Ok, I was impressed by Obama's speech to the conference of Mayors posted here recently. Not a bad speech. But, hmmmm, there have been a string of disappointments out of the Obama campaign recently. To me, the most significant was his turn around on public financing. Sorry, I get all the arguments about practicality, but taking huge money from big donors is taking huge money from donors. Period. I am also pretty concerned about the "guilt by association," "gotcha" baloney the Obama campaign has embraced with respect to the comments by McCain's campaign advisor who said that McCain's campaign would stand to benefit if there were another attack on the U.S. Would anyone here argue that Black's statement isn't at least a viable perspective, if not definitively true? One of the main reasons I supported Obama over Clinton was the tendency of his campaign to eschew such bullshit. There are certainly other problematic statements coming form Obama lately, from his opposition to the recent SC ruling that banned capital punishment in the child rape case, to his views on the telecom immunity issue. Are others getting that feeling in the pit of their stomach, or is this just another example of my tendency towards buyer's remorse?
Uh, am I the only one around here feeling a bit queasy?
Submitted by D.E. II on Thu, 06/26/2008 - 3:32pm.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
We will be voting for lesser evils for a long time
until and unless: a) Kansans and others start voting their true self-interests; b) politicians believe that people will really vote their self-interests, and c) enough politicians begin winning without corporate support. In other words, I don't believe movement politicians will achieve real power in the lifetime of my children . . . maybe though, their children.
However I think we are actually moving in the right -- that is left -- direction. There is a left institutional presence that's stronger than it's been in a long while, of which this site is a prime element. The right has gone too far, Obama should be elected, and the institutions of government will begin to move -- somewhat -- toward the interests of working people. That, hopefully, will get working people to believe, once again, that government can really help them, which, in turn, will help fuel a progressive revival. Without having to constantly defend everything that's been achieved since the New Deal, all of us can focus on agitating for what will actually move us forward.
But just to get to a place where we're not fearing for the fate of democracy, we're going to have to swallow a lot. And that will be the test, in my view, of the maturity of the emerging left.
I agree. Stan
I agree with you so much, I posted my response twice.
I agree. Stan
I'm not saying that it's anywhere near close to a situation where I won't vote for Obama. But I am disappointed. He seems to be moving to the right on a lot of issues (just heard a disturbing report on NPR about that issue).
Analysis: Obama Edging Toward Center: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91955621
It actually doesn't get easier
voting for the lesser of evils the more you do it. But you still have to do it. The alternatives are just so much worse.
We all knew Obama would move to center during the general electi
Stan, that’s very well put.
We all knew that Obama would move to the center during the general election.
When I read the headlines on Obama’s opposition to the Supreme Court decision re. capital punishment for child rape, I felt sick. When I read Obama’s carefully worded, nuanced statement I felt a little better. After thinking about it a bit, I came to conclusion Obama cannot afford to give McCain an opportunity to run an ad painting Obama as soft on child rape.
Same thing for FISA vote. First disappointment, then feeling a (very) little bit better when I read Obama’s statement, and then realization that he can’t
give McCain any excuse to run ads that he’s weak on national security.
Then campaign finance reform: I can forgive him for opting out of public financing for 2 reasons. First the obvious one: he needs the resources to counter the onslaught of vicious attacks we know are coming.
Second, the big story of this campaign is the way Obama has brought so many small donors into the process--1.5 million with 95% giving under 200. The American people are finally beginning to make regular political contributions as they have historically made regular contributions to religious organizations. For the first time, I have become guardedly optimistic about the potential to wrest control of Democratic Party from corporate interests.
BTW, if you're thinking about giving a donation to Obama in the near future, do it by June 30. Obama reported one of his lowest fundraising totals in May; unfortunately, it was a good month for McCain.
