I Believe Obama


One of my rules of analysis is that I believe people when they tell me who they are. That doesn't mean I believe everything they say - I never believed Bush was a moderate, for example, because I believed what he told me when he refused to correct obviously false budget numbers. His budget plan spent the surplus twice, and I believed that's what he would do. And, needless to say, I was right (well sort of, he spent even more than that, but you get the point.)

People tell you who they are all the time, all you have to do is listen, separate out the noise intended to distract you, and then believe them. Bush's record of failure at everything he did, for exmaple, was clear. His slurring of words and inability to talk coherently was clear. His code-speaking to the Christian right was clear. All these things were there to see in 2000.

So, let's talk about someone else. Obama. I've been listening to Obama and I've been hearing what he has to say. He's been pretty hostile to the netroots, contemptuous and dismissive, and I've heard that and I believe it. Obama is telling me he has no respect for the sort of people who make up the netroots. I think he's sincere - I don't think it's "just" a tactical move. He genuinely dislikes people getting worked up over issues. It makes him uncomfortable. He wants everything and everyone to be "nice". I believe him when his words and actions tell me that, just as when he backed down from McCain when McCain unfairly attacked him, I believed what that told me about his spine and about the fact that he prefers peace to conflict, even when he's in the right. I believe him when he says he admires John McCain and that he admires Joe Lieberman and I understand what that says about him (because, of course, if you actually follow McCain and Lieberman you know they aren't even close to men of their word. And Obama knows that.)

Obama has told me who he is, and I have listened. If he gets into power he will compromise/compromise/compromise, because he believes in it - not as a means, but as an end. He will shy away from big fights, because he doesn't like fighting. He may "believe" in universal healthcare, but he believes in compromise more. And I'm betting I know which belief will win out.

I'm sure many will disagree, but when people tell me who they are I listen. Obama has spoken, I've listened, and since I don't believe that compromise is an end rather than just a means, he's not the person I think should be president.


Ian Welsh December 5, 2006 - 6:39pm

He's been the 99th Senator (in terms of seniority) in the minority party for less than two years. Prior to that he was an Illinois state senator for two years.

The last Democrat to be elected president while a member of the U.S. Senate was JFK, who held that seat for two terms. Prior to that he was a three-term U.S. Representative. Prior to that he commanded a PT boat in the Pacific theatre.

When Obama has anything approaching Kennedy's resume, and when he can convince me why he ought to be President, I'll listen. "Being Nice" isn't enough. I'd prefer a tough but fair sumbitch.

If he's really serious about running for president, he should get himself elected Governor of Illinois first.


"If you can’t trust a Methodist with absolute power to arrest people and
not have to say why, then whom can you trust?" - Garrison Keillor

Rick December 5, 2006 - 9:33pm

The birth of a Washington machine

Posted on Wednesday, December 6, 2006. Originally from November 2006. By Ken Silverstein.

In July, on a typically oppressive summer day in Washington, D.C., roughly a thousand college students from across the country gathered at a Marriott hotel with plans to change the world... Around noon, conference participants began filing into the auditorium; activists staffing the literature booths abandoned their posts to take seats inside as well. The crowd, and the excitement, building in the hall was due entirely to the imminent arrival of the keynote speaker: Illinois Senator Barack Obama...

... Obama approached the podium, flanked by two giant screens enlarging his image, and began a softly spoken but compelling speech that recalled his own days, after his graduation in 1983 from Columbia University, as a community organizer in poor neighborhoods of Chicago. “You’ll have boundless opportunities when you graduate,” he told the students, “and it’s very easy to just take that diploma, forget about all this progressive-politics stuff, and go chasing after the big house and the large salary and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should buy. But I hope you don’t get off that easy. There’s nothing wrong with making money, but focusing your life solely on making a buck shows a poverty of ambition.”...

