn't make sense for him to back Clark. This was a general who was pointing out how McCain's military experience in and of itself doesn't qualify him for president. It's not an argument that Obama should make since he's not from the military. It's an argument that really only can be made by someone with similar or greater military experience than John McCain. Clark doesn't need Obama to have his back on this. He's got his own back, he's bad ass.

Apparently they're both in agreement with you, since Clark has apologized to Obama, and doesn't seem to feel that he was thrown under that proverbial bus that seems to be running over everyone.

This is that emotionally satisfying aspect I was referring to. I was thinking, "Yeah, Wes, go get him," and then, "Oh, c'mon, Barack. Don't leave him hanging like that. You're just going to reinforce this idea that you're being a weenie."

But Clark has ably defended himself, and the military community seems to be offering assistance, which is appropriate.

And Obama gets to stand off to the side, make the nice noises about patriotism and whatnot, and remain unsullied.

avatar

I did not note that Obama did anything but spout generalities about patriotism and honoring military service. One must realize the rich corporate executives who masquerade as 'news commentators' would put Obama in Jane Fonda's bed in Hanoi if they gaot half a chance.

Absolutely. This is why I haven't minded Obama's apparent tack of staying away from various fights.

It's tough enough pushing back against the "potentially angry marxist muslim appeaser" label(s) without taking on any other negative labels.

This is an excellent post.

After decades of left-right culture wars, Obama seems to have arrived from Mars, uncommitted to either side of the debate and unimpressed with the bickering and fighting, which by all means are counter to his message of national political reconciliation.

Well put, it is like he arrived from a wholly different place and isn't vested in the zero-sum game pitting two teams against each other.

Invoking my Republican mother, the one sentiment she has expressed more forcefully than any other is her disgust with the entrenched partisanship and Congress's inability to actually get anything done.

Loosely edited from another post, but still relevant here, oddly enough...
We need to step back, take a deep breath and stop obsessing. He's always been a pragmatist. I know the far left likes to claim him as their own, but there's more there. He's a thinker, not a fighter. I know the folks with Daily Kos and MoveOn did a LOT to help him get this far, but so have left/centrists like me, making calls, working polls and canvassing. It's called ground game. Hail Mary passes usually don't get caught, and you only use them in desperation. He needs to get elected.
I think modern democrats have a history of losing sight of the bigger picture, obsessing over the small ones. Not to mention, legislation needs to pass. The slim majority democratic congress takes a lot of heat, but they've got a lot of republicans to work around. Guys like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner make it really hard.
Bill Clinton spent his last six years handicapped, because he initially fought tooth and nail over details. Had the administration considered the bi-partisan Moynihan-Dole health care plan, I'd be insured right now. A president has a lot of interests to balance. It's an orchestration. I want one that understands when to fight and when to compromise, thus building political capital, and able to accomplish more. And, unlike Bush, it is important that a president does his or her best to advance the interests of the nation and all its constituents, not just the factions that put him or her there. Changes happen through evolution, not revolution.

avatar

your change couls also be considered weakness.

Your attitude (and your spelling) could be considered inferior).

Yep, certainly could be, just like turning the other cheek.

Absolutely brilliant post. We really do need to analyze his decisions, and why he's making them. It seems that so many of us have only been looking at the surface of things, instead of the larger picture, and that's what upsets me, far more than the things for which I've been upset with Obama. Obama is looking at the bigger picture, and for that, I have to commend him.

Post a Comment

Inside Cafe



Cafe Features


September 1-4

Book Cover

September 8-12

Book Cover

September 15-20

Book Cover

October 6-12

Book Cover

Book Club Archive



Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Al Shaw



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address