The Obama campaign is really anxious to get those fundraising totals up; they’re offering a free Obama T-shirt to anyone who donates $30 or more before June 30.
https://donate.barackobama.com/logotshirt
"Terrorist attack"
I don't see pointing out the implication of the statement as particularly opportunistic. The aide was speaking the truth. The Republicans benefit from a politics of fear and a terrorist attack would help them move the debate to being about McCain's perceived "toughness" as a war hero, rather than the issues. It is interesting because the aide said precisely what is usually unsaid but understood.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
I think tone is the issue
The problem I think most people had with Black's statements was its cravenness: Benazir Bhutto's assassination helped McCain win the nomination, and another terrorist attack would be "a big advantage to" McCain.
Let's imagine a similar scenario with the proper names reversed. Let's suppose that Iraq falls into unmitigated chaos again, for whatever reason. This would hurt John McCain, who as a proponent of the surge has been able to claim a lot of credit for decreasing violence there, and would help Barack Obama and the Dems, who have generally benefited from American dissatisfaction with the war. If, let's say, Samantha Power (back when she worked with Obama) had given an interview and said that "an outbreak of violence in Iraq would be a big advantage to Obama" -- quite probably a true statement, or at least as likely true that a terrorist attack would benefit McCain -- Americans and political pundits would flip out, and Republicans would never let it go that Obama was rooting against the troops and for the terrorists in Iraq. And while it would most likely be an overreaction, they'd be right to be upset about it, because it would sound craven and mercenary in the light of death and bloodshed.
But this is my whole point
When Jeremiah Wright said things that are essentially true but impolitic, did you think it appropriate that "outraged" Americans and pundits held Obama responsible? In the scenario you describe, I'm sure that Obama supporters would say that Power's statements were true, and in no way suggested that she wanted Iraq to fall into unmitigated chaos. The charge that Dems want things to go badly in Iraq is made all the time. Do you have no problem with it when such charges are made? Do you think that Black was saying that he wanted there to be a terrorist attack on the U.S? I don't think so. I think he was only stating something that most folks think is true - and that making an issue out of it is playing politics at the most inane level. Obama's campaign can't control whether Fox News is going to focus on issues such as these, but they can choose to stay above the fray. I think the "outrage" expressed by Obama's campaign about his statements is completely "faux" outrage - aimed at taking political advantage without consideration of merit.
Seriously, this is bullshit. I've seen evidence of a more adult campaign from Obama than I've ever seen from a presidential candidate. It's disappointing to me that there are signs that he's going to climb into the gutter and run more along the lines of politics as usual.
Out of curiosity
What did Wright say that was "true but impolitic"? Most of what he said either wasn't true ("the government invented the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color") or was impolitic but neither true nor false ("God damn America"). The closest thing I can think of is, "Barack is a politician, I'm a pastor" -- a statement that you can read (and was read) so many different ways.
The bigger difference is that Jeremiah Wright didn't work for Obama's campaign, nor did he or Obama ever claim that Wright was speaking for Obama. Nor did Wright ever say, "the government is out to get black people -- and that's good for me and Obama."
--Tim
How about the chickens coming home to roost?
For just one. We can quibble about the details, or try to come up with the perfect analogy, but I'm trying to discuss a larger point: whether engaging in this kind of faux outrage for political advantage should be part of politics, and more specifically whether it should be part of Obama's campaign. Again, do you think that Black was saying that he wanted there to be another attack so that McCain would win? Do you think that anyone in Obama's campaign was authentically outraged by Black's comment? Pointing out the distinction that Wright didn't work for Obama's campaign seems to me to be getting caught up in details about the analogy. Let's take Power's statement about Clinton. Have you heard her explanation of how that went down? I assume you're aware of her history as a scholar: Do you really think that her impolitic statement was really of any meaningful significance, and something really reflective of anything significant about Obama's campaign?