... Despite its audience and ostensible subject matter, however, Obama’s speech had contained just a single call for political action. This was when he had introduced Mark Pike, a law student who then came bounding across the stage in a green one-piece mechanic’s outfit. As part of a campaign called “Kick the Oil Habit,” Pike was to depart directly from the conference and drive from Washington to Los Angeles in a “flex-fuel” vehicle. “Give it up for Mark!” Obama had urged the crowd, noting that Pike would be refueling only at gas stations that offer E85—which Obama touts as “a clean, renewable, and domestically produced alternative fuel.”

Although the senator did not elaborate, E85 is so called because it is 85 percent ethanol, a product whose profits accrue to a small group of corporate corn growers led by Illinois-headquartered Archer Daniels Midland. Not surprisingly, agribusiness is a primary advocate of E85, as are such automobile manufacturers as Ford, which donated Pike’s car. The automakers love E85 because it allows them to look environmentally correct (“Live Green, Go Yellow,” goes GM’s advertising pitch for the fuel) while producing vehicles, mostly highly profitable and fuel-guzzling SUV and pickup models, that can run on regular gasoline as well as on E85. [1] Obama had essentially marshaled his twenty minutes of undeniably moving oratory to plump for the classic pork-barrel cause of every Midwestern politician.

* * *

(...)

Since coming to Washington, Obama has advocated for the poor, most notably in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and has emerged as a champion of clean government. He has fought for restrictions on lobbying, even as most of his fellow Democrats postured on the issue while quietly seeking to gut real reform initiatives. In mid-September, Congress approved a bill he co-authored with Oklahoma’s arch-conservative senator, Tom Coburn, requiring all federal contracts and earmarks to be published in an Internet database, a step that will better allow citizens to track the way the government spends their money.

Yet it is also startling to see how quickly Obama’s senatorship has been woven into the web of institutionalized influence-trading that afflicts official Washington. He quickly established a political machine funded and run by a standard Beltway group of lobbyists, P.R. consultants, and hangers-on. For the staff post of policy director he hired Karen Kornbluh, a senior aide to Robert Rubin when the latter, as head of the Treasury Department under Bill Clinton, was a chief advocate for NAFTA and other free-trade policies that decimated the nation’s manufacturing sector (and the organized labor wing of the Democratic Party). Obama’s top contributors are corporate law and lobbying firms (Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden, Arps, where four attorneys are fund-raisers for Obama as well as donors), Wall Street financial houses (Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase), and big Chicago interests (Henry Crown and Company, an investment firm that has stakes in industries ranging from telecommunications to defense). Obama immediately established a “leadership PAC,” a vehicle through which a member of Congress can contribute to other politicians’ campaigns—and one that political reform groups generally view as a slush fund through which congressional leaders can evade campaign-finance rules while raising their own political profiles.

Already considered a potential vice-presidential nominee in 2008, Obama clearly has abundant political ambitions. Hence he is playing not only to voters in Illinois—a reliably Democratic and generally liberal state—but to the broader national audience, as well as to the Democratic Party establishment, the Washington media, and large political donors. Perhaps for this reason, Obama has taken an approach to his policymaking that is notably cautious and nonconfrontational. “Since the founding, the American political tradition has been reformist, not revolutionary,” he told me during an interview at his office on Capitol Hill this summer. “What that means is that for a political leader to get things done, he or she ideally should be ahead of the curve, but not too far ahead. I want to push the envelope but make sure I have enough folks with me that I’m not rendered politically impotent.”

The question, though, is just how effective—let alone reformist—Obama’s approach can be in a Washington grown hostile to reform and those who advocate it. After a quarter century when the Democratic Party to which he belongs has moved steadily to the right, and the political system in general has become thoroughly dominated by the corporate perspective, the first requirement of electoral success is now the ability to raise staggering sums of money. For Barack Obama, this means that mounting a successful career, especially one that may include a run for the presidency, cannot even be attempted without the kind of compromising and horse trading that may, in fact, render him impotent.

(...)

( ... Link ... )

Escher Sketch December 6, 2006 - 4:23pm

behind Obama brings to mind American Idol: young politicians version. Shallow thougths, charisma and good looking a plus. ;)

Tina December 6, 2006 - 4:41pm

coming out of nowhere in the last few years brings to my suspicious mind the idea of a lot of stealth money, in forms like quiet paid product placement and viral marketing.

