« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Will the Real Sen. Obama Please Stand Up
There was a show on TV for many years called "To Tell the Truth." Contestants with fascinating personal stories appeared with two impostors. A panel of celebrities questioned the three people to guess who was the real contestant. The show always concluded with host prompting "Will the real (NAME HERE) please stand up."
And so it is, these days, with Sen. Obama. I am a staunch supporter of his, but I admit to the same unease that other TPM posters have expressed about Obama's moves to a centrist position.
For what it's worth, here's my take:
I like the Barack Obama who was daring and willing to lead by refreshing candor and foresight. I like the candidate who spoke of lofty goals and shared sacrifices and uncompromising principles.
The centrist Obama doesn't inspire me so much. He's moved out of political expediency to positions that aren't so daring, lofty or uncompromising. And he's bogged down in the minutiae, so his speeches don't soar as often as they used to.
No, telecom immunity doesn't make me happy. It probably doesn't sit well for any of us here, though we might understand the box he's in. But on other issues that don't polarize us as much, Obama has also demonstrated a willingness to soften his position more than I would like to see. It's not that I even necessarily disagree with the refinements of his positions. It's just that I sense him moving too much — fairly or unfairly, he's gaining a reputation as a flip-flopper.
From backing off an "undivided Jerusalem" to his new willingness to approve capital punishment to numerous lesser issues, Obama is abandoning the moral high ground in favor of the broad field of battle.
On the other hand, the press has been remarkably dense in its inability to distinguish between a flip-flop and, for instance, Obama "refining" his plans for Iraq. To refine is to enhance, to smooth out, to perfect. No flip-flop there.
But putting aside the reasons for or against any perceptible shift in policy positions, whether those shifts are real or trumped up by a voracious press, there is something less enthralling about the Obama campaigning today. I don't feel as energized as I once did.
Others feel that way, too. So while moving to the center may be necessary now, there has to be a point where it stops and Obama's positions become immutable. Not to say that he should become doctrinaire or absolutist, but that he should propel his positions, not retreat from them.
I like the Obama that stood for change we can believe in. And I would ask that Obama to please stand up again.
Comments (71)
I referred above to "numerous lesser issues" but that, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. And also shorthand for "issues I don't have the patience to elaborate on."
July 5, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/294455
I think Obama has cornered himself on this one. I agree with you, seems that many people are wondering who exactly is Obama?
July 5, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post! And a great counterpart to the one I posted this morning.
I have felt the same unease until I looked back at what BHO has always stood for, from before the advent of "issues" in his campaign.
My own feeling is that what Obama is all about, what is at the core of his thought and aspirations is inclusion and binding together.
He is far more than Bush, a religious candidate, and in the sense of the latin "re-ligio" -to bind together.
That was the essence of his electrifying 2004 convention speech; to bring back one America, to make of us, one people again. I don't see him changing since then.
His "moves to the center" are in the way of inclusion and binding together what was fractured.
In a way, after the hyper-partisanization of the national political discourse, what he is doing is revolutionary and transformative.
July 5, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree in many respects, Lux, but I must add that he could be losing some disaffected voters on the left, particularly independents and young people. Many of us are happy to support any Democrat, yet I would rather Obama argue for principled progress instead of redefining his positions at this stage. I am not one of the lowest common denominators but a voter who would like to push the boundaries of political discourse and social progress.
July 5, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
This post reads like you've been drinking the MSM kool-aid and now it looks like they have you exactly where they want, confused.
July 5, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not confused, don't drink Kool-Aid of any variety.
July 5, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bold post Rip. A former Hillary supporter like me could not write this post and have credibility. Nor would I. I always expected and understood the need for our nominee to move to the center. My problem was and continues to be with those who asserted during the primaries that the Senator would be different. You have impressed me with your candor and with your understanding that being honest about what is happening is not inconsistent with unconditional support for the Senator in November. It is simply ridiculous for some to go too far with this notion that to discuss Obama's current positions in a negative light on this website will in anyway hurt Obama. I am sort of convinced that such criticism helps him. Indeed, as a moderate traditional Dem, I think I can actually feel how pissing off his base will make lots of folks feel better about voting for him.
Nice work.
Bruce
July 5, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to say I find this rather amusing - if they had read his books, looked at his voting record and actually listened to what he had to say, they would have known he was a centrist and to the right of Clinton on most issues. He's not moving to the center, he is the center.
July 6, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's poll numbers keep going up. He is really screwing up this election.