Pt by pt
First, "chickens coming home to roost" is sort of a claim about cosmic justice, which empirically again is neither true nor false. Bad stuff the US does in the world? Absolutely. That 9/11 was somehow punishment for that? There's maybe an argument about arming jihadists in Afghanistan, setting up bases in Saudi Arabia, etc., to be made that the U.S.'s actions abroad helped set the stage for what happened on 9/11. But Wright didn't go there, and divine punishment, I just don't see it. And still, Jeremiah Wright never said "and this is why this is a good thing for us." It's a call for moral self-examination, and against idolatry.
Second, I think Power's actual comments about foreign policy (I'll leave the "monster" bit alone, which I think was a slip-up) were true, innocuous, and politically inconvenient for Obama. Power said that any plan to withdraw troops would have to be modified based on conditions on the ground in Iraq. The Clintonites used this as "proof" that Obama wasn't really serious about withdrawing troops at all. In short, bad things in Iraq would be bad for American troops and bad for Obama politically because he would have to delay withdrawing troops on the schedule promised. Not, bad things happening in the world = good for the Republican candidate. (I like Samantha Power, and I hope she still might play a role in the Obama admin.)
I haven't seen outrage from the Obama camp about Charlie Black as much as sincere criticism of the McCain candidacy as one so bereft of ideas and appeal that it has to hope for a terrorist attack to scare Americans into voting for the "tough" guy. If you can find examples of people from the Obama campaign pushing this as anything else, I'd be happy to see it.
As for criticisms of Obama, it's more worthwhile to discuss the substantive stuff rather than the political ping-pong of who said what. I disagree about opting out of public financing, but I think it's a legitimate issue. Likewise, his statement that not only was his rhetoric on Nafta "overheated" but that he's no longer interested in renegotiating the treaty (!) is really surprising. I am not a fan of the death penalty, but I am not certain whether only capital punishment for specific crimes can be constitutional (neither is Obama). And likewise, promoting a policy of regionally-based regulation and gun control short of an outright handgun ban, which is the same approach Howard Dean offered in 2004, is reasonable and might be a way out of the mess we're in.
In short, none of Obama's "shifts to the center" are deal-breakers for me; they all seem like smart efforts at compromise that don't abandon any core liberal values. The NAFTA turnaround to me feels the sharpest, the least justifiable, and the most disappointing; but ultimately, I don't really think that NAFTA is the major culprit behind the decline of blue-collar jobs in this country, and there are plenty of other ways that we can make ourselves competitive and use that market to their advantage.
sort of point by point
I don't think the "chickens" comment was simply a comment about cosmic justice, but more that it was indicating that there are negative ramifications to militaristic and imperialistic U.S. foreign policy. And in that intepretation, I think his "chickens" comment was just true.
Your interpretation of Black saying "this is a good thing for us," is, I think, a willful misinterpretation. I don't interpret his statement as meaning he felt was an attack would be "good" in the sense of desireable, only the it would have a beneficial impact on McCain's electoral chances. Do you really think he was saying that he would prefer that there would be an attack? If anyone thinks that Black really meant that an attack on the U.S. was desirable, then "outrage" would be reasonable.
I was referring to Power's "monster" statement. It was a statement made in a particular context, and willfully misconstrued to political advantage at the expense of focusing on the more substantive aspects of Power's significance to Obama's campaign.
Ok, enough on that - because it isn't really the issue either of us consider to be the most important. As stated above, none of Obama's "shift to the center" are deal-breakers for me either. Ironically, the NAFTA issue is the one I find the least disturbing, because I felt all along that his anti-NAFTA stance was a simplistic rhetoric designed to fight Clinton in a very specific arena, and not really the product of a well-developed policy. It's hard for me to understand how anyone could see Obama's statements about the capital punishment decision as being consistent with "progressivism," or even liberalism. And I can't imagine how you think the recent Supreme Court decision improves the chances for regionally-based gun control short of a handgun ban; I see it as signficantly reducing the liklihood of that happening. I'm also disturbed that he seems to be backpedaling on corporate taxes and capital gains taxes. But to the larger point: I find the direction of his shift on a number of issues to be disturbing. I still hold out hope that he won't be a "Democrat" in the same fashion as Mr. Clinton, but am increasingly less secure that he will be.