I always wonder this: the GOP is full of politicians that "reflected the values" of gullible right-wing religious voters, using code words and dog-whistle propaganda designed only to achieve power. What would the left's similarly-well-done equivalent look like?

What you need in government is accountability and transparency and integrity, not the outward and visible signs of agenda - no matter how confirmatory. Look for the people who consistently deliver that and shun the ones that don't.

Escher Sketch December 6, 2006 - 7:55pm

Make of it what you will. The link has images of both versions of the column side-by-side; highly amusing.

NY Post's Andrea Peyser Suckles, Slams Obama in Same Day

As a political columist for a right-wing tabloid, it's tough to know just which Democrat to hate on. The confusion revealed itself yesterday in the ramblings of New York Post columnist Andrea Peyser, who completely reversed her views on Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton from one edition of the paper to the next. That's right: Two different versions of the same column appeared in the paper on the same day—one supporting Obama, and the other slamming him.

Depending on which version of her rantings readers encountered, Peyser either praised the Illinois Senator and probable 2008 Democratic presidential candidate as a "rock star" who has admitted to coke and pot use ("About time," she said), or chided him as "The Rev. Al Obama."

Post owner Rupert Murdoch is a reliable Republican propagandist, but he has a pragmatic streak that sometimes cuts against his politics. Murdoch famously threw a fundraiser for Clinton and bestowed his paper's endorsement upon her for Senate, but the Post's marquee gossip column is unsparing when it comes to the Clintons' personal lives.

The later version of Peyser's column, which is featured on the Post's website, slams Obama as a lefty extremist with no chance of beating Hillary. Could it be that the only thing the Post's puppetmasters might fear more than another Clinton is a skinny kid with a funny name?

Among Peyser's noteworthy revisions:

[Read both versions of Peyer's column—and her explanation—after the jump!]

FIRST EDITION: "To most New Yorkers who've heard of the guy, Barack Obama is a presidential contender saddled with a 'Say what?' name. But to me, the senator from Illinois is a rock star with a megawatt smile who admits he inhaled. And liked it."

SECOND EDITION: "Barack Obama, the presidential contender with the 'Say What?' name and megawatt smile, came out last night to electrify New York. He stuck his finger in the socket instead."

(...)

UPDATE: One of the Peysers speaks: "The answer to your question is that no one told me or even suggested to me what to write. I wrote a first-edition column based on my impressions of Obama, then re-wrote it after a live, 8:30 p.m. event in which I got a chance to see and hear the man in person."

Comment from thread below article -

In response to Peysers' defense - How on earth did Obama giving a speech about poverty, education and the importance of dads cause her to change her opinion? And how on earth do those three items put him in the camp of Al Sharpton of all people? Was President Bush sounding like Al Sharpton when he gave a lecture about poverty, education and the importance of two parent families? (... link to Bush speech...). What a hack.
Posted by: bsmith | December 6, 2006 04:24 PM

( ... Link ... )

[Sure. She saw Obama give a speech on topics that were just like a previous Bush speech - and changed her mind so radically that the article went from Chatty Kathy to attack piece. And her editors obligingly let her change it between editions after it had already run in print.

Or she wrote the first one from one agenda, received a stern phone call, and rewrote the second one from a different agenda - ES)

Escher Sketch December 7, 2006 - 10:44am

I have been unimpressed with him too. I don't have the sophisticated analysis you do, but his refusal to fight with McCain made my opinion of him go down a lot.

Our virtues are usually only vices in disguise.

Aaron Dellutri December 8, 2006 - 3:06pm

I don't normally kiss ass .. in fact I usually challenge people and am not friendly ... but IAN WELSH is such a damn breath of fresh air I can't stand it! Thank you dude! Thank you! The world is such a depressing place but you are out there, a voice of sanity and reason, undeterred by all the idiocy around you. YOU ROCK!

Nominay December 9, 2006 - 7:30pm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.