July 5, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's poll number are relatively stagnant, reflecting little bounce since becoming the presumptive nominee. His support among Clinton supporters has actually dropped in the past month. His Gallup Tracking Poll numbers show a relatively tight race that has shown little variance for weeks.
Not that I was even writing about polls, but since you brought it up...
July 5, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the Barack Obama who was daring and willing to lead by refreshing candor and foresight. I like the candidate who spoke of lofty goals and shared sacrifices and uncompromising principles.
The centrist Obama doesn't inspire me so much. He's moved out of political expediency to positions that aren't so daring, lofty or uncompromising. And he's bogged down in the minutiae, so his speeches don't soar as often as they used to.
This is quite right. Obama needs to rediscover some positions that involve some substantial element of political risk. Risk-taking inspires admiration, even from one's opponents. Risk-aversion and compulsive running toward the center look weak.
Obama is in great danger of making himself boring, which would be deadly for him since his capacity to inspire enthusiastic support is one of his greatest strengths. For the past several weeks, he has looked like just another pol, and he hasn't looked like a leader.
July 5, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan, of all the comments so far, I think yours actually come closest to hearing what I've said. Thanks for listening.
July 5, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, Dan.
July 6, 2008 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two words:
Grow up.
A candidate emphasizes one aspect of his policy, often in a broad way, during a primary and then emphasizes a different aspect of what is essentially the same policy, perhaps with more particularity, once in the general. Shocking!! Never happened before!! I can no longer support this person!!!
Example:
Obama primary:
Consulting with commanders on the ground so that it can be done in a careful and safe way, I will have our combat troops out if Iraq in 16 months.
Obama general:
Consulting with commanders on the ground so that it can be done in a careful and safe way, I will have our combat troops out if Iraq in 16 months.
If you think this is a "flip flop" or a despicable "move to the center," you need to get out more. If this confuses you, it is not Obama's fault.
July 5, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Three words: Read the post.
You're setting up multiple straw men and knocking them down. If you're going to argue, argue with what I've actually said.
July 5, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, please refrain from patronizing comments like "Grow up." If you haven't read my posts archive, now would be a good time to start. I've earned the right to be a little honestly critical.
July 5, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You probably won't appreciate a compliment from a long-time critic of the indefinable Barack Obama, but IMHO you deserve significant credit for refusing to immediately make excuses for Obama's unprincipled manoeuvring, like so many absolutely unshakeable believers.
July 6, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
In hindsight, many of us who loved the idea of "one America" unconsciously projected the core values of the Left onto that concept -- as if the Right, and Independents, would automatically embrace every value we have that has been antithetical to their own.
I feel some chagrin now that I see what should have been obvious to me from the beginning: that, to achieve "one America" will require a process of our giving, again, as well as taking back.
I suspect there has been so much real anguish about Obama taking centrist positions in the GE, on various issues, because, after Bush/Cheney, we yearned -- however unreasonably -- for a full pendulum swing?
How inconsiderate of our candidate to assume we might be trusted to think as adults....
July 5, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wwstaebler, I couldn't agree more. I think the core of what us Lefty's are dealing with is the fact that "One America" is not a synonym for "Progressive America." I must say that I now realize that's what I assumed. But of course that can not be the case -- not only for strategic reasons, but more importantly, democratic ones.
Out of many, one has never referred to a painless process and it seems folks are going to take their lumps on all sides.
July 5, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I've been disappointed by Obama's strategic decisions a few times, but not at all surprised by the positions he's taken. I know we were all hoping for someone more Godlike, but we'll just have to learn to live with a mere mortal.
July 5, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, they were looking for some kind of leftist God in their candidate. But I think they were more importantly swayed to believe they'd found this by the color of Obama's skin. These outraged liberals saw black and thought they were voting for Huey Newton. Surprise, surprise.
Just goes to show you can be oblivious to reality and believe anything you want if you try hard enough. Anyone who can add two and two could've seen the streak of pragmatism in Obama from the begining. It's actually what makes him a great candidate.
July 6, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I don't think Obama has made any "move to the center." The way I see it, people had certain expectations of him in the primary, and he hasn't lived up to their high expectations. I don't think this was Obama's fault. Most of his positions had been expressed previously, such as the death penalty and gun rights. Did the people criticizing him for his stances just not research him, not actually review his opinions? Not read his books? It really puzzles me.