What still seems most positive to me is that I haven't seen any reduction in his campaign's focus on bringing in disaffected voters. If he focuses his campaign rhetoric more on "swing-voters," I find that disturbing, but not a fatal flaw. If his focus on swing-voters means, given limited resources, less of a focus on those disaffected voters, it may become fatal. To some degree, I think that's happened already with respect to economic policies. Lightening his rhetoric on capital gains taxes does mean that he's willing to turn away from economic policies which are vital to Democrats distinguishing themselves from Republicans. But if he keeps up his efforts at bringing in new voters, I'm willing to trust that the added political pressure from a more diverse constituency will guide him to persue economic policies that aren't crafted to benefit the wealthy.
"faux outrage"
Had we not been so desensitized by the last 8 years of Bush-Cheney, Black's statement would be patently outrageoues. The fact that you now label Obama's reaction as "faux outrage" shows how much the left has neutered itself in response to Republican demagoguery.
The fact that one of our two national parties has positioned itself to benefit from the fear of terrorism is outrageous. The fact that it is very clear that the Republican party is willing to sacrifice the lives and bodies of American soldiers to obtain an edge in electoral politics is outrageous.
The only thing that I find outrageous about Obama's statement is that it took 7 years for a Democrat to call out the Republican's strategy for what it is - outrageous.
To the "outrageous" criticism, I'd also add that Black's statment demonstrates that Republican leaders are morally bankrupt and serves as an indictment of our entire political system.
A question, DeWitt
Do you think that there is any plausability to the notion that if there were an attack on the U.S., it would work to McCain's advantage? I do. I'll say it right now: I think that if there were an attack on the U.S., it would work to McCain's advantage. Does that make me morally bankrupt?
It is outrageous precisely
It is outrageous precisely because the statement is true.
And it is outrageous because the Republicans are now so morally bankrupt that they feel no shame in speaking publicly about their core national strategy that up until now was self-evident. At least previously, they had the shred of decency to maintain a facade to hide the fact that they have led this country to war for no other reason than electoral advantage.
And it's outrageous that the left has become so desensitized to the Republican's craven politicization of "terror" that we criticize our candidate for calling out the Republicans for following an electoral strategy that is based upon fear mongering and that has resulted in far more death and carnage than any possible terrorist threat they could possibly be protecting us from.
"October Surprise" and intentionallity
Its a phrase thats pretty much entered the American political lexicon for good. Folks on the right and left feel free to use it for any strategic unveiling or shift in policy to tip a presidential election. Nonetheless its based on a "conspiracy theory" - that Oliver North's decision to break the law and conduct secret arms sales to Iran to raise funds illegally for the Contras in Nicauragua was also intentionally involved with manipulating the timing of the Iran-hostage negotiations to sink Carter once and for all.
Its interesting to note for example that there are seperate entries in wikipedia for "October Surprise" as a concept and "the October Surprise conspiracy". Meanwhile no less than Gary Hart opined that Bush would preemptively attack Iran to trigger a groundswell of patriotism to deliver an "October Surprise" for Congressional Republicans in 2006. And the ravingly racist branch of the right keep insisting that there will a different kind of "October Surprise" to prove their deeply held suspicions that Barrack Obama really wants to enslave "whitey".
My point is is there are lots of different ways to realize that lots of Republicans believe that (1.) the reason the release of the hostages was timed as it was derives from the election of Ronald Reagan (R's "tougher" attitude just gets results) and (2.) some who gleefully are quite happy to concede that the causality might have gone the other way - but don't care. Rumsfield famously wrote in his notes that 9/11 might provide a chance to "sweep up" Saddam Hussein, related or not. Black noting political opportunity is not wishing it but it does give a window into how McCain's supporters think of "The War on Terror".
