All week I’ve been gnashing my teeth over what I saw as Obama’s rapid move to the center. Yesterday, I was down to my pin feathers. Overnight I reposed the question to myself that BooMan, our frog-in-chief, asked in response to one of my comments to his essay Keeping Things in Balance –
I wrote without reservation:
Idredit: “Barr is looking good”
BooMan:“Are you not concerned about losing?”
On reflection a few days later, Yes. I. dred.it.
So,
I’ve been doing a lot of reading….and, asking myself why did Obama pivot? I’m one of those who thought Obama, the politician, has to dance in the general election campaign with those who brought him to the dance. Is he being a shrewd, ruthless politician – one who abandons his base, the many volunteers who worked their hearts out for him to retire the Clintons? Obama promised us change and unambiguously said he’d pull our troops out of Iraq. And there’s the FISA telecom immunity issue.
Well, I’ve discovered we should read beyond the headlines. There’s a lot of lazy reporting being laid on our tables.
As this post by Arianna Huffington reveals, Opinions are all over the place.
Here are the persons who led me to shed my Chicken Little feathers:
During the howling and protests on Tuesday, July 1st, BooMan wrote, posted at 12:26:51 AM EST:
BooMan:
Can the Blogosphere Please Grow Up?
Barack Obama gave a speech today in Independence, Missouri. You can read the transcript here. It was another moving, excellent performance of the kind we’ve come to expect from Obama. Apparently, we now take it for granted that Obama will give a great speech, because we no longer give him any credit for them. He spoke of patriotism and of what it means to love this country. Here’s just one example:
“I believe those who attack America’s flaws without acknowledging the singular greatness of our ideals, and their proven capacity to inspire a better world, do not truly understand America.
Of course, precisely because America isn’t perfect, precisely because our ideals constantly demand more from us, patriotism can never be defined as loyalty to any particular leader or government or policy. As Mark Twain, that greatest of American satirists and proud son of Missouri, once wrote, “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” We may hope that our leaders and our government stand up for our ideals, and there are many times in our history when that’s occurred. But when our laws, our leaders or our government are out of alignment with our ideals, then the dissent of ordinary Americans may prove to be one of the truest expression of patriotism.”
If you missed it, please read the entire essay and the comments – get the flavor of how worked over we were and for some, still are.
Hours later Al Giordano offered Smart Dissent – seeing things clearly on Obama’s strategy to win the General Election. Giordano repeats essentially BooMan’s essay – Can the Blogosphere Please Grow Up? Giordano’s essay was posted July 1st, at 3:59 PM; regardless of time zones it’s quite likely he may have read BooMan’s post.
Nevertheless, Smart Dissent is also a MUST read:
Al Giordano: Smart Dissent.
“Please put aside 28 minutes and 22 seconds today to give your full attention to the video of that speech. And then, if you still feel this nominee is offering more of the same as previous nominees, come back here and make your case at least with the benefit of the full knowledge of what exactly was trampled upon during yesterday’s Chicken Little stampede.
Obama said:
“…it is worth considering the meaning of patriotism because the question of who is – or is not – a patriot all too often poisons our political debates, in ways that divide us rather than bringing us together. I have come to know this from my own experience on the campaign trail. Throughout my life, I have always taken my deep and abiding love for this country as a given. It was how I was raised; it is what propelled me into public service; it is why I am running for President. And yet, at certain times over the last sixteen months, I have found, for the first time, my patriotism challenged – at times as a result of my own carelessness, more often as a result of the desire by some to score political points and raise fears about who I am and what I stand for.
So let me say at this at outset of my remarks. I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. And I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine.”
That last turn of phrase received such great applause from the Missourians in that hall because most people understand that an early skirmish in the general election fight will determine to what extent Republican nominee John McCain – the former prisoner of war in Vietnam – will or will not have the elbow room to impugn Obama’s patriotism. McCain and his surrogates have tried to go there so far with limited success.
Those words put up a barrier around their ability to do so in deeper ways. Obama’s “I will not stand idly by” was a warning shot.
The people in the room got it. They know what is at stake in a depth that perhaps not every progressive pundit or blogger does.
I myself relate very intensely to the paradox, cited by Obama yesterday, that it is often the greatest patriots whose patriotism becomes questioned by lesser lights:
go read the whole thing
(emphasis added)
Here we are on Friday. This may cap the week that was.. what a whiplash!
In addition to mounting criticism on his FISA stand, Obama gave a thoughtful speech on Patriotism and he got bashed. Obama made a policy statement on Bush’s faith-based programs and it was reported he would expand the program. As it turned out, Obama said he would abolish Bush’s faith-based program calling it little more than photo-ops. Obama promised he would be replacing the Bush program with a Council on Faith. It did not help that the Matthew 25 Network began airing a pro-Obama message on Christian radio, Dobson’s home town included.
On Wednesday, Obama is said to have “revised, refined his policy on troop withdrawal from Iraq.” Seen as walking away from a promised troop withdrawal, Obama held a presser to amplify; which prompted Josh Marshall, to post this observation on the lazy journalism being served up:
Josh Marshall:
Please, Please, Reporters with Brains
I spent most of today in bed with some kind of nasty cold. So I only caught up on any news this evening. And I must confess to being little short of astounded by the avalanche of press BS I’m reading on Barack Obama’s position on Iraq.