July 5, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think when some people heard Obama decry politics as usual, they heard: "I'm going to do everything you want me to do. I'm going to drastically change everything. I'm going to give you precisely what you want, and I've figured out a magical way to give everyone else what they want too."
Remember this Gary Larson cartoon?
http://z.hubpages.com/u/209782_f520.jpg
Some people are like that too. They hear what they want to hear.
July 5, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Selective hearing is definitely rampant. So is selective reading, I've noticed.
July 5, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you guys aren't talking about me. As you know, I've defended Obama from a lot of the divisive posts around here for months. And I'll continue to. I've never thought he was promising me the moon, but he's come down to earth a lot more in recent weeks. Dan K did a good job of summarizing my main point.
July 5, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, now you find that you like the previous Obama better. And you'd like to be understood, rather than accused of writing McTroll talking points...
Some of us have been in your situation before:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/obama-social-networking-group.php#comment-2936194
Where are the chickens now?
July 5, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look for an attack on Obama's character in my post. There isn't one. Unlike yours.
July 5, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow!
What character attack? Noting that there was a "different" Obama than the one that is now?
These are your words:
It's not a character attack when you notice the "changes" in Obama, only when others do it?
You see nothing to learn from this whole exchange?
If being always right makes you happy, I won't get in your way!
July 5, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see nothing to learn from this because:
1) I never accused you of being a McTroll.
2) Your comments then, as now, are very angry and so sound like an attack, this time on me.
Sure, I get where you're coming from. It's not the point you're making I object to. It's the tone you make it in.
July 5, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh dear! I am not angry at all.
I wonder what it is that you are projecting onto my comments. They are just written words, with no expletives or abusive language. Can you step back and read them again, without imbuing them of your own tone?
Nevertheless, I apologize for whatever it is in my tone that bothers you.
You say you get where I'm coming from and it feels good to be understood.
July 5, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't speak for Chrono, but I definitely wasn't talking about you.
July 5, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, h. I doubt he was either, just wanted to clarify.
July 5, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can speak for Chrono, and he definitely was not talking about you. =)
July 5, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think when people heard him argue against "politics as usual" they interpreted it to mean "policies as usual" whereas he perhaps meant it in terms of how politics is conducted.
And in that sense, his campaign has been different than the usual. Moving the DNC to Chicago, urging the 527s to rein themselves in, and not running negative ads (McCain's flip-flopping would make some great ads).
People saw many things in Obama, the candidate in the Democratic primary, and some of it, not all, was wishful thinking. Wishful thinking borned out of 7+ years of heartache, frustration, and disgust at the current administration. Obama, the Democratic candidate for President doesn't appear to be living up to the lofty image people had of him in the primaries.
For me, I just don't see that big of a difference between who he was in the primary race and who he is in the general election. With the exception of FISA, he hasn't "flip-flopped", no matter how hard MSM and the RNC are working to convince us that he has.
July 5, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
ChronoSpark:
My personal answers to your questions are these: yes, I read both of his books; yes, I read the positions stated on his website; and also, I'm 59 years old -- which means that I've had plenty of opportunities in life to test the viability, or the folly, of acting on the basis of believing in absolutes (which is one reason I rec'd your post earlier today).
In consequence of all these factors, I am not taken aback by Obama's positions on third trimester abortion (although I am a strong supporter of pro-choice). I am not offended by Obama's position on FISA (particularly after reading the views of various lawyers on various threads -- Elizabeth2 and TenaX among them). Nor am I rabid about Obama's views on gun control and federal funding for church-based outreach programs (despite the fact that I think gun control pivotal to changing a fundamental flaw in the American psyche, and the fact that I am personally concerned with the separation of church and state).
In fact, the only "shock" I've experienced in comparing primary Obama with GE Obama is what I considered to be his campaign's over the top "renouncing and rejecting" of Wesley Clark's comments about McCain. There, I felt Obama and his campaign advisors made a real mistake that was hard to justify. What Clark said was true; more importantly, it drew attention to an area in which, in fact, McCain is weak; in my opinion, Obama would have managed a win/win if he had, per usual, "honored" McCain's early service, while also lauding Clark's career-long service and positions of far greater responsibilty which gave Clark every right to express an opinion that, in fact, helped Obama.