I think it would a terrible mistake if the Obama campaign had made a big deal of suggesting the (2) latter sort of interpretation of Black's comments. But they didn't. However just pointing out the (1) former sort of interprepetation of Black's comment is possible is to me both fair game and "adult". I'm quite sure thats what Obama's folks did and beyond all that to be brutally frank I think this thread has outlived the timeliness of the story of Black's comments by three or four fold at this point. Its possible that the only people still really talking about this much might be on this thread.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Obama on Gays and Faith
Obama isn't flip-flopping on gay rights:
It's worth comparing/contrasting this letter with this article:
There may very well be room, especially among younger evangelicals, to separate gay equality under the law from faith -- and if that can be done, it can remake the electoral map. Let's see if Obama can pull this off.
Kind of shocking, tcarmody
In reading the quote in your comment above, I thought that maybe it was carefully so that Obama could avoid saying that he is against same-sex marriage. Then I thought, nah, I'm just being too skeptical; when someone says: "I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law," it must mean that they support equality under the law, right? Lo and behold, I read today that actually Obama agrees with McCain, and opposes same-sex marriage.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25555532/
Huh? I'm confused.
I get that some people can make a well-reasoned argument as to why same-sex marriage is an issue that can complicate electoral politics for a questionable benefit. Is "marriage" really that important if un-"married" partners can enjoy the same benefits as married partners? As someone that has a lot of doubts about the institution of marriage, at a personal level I'm fairly indifferent - although I feel that not being in favor of same-sex marriage is equal to discrimination at some level.
But first of all, it is one thing for Obama to say that he doesn't think the cost/benefit ratio merits battling it out on that issue and it is another thing entirely to say that you're against same-sex marriage on the merits of the issue. What, actually, is Obama's position? Secondly, if he's against same-sex marriage based on some ideological reasoning, then he should be more honest than to say that he wants the nation to grant full equality under the law.
Well
Since none of the "likely" candidates for Dem nominee supported gay marriage, although there are internal contradictions, I would assume that a candidate who strongly articulates an "equality under the law" argument for civil unions while officially not supporting marriage- is merely an um "strategic" politician. He would appear to be saying he's a strong supporter of the idea of civil unions but that "marriage" is not something someone hoping to actually win states in the South and the middle of the country would say. It is what it is.
As a national politician he can and should (and does) articulate opposition to discriminatroy national legislation while letting states decide whether they call it "marriage" or "civil unions" (and yes I realize there are differences both real and symbollic) on a state-by-state basis. You can support the legacy of Loving-vs.-Virgina without taking away a state's right to decide what the legal age limit for marriage is or how each state's divorce law works in terms of dividing property. Basically either Obama is on this issue a clever, calculating politician or a thoughtful Constitutional scholar respectful of "state's rights" but the smart money is on the former despite being a former lecturer on Constitutional Law.
Just curious every Dem nominee or candidate of note since before Bill Clinton has opposed gay marriage, why is Obama held to a different bar for (in)consistancy than all the others for articulating a notably slightly stronger position of opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act and DADT?
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
One the one hand
I, at least, am not holding Obama to a standard any higher than what I'd use for any Dem presidential nominee. I'd criticize any other nominee who took a similar "nuanced" position on this issue.
On the other hand, since Obama has run on a rhetoric of being a different kind of politics, I do expect him to be more straightforward on issues. I think arguing that this is a state's right issue, as Obama has, is a viable perspective. But then how is that consistent with his opposition to efforts in California to pass a state amendment banning same-sex marriage?
He was against repeal of the "Defense of Marriage Act," and then switched to saying he would work to repeal it - which would then undermine his own state's rights argument because it would force states that don't recognize same-sex marriage to recognize marriages from states that do.
And then there's this quote:
Ugh.
That all suggests to me that, as you suggested, he's being a "calculating politician." I'm expecting better.