« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The Left's Attacks Against Obama: Borne of an Ignorance of Organizational Change
I believe that every so-called "centrist" position of Obama's is not centrist. Perhaps the most compelling argument I've seen that makes my case on one of these positions, the faith based initiative, was written by Malcolm P. Johnson, July 7, 2008 12:42 PM, TPM. He shows how a careful reading of the relevant pieces reveals that none other than ACLU, in principle, supports Obama's position. I highly recommend it for its depth.
The other "centrist" positions require equally deep inquiry and understanding. The pundits just aren't making that kind of inquiry. Take also for example Obama's agreement with Scalia regarding the death penalty for child rapists, what psychologists call "regressed" pedophiles. While I disagree with Obama, I can understand his position. Like me, he's seen up close and personal the kind of devastation that these kinds of people cause. I have seen victims live a psychologically dead life. They're very difficult to help. Of course, critics on the Left want to as, Herbert did, accuse Obama of pandering on this issue only because his position may reflect the majority and the Right. But it's just as likely that Obama is reacting out of his feeling for victims and their families, which is what the death penalty is all about. That's not pandering. That's not duplicity or expedience. There just evidence that he's the kind of guy who truly believes that child rapists should die. That makes him a less the pure progreessive, not duplicitous. I think he's wrong regarding every aspect of the arguments for the death penalty, but there's only superficial evidence that this is pandering.
This is the kind of subtle analysis that is required to sustain the kind of judgment critics on the Left are making.
Take another example, the Wright flap. At first, Wright was only raving against white people. Obama hung with him on that, and he showed no signs of wavering. Then, Wright accused Obama of lying, of taking his position against black racism only for political gain, not because he truly was against black racism. Pundits should argue their implied point here, that anyone, whether political candidate or not, should remain committed to an associate who defames you in public. Argue against Obama's rationale for his break from Wright. Don't take the superficial road of noticing the disparity between his initial commitment and his subsequent decision and calling him expedient or duplicitous. That's superficial at best.
The critics on the Left commit the same fallacy when reporting the flap about his Grandmother. In his book, he said he cringed when she made racist remarks. At the same time in the same book, he expressed admiration and respect for her. The attack pundits quote makes it seem that he is duplicitous in his current ad that emphasizes her love. He's not being duplicitous. He's always expressed respect and love for her. The fact that he cringed when she made racist remarks doesn't change that. He was not calling her a rabid racist, someone he can't respect. He even empathized with much more intenese white racists in his speech on race. There's no disparity here, except when you take a superficial look at the evidence.
He does not support the immunity clause. He's been entirely consistant in being against it. He's only voted for the entire bill with heavy qualifications and for a narrowly defined reason--the need to keep data gathering tools in place. The critics don't even mention his heavy qualifications. Did his vote today affect anyone's view of this matter? He's being attacked by McCain for that vote.
The flag pin is a petty but divisive issue. The critics on this point wouldn't want to wave a German flag in the face of survivor of the Halocaust, which seems like an extreme analogy. But for many people on the Right it isn't. The flag pin would, for me, just be a matter of respect for the inflamed passions of people who really believe that the pin is important. Why antagonize them with preachy arguments about the illogic of their views. What's at stake in the argument? To me, wearing the pin is like me avoiding the use of the word, "fuck," around my grandparents.
In Ohio, Barack wasn't a populist opponent of NAFTA. He was for and against various parts of it. The flap in Canada has been thoroughly discredited. It's as though the pundits just aren't careful when they accuse him of being duplicitous on this issue, for, for instance, throwing under the bus the advisor accused of saying that Obama didn't really mean his criticisms of NAFTA. They're riding a theme that they haven't carefully thought through.
Consider his slight change in his views on withdrawing from Iraq. "Refine," a single word, has been taken as evidence that he's duplicitous, pandering, etc. But he refined "refine." He reiterated his commitment to staged, timed withdrawel. It's as though the critics just aren't paying attention.
"Gratuitously dissed his friends at MoveOn.org"??? That characterization is a strained attempt to fit this bit of evidence into the overall attack theme. There is no proof that his criticism of MoveOn was "gratuitous." His criticism of MoveOn is entirely consistent with his expectation to disagree without being disagreeable. He's perhaps insufficiently arguing that, if we want to bring people toward the Left, we simply can't disrespect them. That's no way to change the country. It can be argued that all of the gains Republicans made beginning the Contract With America were the result not of unresolvable policy differences but of hostility, gross disrespect, as in "fuck Nixon," and so on. There is gross animosity between Left and Right in this country. It's understandable, but it's horribly counterproductive.