All of these issues combined, however, have caused me to re-examine my own hopes against a litmus test of pragmatism. And, yes, I grant Obama greater vision, in the big picture, than I can hope to have. Yes, when push comes to shove, I trust his judgment more than my own. And, yes, of course I will not only vote for him, but also support him -- financially as well as figuratively, in the interim. But I think it not unreasonable -- particularly for people my age, for whom this election is the last shot at "fixing" America before it may be irretrievably too late -- to have experienced a bated breath, and a sense of sorrow, before bowing to the "greater good" criterion of ceding a Leftist agenda to ... the "greater good."
July 5, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just want to say that firstly, thank you for recommending my post earlier. Very much appreciated.
I'm glad you wrote this comment. It enforces my theory that those who are truly upset with Obama over such issues did not know much about him during the primary. That, to an extent, saddens me. I always believed that critics of his supporters were blowing smoke when they said "they don't really know anything about him," but I now question whether they were as wrong as I had originally thought. Perhaps my faith in the American electorate was overly high.
I agree with you on gun control and the separation of church and state. But Obama does not disagree with gun control, or on restrictions. What puzzles me (again) is that, after having read what Obama had to say on the issue, I don't find it unreasonable. I disagree with it. I have a difference of opinion. But I do not find it unreasonable, even constitutionally (under one line of thinking), and I have extensively researched the Second Amendment.
I am also a rapid advocate (yes, almost to the point of dogmatism, much to my own chagrin) of the separation of church and state. But I actually read Obama's statement, and his plan, and I find it hard to find anything against his plan, even Constitutionally (of which, again, I've researched and read about extensively). I am, again, puzzled by the lack of real understanding concerning the doctrine itself. The argument against his plan is that, "putting any federal funds into any religious organizations, regardless of the way in which they are given and regardless of the way in which it's implemented." But the doctrine is not that cut and dry.
I don't want to write a book here, so I'll finish it up.
I personally don't know if Obama was wrong on distancing himself from Clark. Though I may agree with what he said, if Obama had defended Clark, the media would have destroyed him. Unfortunate as it is, the media has a helluva lot of power in shaping public perception. The media was shocked and appalled by Clark. They would have been even more so with Obama. No speech or address by Obama would have been able to save him, because Obama was never in the military, and as pathetic as it is, the media would have jumped on that and stayed on it. "Does Obama have the right to question McCain's record?" Whether that's really what was happening, that's the way it would play out. Look what they did with Obama's "refine" comment about Iraq.
Have I personally questioned Obama? Constantly. I find that to be healthy. But I don't live my life by idealism, which lives in a realm outside of reality. I live my life by pragmatism, which lives inside of reality. Reason and rationality dictate that, in the end, despite his flaws (and he has them, he's not perfect, as he rightly admits), I much accept my disagreements and disappointments and, as you said, work for the greater good. I'm just glad that I have so few disagreements and disappointments with which to contend.
July 5, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, which was handsome of you since my tone in demanding it was, as I see in rereading it, scolding.
Perhaps the real point to the Clark issue is that Obama cannot win, whatever he says. So I wish he had said something affirmative and forceful. Because he was not in the military, and forceful is an issue for him. Therefore, is he better off forcefully supporting Clark, whose military/national security credentials are impeccable? Or distancing himself, when this issue of McCain as military hero and Obama, as "he who did not serve" is used by the Republicans to imply that Obama is somehow not "up" to the job (pardon the expression, but we know what they mean).
July 5, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've always treated me with respect. Even if you were demanding, I had no reason not to afford you respect in return.
I guess for me the issue becomes, if Obama defends Clark, the spin doctors turn it into Obama trying to discredit McCain's service, not Clark. The focus flies entirely on Obama, and then Obama has to defend himself militarily. Whether this is the way in which the battle should be played out, it is the way the battle would be played out.
The end result, as I see it, would be:
>Obama wins praise from the left, most of whom already support him.
>The media spends the next month or so destroying Obama for "attacking McCain's military record when he had no place to."
>Obama loses more time campaigning and spreading his message having to defend himself for a very small incident that never should have blown out of proportion.
>McCain has yet another thing to deride Obama on, and use in campaign ads.
>Obama loses votes from leaning independents who consider Obama's "actions" (you decide: disturbing, unpatriotic, out of touch, elitist, etc.)
Whether I believe Obama would be justified in defending Clark, I just think the negatives of such an action outweigh the positives.
July 5, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
wwstaebler:
Thanks for this. You speak well about the dilemma for many of our generation.
I am constantly recalibrating my like/dislike for positions taken by Obama against his by-now proven political skills and ability to read the current landscape. A pol of lesser skills would not have made it this far.
