In a general election, candidates always ‘tack away’ from the left or the right. It’s always mildly irritating to the bases of the two major parties. There is always some grumbling about it, and there are always news articles praising the candidates for their boldness and independence and political savvy in crapping on the people that just got them the nomination of their respective parties. The news articles are actually the part of it that I find annoying. The rest of it is just by-the-book politics, and I don’t really mind.
The Hill produced one of these articles this morning. It fits the genre perfectly. It’s lazy and sloppy and it misdiagnoses the problem Obama has created with his base. It mentions Obama’s Father’s Day speech in Chicago, where he called on young men (especially) in the black community to act like men and not boys and be fathers to their children. The speech was widely praised by Obama’s base and the black community, but the article makes it seem like a bold slap in the face. It mentions that Obama is running advertisements in Alaska and Montana that hit on Republican themes of patriotism and personal responsibility, as if this too is some kind of distancing from his base. In truth, his base has been extremely enthusiastic about Obama’s willingness to compete in all 50 states. Here’s old artilleryman Markos Moulitsas from last Thursday:
I see this first salvo as spotting rounds. If we see positive movement in places like Alaska and Montana, we may see the campaign fire for effect.
Let’s hope so. McCain doesn’t have anywhere near the resources to fight this war on such a wide front. Their best hope is for a traditional Ohio-Florida campaign to develop. Then, they concentrate their resources on those two states. But Alaska? Republicans can’t afford to see states like Alaska become seriously contested.
It’s a myth that Obama’s base opposes running ads in Alaska and Montana that project his love of country and desire to see people take responsibility for their lives. We don’t like to have our candidates’ patriotism questioned or to have their belief system distorted. We wish John Kerry had done a better job defending himself on those issues.
The Hill article conflates these non-issues with the big one, which is Obama’s refusal to keep his promise to filibuster any FISA bill that includes retroactive immunity. On that one issue, Obama really is tacking away from the left (and the libertarian right). But even that isn’t quite accurate. Opposition to the current FISA bill is a mainstream Democratic position, as evidenced by the fact that 128 Democratic House members voted against it and only 105 members voted for it. Obama isn’t tacking away from the left of the Democrat Party so much as he is actively pandering to the right.
Also, the two sources for this article are about the worst possible. Chris Lehane was Al Gore’s attack dog and is one of the biggest weasels I’ve ever encountered on the Democratic sides of politics. While Tad Levine was Kerry’s attack dog and was wholly ineffective. Neither of them are serving in any official capacity for the Obama campaign, which may be why they are so eager to spout off their centrist mouths and praise Obama for annoying the left. He’s not annoying the left over anything but the FISA bill. And that is where the focus should be. No one cares about adjustments Obama makes to his Social Security plan or shifts in his advertising strategy. The FISA bill is a big concern because it redefines the government’s right to spy on U.S. citizens and it kills any investigation into crimes committed by the Bush administration. Once the bill becomes law there are permanent losses in privacy and sunlight that can’t be or are unlikely to be legislated back into existence.
We’re serious about opposing the FISA law. The rest of it? That’s just politics.
I think Obama has a problem with some in the black community.
I was talking to a black friend this weekend about FISA, and he didn’t know anything about it. Until I started to tell him how the Democrats and Obama are going to let Bush spy on Americans like Hoover and Nixon did to MLK and the other black civil rights leaders. That really got his attention. And he told me how in the hip hop community there are a number of people that are concerned with government spying and how some artists have been investigated by the government and spied on. He is someone that votes independent but has been very excited about Obama.
Then combine the spying with the fact that Obama is turning his back on his church, which a lot of black folks may interpret as Obama turning his back on black churches in general. The speech to deadbeat black dads will also have a subtle effect of Obama trying to appear acceptable to whites.
These are definitely areas of weakness for Obama and if I were trying to defeat Obama I would exploit these to turn away the black vote. If I were the GOP I would run the MLK/spying ads that Greenwald’s group is running but with hip hop and rap artists and targeting Obama instead of Hoyer.
I know you think that the black community expects the first black president to act white, and won’t be concerned with Obama’s approach. But there are definitely some that will consider him a turncoat and others that will not be as excited as they were initially.
Interesting… but I’m instantly skeptical of “the black community”, as well as your one friend’s ability to speak for mainstream African-American in this country. My black friend liked the father’s day speak. Maybe our black friends can have a debate.
oops! speak-> speech.