Obama did not "cut the General's legs off." His surrogate said Obama disavosed Clark's attack. Obama said Clark needed no defending and need make no apology. This attack against Obama is just mistaken, based not on any facts.
What about his supposed abandonment of the Palestinians, his current insensitivity to their suffering. That's all about his most recent speech in which he sided with the Israelis. The deeper view of this speech is that, to resolve conflicts, you must side with both parties. This sounds stange, but consider the following analogy.
When I was adrift regarding psychotherapy theory, I happened on an article by Bernard Apfelbaum concerning a female sex therapist's case. Put oversimply, the prominent sex therapist argued that, because the female partner angrily refused to take advantage of her husband's morning erection--which is the only time he could have a reliable one--on the grounds that he hadn't brushed his teeth yet, the sex therapist said that this woman "had a deep seated hostility toward men" that would take years of therapy to resolve. Part of the therapist's evidence is that this woman was also generally demeaning toward her "too sensitive" husband. Apfelbaum saw through the superficial view of this woman, arguing that her problem was that she didn't really feel entitled to her complaints. Her bravado and self-assertion were just an appearance. This is a simple idea that most people lose their grip on when people are intensely irrational and demeaning; people say stupid things that they don't really mean when they're angry but have some kind of a valid point they're trying to get at.
To begin therapy, he had to initially side with her complaints as a means of engendering trust and enabling her to refine her complaints. Therapy became a process of helping her discover the reasonable complaints hidden in her gross judgments against her husband, for instance, that all the attention in therapy with the prominent sex therapist had been on the man's sensitivities and not at all on hers. She wasn't encouraged to develop her concerns, and Apfelbaum's siding with her enabled her to do that in a respectful manner, which then enabled the man to feel more confident.
By analogy, Obama is forced to side with the Israeli leaders. That's the beginning of the process. When he's talking to the Palestinians, he sides with them as thoroughly as he can without completely polarizing the other side. There's nothing duplicitous in this process if he has in mind helping both sides to refine their complaints and hear the other guy's reasonable concerns. This is exactly what Obama did on the South Side of Chicago. It's what countless community organizers, organizational developers, and international mediators try to do. Obama is no simpleton dummy like the kind of politicians so many on the Left are beginning to accuse him of being. He's a crafty and only superficially duplicitous guy.
There's much evidence that Obama is everything he says he is. It's just that his methods for achieving progressive ends are unfamiliar. Superficially, he appears duplicitous. So it's understandable that people are attacking him. But a thorough, deep view of his entire life and each of his positions, for the most part, reveal a consistent drive to humanize and lift up Americans.
Comments (96)
July 9, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Demosaur,
Agreed. I was sloppy in characterizing Wright.
July 9, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
For what it's worth, I enjoyed the rest of the piece. :)
July 9, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't you worried that your avatar will cause epileptic seizures?
July 10, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. I didn't at any stage see Obama as hanging with Wright raving against white people. I saw him, until the National Press Club performance, as always making the argument that he loved the man but deplored the behaviour. ie I saw him making the argument he made to the Jewish community that Wright was like the batty old uncle - you roll your eyes at the off statements but still love the person.
What he did in Philadelphia was explicitly make the argument that Wright was an anachronism - a different generation that hadn't let go of the anger from the 50's & 60's.
I think Wright felt personally humiliated by these depictions - if he'd felt Obama was `hanging with him` he wouldn't have tried to throw him under the bus as he did.
Where did you see Obama hanging with Wright raving against white people?
(I presume you're talking abut the primary campaign, not earlier years.)
July 9, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fran,
I was inartful. By "hang with him," I didn't mean that he agreed with Wright. I meant that he stayed in relationship with him.
July 9, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very interesting post and perspective. Something to think on.