That is why I can appreciate both the sometimes shrill remarks of a Glenn Greenwald and yet still appreciate Barack Obama.
At times like these I like to remember what the Abolitionists said about Abe Lincoln and what the Socialists and Communists said about FDR.
This is politics and if you want to play the game you have to be able to roll with the punches. Obama seems able to do that.
July 6, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also see no major move to the center. Obama's positions have been the same on everything except FISA since he started his campaign. It's really only his FISA position that has dissappointed me. With regards to everything else I support him fully. I think this lowered enthusiasm reflects where we are in the GE as much as anything. We were at such a fevered pitch in the primaries, and with Hillary going negative we were all so angry. Now is mild by comparison. It will ramp up and we'll all get riled again.
July 5, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you think John McCain's going to do something to piss us off enough to unite in support of Obama in the same way we did in the primary against Hillary?
July 5, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
ChronoSpark:
Please respond to my post upthread, which I left a few minutes ago.
And Ripper: thank you for another authentic, rather than ideological post.
July 5, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm about to. I was busy with stuff, sorry. =)
July 5, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely.
July 6, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Me too.
July 6, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I reject the premise. There is no "move to the center". Have you read his book? Nothing of late is out of character of the man who wrote the book. His disdain for the dogmatic and excessive parts of the left make it clear he is a pragmatist with leftist sympathies.
Obama is mostly guilty of clumsy bungling of this and a few other issues. These are missteps, to be sure.
July 5, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
It looks like John McCain now has a clear path to victory. When Obama's so called base are proclaiming that they think that he is a fraud, and posting headlines that say: "Will the real Sen. Obama please stand up", then he does not have the chance of a snowball in hell of now winning over the always skeptical independent swing voters. Now that the Netroots keep proclaiming that they no longer have any faith in Obama, and think that he is not to be trusted, the undecided swing voters are not even going to give him much serious consideration. So much for putting some of those new states in play.
If your most ardent backers keep telling people that they no longer trust you, why on earth would fence sitters put their trust in him.
Now the MSM and the Greg Sargents of the world have chimed in, and they know that they are free to do so, without fear of any backlash from the Netroots crowd, since they were the ones that fired the opening salvos, at Senator Obama's back, as he left the corner to meet McCain in the middle of the ring.
The Netroots shall reap what they have sown. They have been in the forefront of the drive to define Senator Obama as The Same Old Same Old, and not worth taking a chance on. The New York Times got the greenlight from the Netroots to go ahead and pin the label on Obama on their Editorial page.
His so called base can not respond to that editorial, since it was just parroting what they proclaimed for the entire week.
Well done Netroots, you will love the McCain administration that you paved the way for.
July 5, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
liam, you and I have sided for Obama as far back as I can remember. That has not changed, so please don't throw my headline around like I'm abandoning Obama or even angry with him. As with all provocative headlines, the tone and substance are more in the post itself. I will explain below what I meant by that headline, since it deserves a top-level comment of its own.
July 5, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are piling on with that inflammatory headline. It speaks for itself. I have heard the same excuse from all those that have started labeling Obama as being two or three faced. That is what your headline is doing. The damage is done. The large Main Stream Media has picked up the message from the netroots, and they will continue to amplify it from now until election day. The message is: We are not sure who the real Obama is. That is the message that you just declared.
Usually one's opponent is forced to spend a lot of time, money and energy in a drive to define one in such a negative manner. The Netroots just did it for free for John McCain.
Your primary support was useless, because you were willing to join up with those who started firing salvos at his back as soon as he tried to leave his corner, to fight in the center of the ring, in order to win the main event. I now fully expect that Obama will be defeated.
The Media can keep on labeling him as being shifty, and the Netroots can not defend him, because the are all muted by having stuck their feet in their own mouths.
July 5, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Honestly, you've lost faith that Obama can win because of my post? Gimme a break.
July 5, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. I did not say that. Go back and read what I wrote. I said that I believe that the Netroots week of beating him up has lit the match. You are just piling on after he already replied to them, so what was the purpose of your incendiary thread. Now look at how you started:
Here is what you wrote:
Will the Real Sen. Obama Please Stand Up
By Ripper McCord - July 5, 2008, 12:12PM
There was a show on TV for many years called "To Tell the Truth." Contestants with fascinating personal stories appeared with two impostors. A panel of celebrities questioned the three people to guess who was the real contestant. The show always concluded with host prompting "Will the real (NAME HERE) please stand up."