The McCain camp seems to have a lot of reporters eating out of its hands since many journalists don’t appear to grasp the basic distinction between strategy and tactics. I’ve even had normally sensible journalist colleagues forwarding me RNC press releases like they’re passing on the revealed truth. McCain’s campaign actually put out a statement claiming that Obama “has now adopted John McCain’s position that we cannot risk the progress we have made in Iraq by beginning to withdraw our troops immediately without concern for conditions on the ground.”
I’ve watched this campaign unfold pretty closely. And I’ve listened to Obama’s position on Iraq. He’s been very clear through this year and last on the distinction between strategy and tactics. Presidents set the strategy — which in this context means the goal or the policy. And if the policy is a military one, a President will consult closely with his military advisors on the tactics used to execute the policy.
For the McCain campaign to put out a memo to reporters claiming that Obama has adopted McCain’s policy only shows that his advisors believe that a sizable percentage of the political press is made up of incorrigible morons. And it’s hard to disagree with the judgment.
The simple truth is that this campaign offers a very clear cut choice on Iraq. One candidate believes that the US occupation of Iraq is the solution; the other thinks it’s the problem. John McCain supports the permanent deployment of US troops in Iraq. That is why his hundred years remark isn’t some gotcha line.
It’s a clear statement of his policy. Obama supports a deliberate and orderly withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. It’s a completely different view of America’s role in the world and future in the Middle East.
Reporters who can’t grasp what Obama is saying seem simply to have been permanently befuddled by George W. Bush’s game-playing over delegating policy to commanders.
More examples of lazy, biased journalism:
WSJ editorial paints Obama as Bush’s ideological heir
The truth be told. Charles Krauthammer, via Andrew Sullivan, plucked all my remaining feathers. Andrew Sullivan observes that Krauthammer is in panic. Big Time.
Krauthammer: A Man of Seasonal Principles
You’ll notice Barack Obama is now wearing a flag pin. Again. During the primary campaign, he refused to, explaining that he’d worn one after Sept. 11 but then stopped because it “became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism.” So why is he back to sporting pseudo-patriotism on his chest? Need you ask? The primaries are over. While seducing the hard-core MoveOn Democrats that delivered him the caucuses — hence, the Democratic nomination — Obama not only disdained the pin. He disparaged it. Now that he’s running in a general election against John McCain, and in dire need of the gun-and-God-clinging working-class votes he could not win against Hillary Clinton, the pin is back. His country ’tis of thee.
Damned if Obama wears a flag pin, damned if he doesn’t. Krauthammer’s criticism and insults of our standard bearer reminds me of a domestic fight. Don’t intervene, you’re likely to generate unintended consequences.
Krauthammer is in panic mode means Obama is on the right track and the GOP and Neo-cons are sh*t scared.
This is too rich. I’ll beg some liberties to quote at length Sullivan’s post – the money quote from Krauthammer and his (Sullivan’s) reaction:
Andrew Sullivan: Krauthammer Panics
A classic today, but this is the money quote:
“Obama’s strategy is obvious. The country is in a deep malaise and eager for change. He and his party already have the advantage on economic and domestic issues. Obama, therefore, aims to clear the deck by moving rapidly to the center in those areas where he and his party are weakest, namely national security and the broader cultural issues. With these — and, most important, his war-losing Iraq policy — out of the way, the election will be decided on charisma and persona. In this corner: the young sleek cool hip elegant challenger. In the other corner: the old guy. No contest…
As Obama assiduously obliterates all differences with McCain on national security and social issues, he remains rightly confident that Bush fatigue, the lousy economy and his own charisma — he is easily the most dazzling political personality since John Kennedy — will carry him to the White House.”
They figure it out eventually (apart from the notion that Obama will “lose” any “war”). Having spent much of the year attacking Obama as a commie atheist alien (Hewitt only this week called Obama’s post primary position a series of “lurches left”), the neocons are now going to have to attack him as a more electable version of the Clinton they came to love and praise in the primaries. Worse: they fear that Obama has shifted because he wanted to – not because they bullied him into it – and so they have no control any more. They won’t be able to use all the usual FoxNews Rovian crap they have long been used to throwing at the Democratic nominee. Charles finishes with a question:
“Of course, once he gets there he will have to figure out what he really believes. The conventional liberal/populist stuff he campaigned on during the primaries? Or the reversals he is so artfully offering up now?
I have no idea. Do you? Does he”
It’s a rhetorical question but I’ll answer it. Yes, I do. And yes, he does. He wants withdrawal from Iraq as prudently as possible. That this might take longer than sixteen months, even though that is the goal, is Bush’s fault, not Obama’s. Yes, he does want to expand access to private healthcare, engage Iran with more than bluster, raise taxes on the successful, pass immigration reform, end torture, and restore America’s moral reputation in the world. And he intends to do it without acting like a rigid, purist ideologue, of the kind Krauthammer admires and of the kind that has driven us into a ditch in Iraq. His adjustments in the post-primary campaign take the hard edges off his clear policy positions, defuse some obvious weaknesses, move aggressively to the center … and use his money advantage to win the thing. Er: he’s a skilled politician.
I know the Republicans are used to Democratic candidates being knocked about and defined and pummeled from the get-go. But Obama is different. Hadn’t you noticed that yet?
Next question.
(emphasis added)
I don’t need a tickle. How sweet it is! The Neocons are in panic over Obama. They’re hard pressed to define him. Obama is no “Kerry with a tan” as one McCain surrogate groped. And Rove keeps trying. Bless their weeping hearts.
Don’t you just love it? …Skilled, Shrewd and ruthless is what we need in Election 2008.