The psychoanalytical parallel is very intriguing to me as I've instinctively taken the same approach when dealing with people in conflict and it can be effective. Sometimes people just need to be heard to get past conflict and become more reasonable. And sometimes dynamics in conflicts and relationships are not at all---or are the reverse--of what they seem. Outsider mis perceptions can perpetuate conflict by reinforcing surface dynamics that have little to do with what's really causing trouble underneath. I have skepticism as to whether this applies to most political situations, but maybe it does. e.g. I would not, for example, equate a Senator with oil donors who is in conflict with a Senator with solar energy donors to an unaware couple that is struggling with their blind spots. In any case, it's rich food for thought.
Great post.
July 9, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good points, Logico. Some of the same principles apply to mediation work.
July 10, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
An excellent post with much to ruminate about in it. everyone agrees that Obama is smart, but I think he may be even smarter and more subtle than he is given credit for.
He has run an incredible campaign so far, the proof being in where he is now. I don't see him as about to screw it up. I agree, I do not see him as duplicitous when you actually investigate his positions and his statements. He is, however, a politician, and a damn good one at that. Part of being a politician, probably like part of being a therapist or a good mediator, is having people see in you what they want.
July 9, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
John: If you want to get psychoanalytical, your strained apologies for Barack, no matter what opportunist's shifts he takes, would suggest your desperate need for a father.
July 9, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your characterization of any of Barack's positions as "opportunist's shifts" then it is you who needs a father. One who reminds you to do your homework before going to bed.
Homework that includes reading Barack's books and studying his work in south Chicago and reading up on his time at Harvard Law and what he did as a state senator and what he has done in Washington.
Even a cursory examination of any literature or interview with the man would show that his positions are entirely consistent with his stated beliefs.
Don't blame us if the dog ate your homework.
July 10, 2008 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
twinfern,
Guilty as charged. Join the club. We don't have a national father that makes any sense. GW, Jefferson, Lincoln and a few others awakened longings for the kind of father few people have. Obama is that guy for me, mostly because of his emphasis on empathy, which is something that my father and most other men I know know nothing about. It's an emerging experience.
July 10, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your post makes some really good points about the complexity of Obama's ideas. I think he is a progressive politician; still, I don't think he's ever been what we might call truly "liberal" in the 20th century definition of that term (government as the most important mediator between the individual and other institutions in society). He sees a role for government, but he also carries with him some of the conservatism in the pre-Reagan sense of the word - a deep-seeded belief in the individual's responsibility to the larger community.
All this being said, I'm still disappointed with Obama regarding FISA. I can't see any really good reason why he should have voted for what he said was admittedly an imperfect bill. I guess my question is, what would have happened if he hadn't voted for it? He would have been attacked regarding national security, but he'll still be attacked on that issue.
So, I want to accept your thoughtful reasoning of Obama's philosophies, but I'm still unsure.
I do take some comfort from a biography of Lincoln I'm currently reading. Abraham Lincoln was as pragmatic as they come, and when you look at his approach to the issue of slavery, well, it wasn't always a very idealized one. Yet Lincoln was a very effective leader. I still have hope that Obama can win and help lead Americans to combat some of the really big issues we face, such as global warming.
July 9, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
FISA is just part of the bigger 4th Ammendment landscape. First, restore FISA (flawed as it is) to ensure warrants are required. Then tackle the REALLY big monster...the Patriot Act, which broke down the wall of separation that forbid using evidence from a FISA warrant in civil courts. THAT is the biggie. THAT is the holy grail of this issue. Right now the government can spy on us without even the pretense of a FISA warrant. But even worse, assuming they DID get a FISA warrrant, they could use evidence obtained via a FISA warrant against you in court even though you can never see the evidence, never see the reason for the warrant...in other words, never mount a proper defense.
July 10, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I expect that such a conviction would not stand up on review unless we let McCain be the one who appoints the next 2 or 3 justices.
July 10, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post. Disagreement is healthy, but some people seem to be ignoring his lifelong record fighting for progressive causes.
July 9, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too bad many don't think disagreement is healthy. There's a whole lot of "I'm absolutely right! Anyone who disagrees with me is evil!" going around.
I call it Bushitis: black/white Manichean worldview of intolerance.
Obama has his work cut out for him, that's for sure. So many zealots, one-issue fanatics, and just haters and noisemakers on both sides now. Bringing this country in this shape together to solve problems would be a huge feat in an of itself.