What the hell is someone to take from that other than you wondering if Senator Obama is one third real, and two thirds "Impostor" You chose the example, and the incendiary label "imposter".
You say you are still supporting him. Since you say you are not sure if he is an impostor or not, then why are you supporting him. Now, if you come back with you do not think he is an impostor, then why did you create a thread that serves as very tasty PUMA chow?
July 5, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
liam, I can see where you might get that idea from the headline and the first graf. That is my inept writing at work, not my sentiments or intent.
I don NOT believe Obama is two-thirds impostor. Nor do I mean to suggest that he is untrustworthy or shifty. I am merely pointing out that he is acting like (gasp!) a politician in redefining some of his positions. And yes, that and his turn to prose more than poetry, is not quite as attractive as before, though it will still do by leaps and bounds more than McCain.
Please read below my thinking in choosing this headline. I was intending to suggest that there IS a real Obama who I believe he is more daring and inspirational than he has come off as lately.
PUMAs are bottom feeders. I'm not worried about my post. If not mine, they would chow on others. At least I've explained mine.
July 5, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wrote on Thursday, that I thought that the Netroots uproar about Obama's stance on FISA had given the MSM the greenlight to define him as not a person with strong convictions, and that their week long drumbeat on that issue had probably cost him the election. Sure enough; in the Saturday edition; the NY times pinned the label on him in their editorial page. He has been defined before he could make a good first impression with the sceptical middle ground. That stuff sticks to a candidate, and I fully expect that the McCain camp will make good use of it, to keep on reminding people that not even Obama's base feel that he keeps his word. That is a campaign killer for a newcomer on the national scene.
Answer this: If Ted Kennedy does not agree with the positions that Senator Obama has taken on FISA etc, would you recommend that Ted Kennedy come out and publically denounce Senator Obama's stances? If it is OK for Senator Obama's base to do so, then surely they should be urging all elected Democrats to do the same thing. Do you get me point. Questioning the merits of our nominee, in public, at the start of a campaign to oust the Republicans, strikes me as being totally counter productive, and I am mystified as to why so many people actually thought it was a great thing to do.
Honestly; I thought you would be one of the last people that would do so, and I was shocked to see you light another match to it, just as the firestorm was being brought under control. You are not venting in a Pub. You are putting your words on the web.
Well, I hope that Obama can recover from it, but I do not have much hope that he can. I see the MSM killing him about not being trustworthy, and I see no one standing up for him. That is a lethal situation for a candidate to find himself in. Every nuance will now be spun by the media as having hidden meanings. Look what they just did with the simple word "refine". From now on he will be forced to keep on explaining what he meant about what ever he says, and the more he is forced to explain, the more it looks like he never speaks straight. That is how the game is played, and the Netroots forced him into that box.
McCain will make good use of their work.
July 5, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try to take my post in the context of my intent and my body of posts supporting Obama. I'll still be in his corner. And no, I can't take sole responsibility for the NY Times or the Netroots. I've actually gotten CBS News to soften online stories too harsh on Obama. That took hours. I've complained loud and long to the AP and other news organizations, to small but real effect, also.
Don't be so dogmatic. This election is far from lost. I have earned the right to speak my mind, liam. And it has not wavered in supporting Obama.
July 5, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every one has the right to say what ever they want about Obama, and you are no different. Once we had found our nominee, I felt that it made much more sense to show solidarity with the candidate, in order to defeat the Republicans, rather than behaving in a self indulgent manner that would prove detrimental to our chances of actually winning. I could list a number of things that I might do differently than Senator Obama, but why should I do that. I am not the nominee. He is, so he gets to run his campaign, and not me.
Take a look at how the past week was squandered. The most prominent progressive sites spent the entire week lacerating Senator Obama. In the mean time John McCain went to Columbia and talked up shipping out jobs to them. Not a bloody peep from the Progressives on that, and so McCain got a pass on openly declaring war on blue collar workers.
I have seen enough. When the Netroots decide that they would rather concentrate their fire, for an entire week on Senator Obama, and ignore John McCain, that is enough to convince me that they would rather nurse their perpetual grudges than actually oust the Republicans.
July 6, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Way too pessimistic, liam.
And I say that as one who IS disappointed in Obama's FISA stance and generally positive on Glenn Greenwald's take on the matter.