And I’m sorry if I sound cranky… FISA makes me cranky, as does lack of sleep.
I don’t claim to speak for the black community and I don’t hold my friend out to be a representative of the black community.
I just mention it because I didn’t know that artists in the hip hop or rap community were politically active about the wiretapping issue. I’m interested in learning more; I’m not interested in telling you what that community is like.
I’m also wondering if Obama will have some problems with black voters. Heretofore he hasn’t. Things can change as voters get to know Obama.
Literally leaving his church because white people think its too radical (read, black) will not help him.
And maybe young black voters won’t like the fact Obama is enabling the government to go after musicians Bush and Cheney don’t like.
I wrote this in January 2008:
A pint of your favorite beer says I’m right. No, let’s make it a case.
Maybe more worrisome, is Obama’s tack to the right on Iran. Parts of his speech to AIPAC would make his cousin, Dick Cheney, proud. He said, “As president I will use all elements of American power to pressure Iran…I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything.”
On the Middle East too, he is moving to the right, pandering to the hardliners, as he pandered on FISA. If Israel or the U.S. does strike against Iran before the next president takes office, it will be nearly impossible for Obama, if he is elected, to walk the U.S. back from the precipice with promises such as these. After an attack and the reaction, and the reaction to the reaction, what would Obama do?
This is not an idle question. Olmert, at least, is under the firm impression that Bush plans to take decisive action before he leaves office. After meeting with Bush in Israel, he said, “George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it and intends to act on the matter before the end of his term in the White House.” Olmert, at least, has no doubt about a confrontation with Iran.
Obama also said at AIPAC:
“… There is no greater threat to Israel or peace than Iran… This audience is made up of both Republicans and Democrats. And the enemies of Israel should have no doubt that regardless of party, Americans stand shoulder to shoulder in support of Israel’s security. … The Iran regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and … its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. … My goal will be to eliminate this threat.”
Obama’s new hard line rhetoric on the Middle East appears to signal a major foreign policy shift, if we are to take him at his word. If he didn’t mean what he was saying in the speech, and this is mere rhetoric, he is still painting himself into a corner should the Bush administration launch a preemptive strike. How can he now stand in principled opposition? Answer: he can’t. And it would appear that he does not intend to try, should a strike be launched and another war begun. The dye is cast.
I have no problem with Obama using EVERY option to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. As long as he doesn’t manufacture such a threat when none exists. Also, if there is a threat or one comes into being, I trust him to use a measured set of escalating responses instead of jumping into war directly like Bush.
Since the NIE states that Iran closed down its program to pursue nuclear weapons in 2003, I don’t understand people who don’t have a problem with our leaders making statements that imply the opposite. Why would anyone interested in pursuing peaceful solutions, want to speak about using “Every” means to combat some hypothetical they have absolutely no evidence for.
This type of speech is pandering and it misleads the American people. Frankly, I expected better of Obama, even given the enormous pressure he has been under to allay fears of Jewish-American voters. He can do that, in my opinion, without using language which leaves the impression there is no daylight between his position and the hardliners in the U.S. and Israel. I trust Jewish voters to discern that he supports Israel, by simply saying just that, without all the chest-beating over Iran. The language I referenced in my comment above is inflammatory — it is being translated and read throughout the Middle East, as their media is following our Presidential campaign carefully. They probably feel dispirited reading the hyperbole in Obama’s speech. I know that’s how I felt.
Not sure it’s not more of a case of identity crisis on the part of the Base. Sensory overload of just so many crises piling on is forcing the base to chase its own tail, so how does Obama or any candidate step in to cull through this and tell them what to care about???
So, I don’t think this cycle is as much about candidate movement as it’s about base movement.
Muslim Voters Detect a Snub From Obama – NYTimes.com
That whole Obama-is-a-Muslim thing just makes me want to hit somebody. Another constructive path pre-emptively foreclosed by the fearmongers.
Muslims feel more comfortable with “Islam=Fascism” McCain?
I doubt it. Still, it is sad that the candidate who seemed to offer so much hope that he would be able to bring us all together has had to so thoroughly disappoint them. I think that says more about what our political dialog has become, what the neocons and the Repugs have made of it, than it does about Obama.