July 9, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, Observer 2. But I think there is something going on beneath the Manichean imagination. It is those overt authoritarians and their followers who want everything to be orderly and predictable, generally lovers of cops and soldiers, and those of us who are able to tolerate the messiness and ambiguities of democracy. They're the ones who want a "strong" president, and they're largely indifferent to constitutional protections for those of us who disagree with them.
July 10, 2008 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
See the comments below this for a perfect example. It will be a miracle if enough adults come together to make this shit happen even after Barack wins.
Tsing this site as a microcosm of America as a whole, though, I see much more intelligent and thoughtful people than idiots. I don't see it as being about agreeing or disagreeing, rather than a bunch of geeks offering different solutions to the stuff that ails us, as if everyone now has a place to jot down those ideas about society that have been bugging them for years. Then get into a debate over them with friends from all walks of life all around the world!
No wonder this place is addicting.
I guess the real trolls have two or three avatars, which is why they can't keep their lies straight. They come out for each Obama "controversy" to try and make it worse or to get a bounce back to the corporate media about Trouble in Obamaland.
I am on permanent offensive mode as a result and will hope to soothe any truly ruffled feathers once we win. The trolls will just disappear, so no harm in taking them out at every opportunity.
July 10, 2008 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're dead wrong about the FISA bill extension. It's a frontal assault on the 4th ammendment, and the original FISA legislation is and has always been sufficient to meet intelligence needs.
Stop apologizing and rationalizing the chipping away at the constitution.
Obama voted WRONG. And you sit there and try to rationalize it to yourself and anyone else foolish enough to place hope above law.
Obama deserves every single ounce of criticism directed at him for voting for this unconstitutional assault on yours and my liberties.
Just another ignorant silly pundit wannabe.
July 10, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for demonstrating the selfrighteous, unyeilding world vies of idealougs everywhere.
July 10, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Would you care to extrapolate or expound on your unsubstantiated insult Larry?
Upon WHAT, exactly, do you base your rationalizations?
And not only does progressive constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald abhor this bill, but conservative constitutional lawyer Johnathan Turley considers this legislation entirely unconstitutional as well.
You should consider the possibility that you may be somewhat misinformed before you go spouting out invectives in support of your deluded rationalizing.
July 10, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not saying they are wrong about the constitutionality of this bill. I am saying that reasonable people can disagree. Claming that you have the "TRUTH" and that all who disagree are not just wrong but evil is a fundamentaly wrong postion regardless of wether the bill is a good one or a bad one.
July 10, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
He does not support the immunity clause. He's been entirely consistant in being against it.
Except that, last October, his spokesman, Bill Burton, said: "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." And today, voting on cloture on a bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecom companies, Obama voted FOR cloture (=AGAINST filibuster).
Consistent?
He's only voted for the entire bill with heavy qualifications and for a narrowly defined reason--the need to keep data gathering tools in place. The critics don't even mention his heavy qualifications.
On the contrary, they get mentioned -- and debunked -- all the time. Because they're bunk, and an insult to our intelligence.
July 10, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to your deep understanding of national security and all those top secret security briefings you have attended lately?
July 10, 2008 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
What say you about the argument that the immunity provided by this bill is not a sweeping as the immunity provided by the prior bill so you are comparing apples and oranges?
July 10, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will say that the difference is legally insignificant. Current bill REQUIRES the district court to dismiss all pending litigation when the telecoms show proof that an executive request was actually made of them, asking them for cooperation. Since everyone knows that such a request was made, the litigation will be dismissed. There is only one teensy-weensy problem - the request was illegal and non-binding. So the district court would be dismissing what is likely serial felonies that lasted for years.
In my book that's a bad thing - it hurts our legal system, our Constitution and hurts Obama chances of winning - since most Americans are strongly opposed to this immunity. Others think this is the cleverest triangulation since Nixon's southern strategy.
July 10, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The prior bill gave criminal immunity as well as civil and this one just gives civil immunity. That is not an insignificant difference.
July 10, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
All right, that is a positive difference.
However, criminal charges are commonly brought by the government, not by individuals. There are no current criminal cases on this subject pending against the telecoms.
I find it highly unlikely, that after voting for civil immunity on a premise that the President has simply ASKED the telecoms to break the law, any justice department, either Democrat or Republican led, will bring actual felony charges against the companies. Certainly Obama has made absolutely NO indications that he has any such plans if elected.
The only avenue left is the obvious unconstitutionality of the current FISA statute, from both the warantless spying direction and retroactive telecom immunity direction. ACLU and EFF are pursuing both directions
July 10, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is an excelent argument that he should have voted differently. It does not make him out to be a liar however. There is a difference between changing positions on a bill and having the bill change.
July 10, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
for you, here's why Obama was against the last bill. Notice that all he "strongly opposes" was int he bill he voted for. Not to mention, in his response he said he changed because he thinks the security of the US is more important, with that in mind, I give you Obama:
I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill.
Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.
The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend.
No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people - not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.
That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd's amendment to remove the immunity provision. Secrecy must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens – and set an example to the world – that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient.
A grassroots movement of Americans has pushed this issue to the forefront. You have come together across this country. You have called upon our leaders to adhere to the Constitution. You have sent a message to the halls of power that the American people will not permit the abuse of power – and demanded that we reclaim our core values by restoring the rule of law.
It's time for Washington to hear your voices, and to act. I share your commitment to this cause, and will stand with you in the fights to come. And when I am President, the American people will once again be able to trust that their government will stand for justice, and will defend the liberties that we hold so dear as vigorously as we defend our security.
July 10, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the Obama I remember!
Did they stash that one away and replaced him with a boring, "I was for it before I was against it" one?
I want the old one back - the one who stood for the right things and promised correct action. Not the current, defective one.
July 10, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the things Richard Wolffe mentioned during his Monday appearance on Countdown was that since Obama became the nominee, he's had a flood of new Reporters around him. People who haven't heard the stories, aren't used to the Senator's way of doing things, and just generally don't know what the @#$%@ is going on.
Wolffe was the Reporter who asked the question that initially caused the "HE'S REFINING HIS IRAQ STANCE" flap (I only shout it, because that's what the MSM wound up doing). His reaction was one of non-surprise. He's heard the answer many, many times before, yet the rest of the pool reacted as though he'd sided with the Decepticons.
The arguments that you've listed require subtlety and nuance. Arguments tend to always lack subtlety and nuance.
BTW, ghariane...I think you're right to be angry, but wrong in the some of the substance of your argument. Telecomm Immunity getting signed into law does indeed suck. Obama did vote for the reasonable Amendments that were offered, and you are right he did vote for cloture. At the same time, Obama had his reasons. He wanted there to be an Inspector General looking over past uses/abuses. He wanted this kind of surveillance done under the FISA Court. Like it or not, those are his reasons, and simply saying they've been debunked doesn't substitute for debate. (This would be an invitation to write up your own posting, telling us how they've been debunked, BTW).
P.S. Mr. McFadden. Thanks for the thumbs up on my piece.
July 10, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree very completely. BUT the FISA capitulation and Obama's entirely bullshit attempt at justification (so lame there is no other conclusion than he was consciously lying) is a horse of a different color.
July 10, 2008 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
"He does not support the immunity clause. He's been entirely consistant in being against it. He's only voted for the entire bill with heavy qualifications and for a narrowly defined reason--the need to keep data gathering tools in place. The critics don't even mention his heavy qualifications. Did his vote today affect anyone's view of this matter? He's being attacked by McCain for that vote."
This is bullshit because they don't need to keep these type of "data gathering tools in place"; the original FISA tools were entirely sufficient in the first place and HAVE NOT LAPSED, had they not been employed by incompetants. AND HE FAILED TO LIVE UP TO HIS PROMISE TO FILLIBUSTER THIS PROVISION.
And the provisions in the new bill are only for the FISA court to check on what TYPES of surveillance are allowed, not individual instances, that's undeniably crap. And if you can't get into specifics as to who was spied on and why with the telecommunications companies, how will you ever find out whether the reasons for the spying made it legal, or not? You won't. This is a get-out-of-jail-free card for EVERONE INVOLVED, not just the telecoms, and Barack bought it. So, you have to wonder, besides 'how principled is he?", "how smart is he?", neither of which is good. Is he more principled and smart than McCain? Hell, yes! Earthworms are more smart and principled than McCain.
Auditioning to be the leader of this country actually requires that you sometimes lead. He didn't do that here, he caved.
I still back Obama as the best, most reasonable candidate that we have of the major two, no doubt of that. That doesn't in any way mean that this was right. And it should be remembered, and reversed ASAP. And frankly, that should be RETROACTIVE, TOO.
July 10, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very intertaining, one problem:
Politics is not like sex therapy.
4th Amendment is not a "morning erection".
Leadership and mediation are different things.
Obama is not running for a community organizer.
Overall conclusion:
Committed supporters will write volumes whitwashing just about anything their "object of adoration" does, using advanced deconstruction techniques to reliably show that white is really black and visa versa. This happens every time a personality cult erupts in politics - examples are many throughout history and world. Psychological needs of the supporters for a "good leader" to follow, far outweigh any shortcomings said leader may have. Usually afflicts people with a diminished sense of self and an unreliable or ungrounded sense of right and wrong.
July 10, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for demonstrating the tactic of trying to insult ones way to victory in an argument. Not everyone who disagrees with you is deluded or duplicitous. It is posible for people of good faith to come to different conclusions, wether you admit it or not.
July 10, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, in the main, it isn't the left who's said that he's moving to the center, it's the entire pundit class, left, right and center, with the emphasis on the right and center.
July 10, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a perfect personality cult joke from the old USSR (circa 1970s, when I was still there, going to middle school):
It was early 1920s and our village was starving (this is a reference to the man-made Ukranian famine, engineered by Stalin/Lenin to break the back of the Russian wealthy peasantry). We took up a colllection, put all the money we had together and I was sent to Moscow to tell comrade Lenin how terrible our sitation was and to ask for help. After a long and difficult journey, I got to Moscow and went to Kremlin in the Red Square and saw the great comrade Lenin - he was standing there, talking to the revolutionaries! (this is fanciful, he would have never made it, but anyway...)
I went to him and humbly said - "Comrade Lenin, our village is starving, the komissars have taken all the grain, many people have died!"
He looked at me and bellowed - "Fuck off, boy!"
But his eyes! His eyes were so kind!
The end.
July 10, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. That was deep.
Soviet "humor" doesn't translate well, and has nothing to do with this election.
July 10, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
==According to your deep understanding of national security and all those top secret security briefings you have attended lately?==
Trust us, comrade. We know things you don't know.
I heard this lots of times before.
July 10, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very thoughtful post.
I tell people that if they want to know what makes Obama tick, read his books, he lays out everything in them, who he is, what he thinks, why he thinks it.
An honest reading of 4th Amendment jurisprudence, rather than parroting of Glenn Greenwald talking points on FISA is definitely in order.
July 10, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
==Glenn Greenwald talking points ==
Comrade, do you think that GG is a spy, or a republican plant, with a secret mission to destroy our demigod, Obama?
If Obama keeps taking his campaign advisor's disasterous "advice", should we be boning up on other Amendment jurisprudence, to prepare ourselves for the whitewashing self-criticism sessions ahead?
Can you jam any more Obama imagery into your online persona? A catchy Obama signature line perhaps? A ever-present link to an Obama donations page?
July 10, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've only ever posted Obama's own positions on FISA and immunity. He clearly changed his position. I'm sure you've seen them.
Obama made it clear that the Bush administration gave the false choice between security and our core values as a nation. Now he says, due to security we need to capitulate on this imperfect bill.
He said lines need to be drawn, no one is above the law -not the telecoms nor the president and they need to be held accoutnable. He changed his position. I'm willing to donate to the ACLU and EFF and support them in this ongoing fight and move on, if you guys would stop trying to gloss over his clear change of heart.
July 10, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
FISA is statutory, and Greenwald is a Con. law attorney. Yourself?
What does an "honest reading" of the 4th Amendment have to do with the 180 Obama has made, violating a promise made earlier by his campaign to support a filibuster on any bill that contained immunity?
Is it your position that Bush, Cheney, and the Republicans in Congress are right on this issue and it was actually Obama who was wrong initially before changing his position?
July 10, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
==Not everyone who disagrees with you is deluded or duplicitous. It is posible for people of good faith to come to different conclusions, wether you admit it or not.==
No, of course not. But many of the people who are ratinalizing Obama's change of direction, finding more new and novel ways to demonstrate how this either doesn't matter or actually good and wise are the same people who ruthlessly attacked Clinton for her "calculating" war vote and race bating.
The common thread for them is not the issues but Obama, not his position per se, but his persona. It is called a personality cult - a very common occurence in political campaigns. Charismatic politicians count on it and cultivate it. Clinton was cultivating it among lower income women. Obama is attempting it among "win at all costs" Democrats.
I just happen to hate it. Other people think it is the best thing since sliced bread - gives them a strong leader to follow, something they have a strong psychological need for.
July 10, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you that this is exactly what is happening...and I am someone who voted for Obama in the primary.
It just all seems so hypocritical given the criticisms leveled at Clinton during the primary campaign.
July 10, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton also had the antithissis of a cult of personality. She had a cult of haters. She engendered an irrational hatred amongst large portions of the electorate (including me).
I am probably one of those that you would think is a COP fanboy of Obama but I do not think he is infalable. I just think he is the best we are likely to get in my lifetime and that now it is campaign season. If you wish for him to win then it is time to work towards that goal. For everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose. I have no problem with crticising this vote but think it is both not true and tantamount to working for McCain's campaign to say he was duplicitous on this issue. The bill he voted for is different from the one he pledged to filabuster. Voting for it may be an error but it is not a lie.
July 10, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!
You said, in one eloquent paragraph, what I took several to say less artfully here.
The one (fairly obvious) distinction we both make is that the FISA compromise Obama voted "yea" on is NOT the same legislation Obama pledged to filibuster.
I understand that the donut-bribed talking heads and their dumbed-down audiences may not see the difference. What surprises and disappoints me is that so many posters on this site can't seem to grasp said difference.
July 10, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe you ignore the similarities.
July 10, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not surprised that you take a position saying that there are differences and treat it as equivelent to a position that there are no similarities. Taking an argument against one extreem as being for the other extreem and excluding the middle seems to be the standard form of argument these days.
There are both similarities and differences and reasonable people can disagree about which are more important without claiming that those who disagree are being dishonest or capitulating.
July 10, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/the-lefts-attacks-against-obam.php#comment-2958005
July 10, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/the-lefts-attacks-against-obam.php#comment-2958050
July 10, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
He changed his position on the same elements in both bills, for the reasons he decries at the top of the statement. A false choice between security and liberty and the rule of law. He said he strongly opposed, and would stand by the grassroots in fights to come. He capitulated. You can't argue it away, it is his own words.
July 10, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
We can agree to disagree. I see a change but no moral failing, neither duplicity nor capitulation.
July 10, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you refuse to see it on purpose. Your reasons for such, bewilder me.
July 10, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are being overly rigid and dogmatic. It is part of disagreeing.
July 10, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong.
Obama's campaign did not issue a statement proclaiming he would only support a filibuster on one specific version of the bill. It stated that Obama would support a filibuster of ANY BILL that contained telecom immunity.
TPM Link.
July 10, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that this just points out the error of making unqualified statements. It is the Equivelent of Bush I saying, "Read my lips." It is hyperbolic campaign rhetoric. Reality is more nuanced than that.
The bill changed. Specificaly the immunity provisions changed, and the oversight requirements changed. That changed the decision over wether the bill is on the whole a good thing or a bad one. I personaly think that he still should have voted against the bill. I also think it is a close call and that his decision to vote for it is a reasonable one even though it is not the decision I would make.
July 10, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it terribly difficult to see a "close call" in anything that virtually ALL of the Republicans in Congress can agree on.
July 10, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! Good call.
July 10, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
He wasn't duplicitous, he capitulated.
July 10, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
==Clinton also had the antithissis of a cult of personality. She had a cult of haters. She engendered an irrational hatred amongst large portions of the electorate (including me).==
That's completely incorrect. Clinton had a very loyal following in many states and carried women and less educated voters by wide margins. Her racial bating and other questionable campaign tactics did nothing to dissuade these voters from voting for her - she represented their aspirations and exact policies or tactics were not important.
==I am probably one of those that you would think is a COP fanboy of Obama but I do not think he is infalable. I just think he is the best we are likely to get in my lifetime and that now it is campaign season.==
I would guess you have fairly low standards or a very short lifetime.
==If you wish for him to win then it is time to work towards that goal. For everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose. I have no problem with crticising this vote but think it is both not true and tantamount to working for McCain's campaign to say he was duplicitous on this issue. The bill he voted for is different from the one he pledged to filabuster. Voting for it may be an error but it is not a lie.==
Well, you really know how to sweet talk a man. I could and did overlook Obama's abortion comments (after his clarification) and did try to understand his call for more government payments to religious organizations in the context of his long involvement with evangelical Christianity. But his FISA vote was a real deal breaker for me - the 4th amendment is not a "controversial issue" in the conventional sense - certainly not like third trimester abortions or exact nature of church/state entanglements. It is a core issue. Therefore, I am deeply suspicious of any candidate, who understands that citizens rights to be free from unreasonable search is anything to triangulate on or to compromise with. Even if he is doing it not for crass political advantage (seemingly false in this case), but rather is trying to forge a "post-partisan" compromise on everythng, including the Constitution, I find this to be deeply troubling. Someone who understands the Constitution as part of the negotiations, is someone who believes in nothing. If Obama turns out to be the "great compromiser", even beating Bill Clinton in that respect, I am completely uninterested in him as a candiate.
Yes I will drag myself to the polls and vote for him during the GE, like I did in the primaries. But this time it will be simply to keep McCain from the presidency, strictly as a "better of two bad choices" calculus. The problem is, if Obama keeps sliding around like he has lately, most of his natural constituency, energized during the primary season will do the same - and that spells lots of trouble for his possible victory.
July 10, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are mistaken she had both.
Or perhapse I value different criteria than you do.
The very language of the bill, using an imprecise term like reasonable, means that there must be a debate about what is reasonable. From time to time that decision will change. During WWII it seemed reasonable to read and redact every letter home from soldiers. Now we would judge that to be unreasonable. There is no unering standard that we can look to we must debate.
July 10, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
bill should read amendment
July 10, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent article. Obama is a progressive, his life and political record backs that up. The left better not forget that.
July 10, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no such thing as "centrism" in American politics. There is no linear spectrum leading to a center. There is no center. There are "progressive" views and "conservative" views. A voter or politician can have progressive or conservative views on any given issue, but that combination does not create "centrism."
George Lakoff wrote this piece about the myth of centrism in 2007, before Obama became the presumptive nominee for the party:
Using Harold Ford Jr. and Sherrod Brown as examples of failed vs. winning strategies respectively, Lakoff argues (emphasis mine):
Lakoff is a cognitive scientist, which is why he emphasizes the triggering that goes on in people's brains.
Since Obama became the presumptive nominee, he has moved solidly to the right on every issue. That's why progressives are furious at him. Obama has marginalized progressives.
Not only that, but Democrats have a reliable track record of losing with that strategy.
July 10, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
July 10, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Lakkof. I just disagree that Obama has changed his positions in any significant way. He is where he has been and the main thing that has changed is the reporting. The one issue where it can reasonablely be argued that he has changed his position is FISA and on that one the bill change so we are comparing aples and lug-nuts. That does not represent some huge swing to the ritght.
July 10, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The assurance pertained to "any bill" that included immunity, as I've already noted.
I am now seriously questioning whether or not Obama's position on Iraq will hold fast.
July 10, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama also moved to the right on the Palestinian issue the day after he secured enough delegates to win the nomination.
July 10, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
If by 'hold fast' you mean remain unchanged in the face of changing ralities, I can assure you he will not. We have had enough unflinching stuborness to last us for a while. I look forward to some practical statesmanship. That is why I support Sen Obama.
July 10, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
What was the "changing reality" here?
It's all fine and good to change one's position...for the right reasons. Political expediency is not a good reason when it comes to certain issues, in my book.
Would there be ANY reason for a change of policy on Iraq that you would honestly not accept?
July 10, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The changing reality is that the bill changed. The current bill has greater oversight provisions and less immunity.
July 10, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's "less immunity?"
The "change" here was negligible, and the oversight provisions are woefully deficient. As I pointed out above, it isn't a "close call" when all but ONE Republican in Congress are in agreement.
A majority of Democrats in Congress were opposed to the bill and voted against it...but obviously not nearly enough.
July 10, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Civil imunity alone is less imunity than civil and criminal immunity.
July 10, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Surely you don't believe that criminal charges are a possibility...
July 10, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
That depends on what the investigation turns up. You do not start with an inditement. You start with an investigation and see where it goes. I am sure that it will take a while to clean up after BushCo.
July 10, 2008 8:41 PM |