But if the Netroots and Blogosphere were weak enough that they could induce only 15 Democrats to vote to oppose cloture on FISA, then what makes you think that this is going to strongly hurt Obama? Sure, there is going to be some flip-flopper talk and this isn't good for Obama, but your blaming this entirely on the Obama supporters who couldn't keep their mouths shut and not at all on Obama himself is ridiculous. Do you think that the McCain camp couldn't have come up with the flipflop charges without the blogosphere?
And worse, that you can tell now that the election is completely down the toilet because of it, well geez, if that's what you think, then Obama was too fragile a candidate for you ever to invest your hopes in.
No, it's a long battle.
And by the way, I am in total agreement with Ripper McCord's tone here. Obama needs to excite a little more again. Don't think he can't.
There is plenty of time to adjust this. Go back to every election since 1968. In many if not most of them you will see the pattern where the Democratic candidate "moved to the center", his campaign fell into the doldrums, then he "rediscovered populist chords" and put on a furious rush at the end which either was or wasn't enough to achieve victory.
Happened with Gore, Clinton, even Dukakis had such a bump. It was also the case with Humphrey in 68 who put on a furious too-little too-late charge.
It's way too early for this level of despair.
July 6, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Will the Real Sen. Obama Please Stand Up. That's the headline.
I believe Obama has it within himself to return to a more assertive style of campaigning that combines emphasis on bold policies with the style that won him acclaim. Some of that style has evaporated in the doldrums of the campaign between primaries and conventions. I wish he would return to that style we saw at the '04 convention.
Dan K is correct that without political risks, there are few rewards. And there can be no doubt that Obama is mostly playing it safe, thus fewer stirring moments of inspiring courage.
So when I ask that the real Sen. Obama stand up, it's not to criticize him for shadings of substance or style, but to encourage Obama -- the real Obama that I believe is preoccupied with tactics now -- to stand up once again and be the transformational candidate all of us hope he will be.
Call it a prayer, if you will. Not to a messiah named Barack, but for Barack the man, who will need courage and conviction by the shipload if he is to steer our ship of state away from the rocks the current president has fixed course upon.
And, while I believe there is some danger in the Netroots overplaying its hand, I don't believe the point has come that Obama will suffer significant damage from the chorus of dissent. That said, I am not what you would think of as the Netroots. I'm not advocating that anyone stop donating or working their hearts out for Obama. I'm just sayin'.
July 5, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see where you're coming from, Ripper. Honestly, I do. I'd be lying if I didn't agree with most of what you said. But on the other hand, couldn't you argue that by appealing across the political aisle to people like evangelicals, that he is taking risks? Especially with his faith-based program? How is that not a huge risk, especially when one looks at the way in which some of his supporters have responded?
July 5, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the faith-based program is taking a risk, but not in favor of a progressive agenda. Obama gambles progressive support on the potential to attract conservatives. I'm not sure I would call that smart politics, but it is risky in the sense that running to the center is always risky. I'd prefer he take those risks on behalf of more progressive ideals.
I see your point. Hope you understand that my dedication to Obama hasn't suffered. Maybe my joyous enthusiasm has cooled a bit. But not much of that even, overall.
July 5, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I definitely don't think your dedication to Obama has suffered. Don't get me wrong. I just like to look at different sides of an issue, review it from all possible angles.
I'm a little curious though, and correct me if I'm wrong, but why do you think progressivism and religion are exclusive to each other? Why can't religion be a part of progressive ideals, or a progressive agenda? I don't necessarily find religion to be against the idea of progressivism, unless it's dogmatic and fundamentalist. But of course, I find that religion becomes muddled in such fundamentalism much more than it should.
July 5, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where religion and government meet, we get:
Jerry Falwell/Moral Majority, Ralph Reed/Christian Coalition, James Dobson/Focus on the Family. We also get Prohibition, Intelligent Design, and Abstinence-Only education.
Not a good record. And I didn't even mention School Prayer, Creches on the Courthouse or bashing Democrats as ungodly Communists.
I am undecided as to whether Obama's faith-based program, in regards to politics, will feed an insatiable theism or tame it.
July 5, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many of the people and policies you mentioned are and were implemented through right-wing Republicans, and how many through left-wing and/or progressive Democrats?
And how many of the people and policies are fundamentalists or fundamentalist in their doctrine?
July 5, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
All of them, of course. Evangelicals are evangelicals because they believe they have a duty to spread the Gospel. That includes the public square, where they have been effective in the past several elections.
So while I understand that Obama's faith-based program would extend to any and all religions who cared to participate, I'm uncertain if that would mean co-opting the evangelical movement and strengthening other denominational strands or whether it would lead to a more aggressive and entrenched voting bloc of Right-wing Christians.
July 5, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
But that's my point, see? All of the negatives come from right-wing conservative fundamentalists. Evangelical does not equal fundamentalist, and Obama is not appealing to them using bigoted fundamentalist rhetoric or doctrine. He's not saying, "let's ban gay marriage" or "let's ban abortions to stop the killing of innocent unborn children." He's saying, "look, many churches, mosques, synagogues, etc., have already established programs in place to help the poor, the homeless and the impoverished. There is no reason why we cannot improve upon these pre-existing programs (that have shown great success in many places)."
I understand the worry of Governmental involvement in religious institutions. But I also read what Obama said, and his program has much more oversight than people give him credit for.
July 6, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
And also, in case you didn't see above with hrebendorf, I was not talking about you with my comments. =)
July 5, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw that, thanks.
July 5, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liam,
I can't count the number of times I have agreed with your opinion -- of whatever. But the apprehension/bitterness (? -correct me if I am wrong) of your blanket condemnation of those who, according to you, will "reap what they have sown" is, I think, worthy of reconsideration.
What Bush/Cheney/Rove planted was a fertile seed of fear, which grew into a robust plant, which metamorphed into a national, spectral version of Audrey in the Little Shop of Horrors -- though their version of danger is not nearly so beguiling.
Coincident to these TPM discussions, I have been watching the HBO series about John Adams. And I am struck by the courage of our forefathers (and mothers) who were definitely afraid -- very afraid -- of British power.... and yet, spoke their minds, fearlessly, putting everything they held dear on the line, knowing full well that they had to be prepared to back it up with action.
The analogy, despite the mixed metaphors, is that we have come to fear the carniverous Republican machine which is so adept at spinning fiction from fact. But why is it that we fear it?
Is it because we are afraid to sign our own Declaration of Independence? No, because we've already done that by nominating Obama.
But, having done that, having put everything on the line, we want Obama, as our Washington, to be as resolute as he is strategic, in the face of our enemy... because, historically, it takes both characteristics to win.
July 5, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The other thing I'd like to put out there is, I'm not so sure Obama needs to make a bunch of risky moves right now. In many ways, he's (once again) reintroducing himself to a huge block of voters. If I were him, I'd play it safe (or at least safER than I did in the primary) until the Convention. After the Convention, I'd rip McCain a new one. That's when the true battle is going to start between them. Once the Conventions are over, the VPs are chosen, the debates start.
July 5, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well.... Lucky for me, I've just had a week to walk and ponder why Obama's campaign had lost its energy, why the public has become so blase. I twisted the possibilities like an 11-D Rubik's cube, and only one solid-sided conclusion surfaced. Shocked, I turned to my Handy-Dandy (TM) GPS-tracker, seeking empirical confirmation of the source of the energy loss.
It was Ripper.
Oh yeah. Oil too. Ripper done that on Sunday last.
Just, you know, FYI.
July 6, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to worry. Next Friday I will turn back time and fix everything that has gone awry.
July 6, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
As those who have made a point of reading my posts on this and related matters, I'm very much conflicted here, with two opposite thoughts buzzing around in my head.
I've been very critical of Obama caving on FISA. His other "caves" not so much.
I started to think that he may have created an opening for McCain to attack him as a flip-flopper, which he might not have been able to do had he not.
But I also have developed a sense that it is wrong to underestimate Barack Obama. It occurs to me that there is an opportunity for some "jiu-jitsu" or "rope-a-dope" going on here. I have no idea whether this is the plan of Obama and his advisors but they'd be well advised to consider it:
I start with the fact that McCain has endlessly flip-flopped with minimal fallout in terms of MSM criticism. They have protected him with a very thick layer of Teflon and are often referred to by those in the know as McCain's base.
It should be a good issue for Obama but the MSM isn't letting it become one. Media Matters and other such outlets are free to criticize them, but this doesn't have much effect. If the Obama campaign complains about this, it will be painted as whining.
However, if the McCain camp reaches too far, it opens itself up for a very powerful counterpunch. It lets Obama can more legitimately hit back with a scathing attack on McCain's flipflops.
As I said, I don't know if this is the Obama campaign's intent, but it might not be such a bad strategy.
July 6, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment