Call It A Comeback
And wrote about it 11 years ago. Seriously, the Washington Post put it on the front page.
It’s truly the stupid and silly season.
The conventional wisdom amongst political pros is to get any scandalous material out there before the other side can use it. Now, when Obama did exactly that before he even ran for office, the WaPo treats it breathlessly.
Fran Eaton does it with Obama.
First, she takes Sirota out of context suggesting that Sirota is one who worships Obama
Political commentators compare Obama to Jesus and breathlessly proclaim him as a savior, a deity, a possessor of infinite potential, someone special, a king, the second coming of the almighty and, well, the almighty himself.
Internet blogger David Sirota wrote recently that Obama is “all the Founding Fathers, the Greek philosophers, Mother Theresa, the pope and every biblical prophet rolled into one man who can personally connect with every living organism in the universe at the very same moment.”
As a word of advice, when writing a column, you might try and actually find someone who says Obama is like Jesus, or a savior, or a deity, a possessor of infinite potential, a king, the second coming, or the almighty. Instead, we get treated to another guy who said something without really pointing out an example of someone actually making such comparisons.
Most eye-opening is a 12-point doctrine to which Trinity members are required to adhere.
Called the “black value system,” the church’s doctrine calls on its members to be committed to God, to self-discipline and self-respect and to pursue education and excellence — all honorable, mainstream community standards.
But Trinity is unique among UCC churches nationwide in its black value system which requires commitment to the black community and family, adherence to the “black work ethic” and disavowal of the pursuit of “middleclassness.” It also states members must make a pledge to gift the black community with members’ learned skills and personal resources. They also must pledge allegiance to “all black leadership who espouse and embrace the black value system.”
I’ve never heard Barack Obama talk about this black value system. It’s not specifically mentioned in his book. Perhaps the doctrine is not meant for public discussion. But because he holds his religious beliefs so dear, Trinity’s black value system may be key to understanding a little more just how Obama looks at the world and what kind of president he would be.
Here are the 12 precepts and covenental statements:
We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian… Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain “true to our native land,” the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.
Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:
1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.
back to Eaton:
But at the same time Obama is a longtime, active participant in a church that prides itself in its African heritage and color of skin. It is troubling that his church’s doctrine may demand he promote affirmative action, racial quotas, reparations, bussing and more government programs dependent upon skin color.
If so, it would be disheartening to the progress we’ve made as a society, and our attempts to fulfill Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream that some day our children will be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
Hmmmm…looking at the 12 values it doesn’t require any of the suggestions by Eaton though bussing is a term for kissing in England, not desegregation in America.
Of course, the list is not a serious list since affirmative action shouldn’t trouble anyone. Enlarging the applicant pool is generally a good thing for all. Racial quotas are illegal and always have been other than in instances to redress specific instances of discrimination. Reparations aren’t mentioned by the list. Busing was used often to move black kids out of white schools yet was only controversial to people like Fran when it was used to reduce geographic isolation. And there aren’t many government programs dependent upon skin color–notice she didn’t mention any, but I’m sure she has tons of examples for us.
Taken in full, it is a rather uncontroversial 12 statements with the only one confusing to most whites being the issue of middleclassness which isn’t about not being middle class, but about looking down at those who aren’t. The Protestant Work Ethic doesn’t quite translate in black churches the same way. Go figure.
As with most religious statements, the political ramifications are quite unclear. While I’d bet most of Trinity’s members are a liberal lot, there is plenty in that value system any conservative could feel argues for less government. This sort of out of context claptrap is only going to increase as this campaign continues.
Debbie Schlussel always makes me laugh.
Many months ago, readers began asking me whether Barack Obama is Muslim. Since he identifies as a Christian, I said, “no,” and responded that he was not raised by his Kenyan father.
But, then, I decided to look further into Obama’s background. His full name–as by now you have probably heard–is Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. Hussein is a Muslim name, which comes from the name of Ali’s son–Hussein Ibn Ali. And Obama is named after his late Kenyan father, the late Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., apparently a Muslim.
And while Obama may not identify as a Muslim, that’s not how the Arab and Muslim Streets see it. In Arab culture and under Islamic law, if your father is a Muslim, so are you. And once a Muslim, always a Muslim. You cannot go back. In Islamic eyes, Obama is certainly a Muslim. He may think he’s a Christian, but they do not.
Then, there are the other items in his background. As best-selling author Scott Turow wrote in Salon, Obama went to a Muslim school for two years in Indonesia. His mother, Anna, married an Indonesian man (likely another Muslim, as Indonesia is Muslim-dominated and has the largest Islamic population in the world).
And Obama has a “born-again” affinity for the nation of his Muslim father, Kenya, and his Kenyan sister. (Although Kenya is largely Christian, it has a fast-growing Muslim population that has engaged in a good deal of religious violence and riots against Christians. And Kenyan courts will apply Sharia law, when the participants are Muslim.) Wrote Turow:
Obama’s father died in a traffic accident in Nairobi in 1982, but while Obama was working in Chicago, he met his Kenyan sister, Auma, a linguist educated in Germany who was visiting the United States. When she returned to Kenya in 1986 to teach for a year at the University of Nairobi, Obama finally made the trip to his father’s homeland he had long promised himself. There, he managed to fully embrace a heritage and a family he’d never fully known and come to terms with his father, whom he’d long regarded as an august foreign prince, but now realized was a human being burdened by his own illusions and vulnerabilities.
So, even if he identifies strongly as a Christian, and even if he despised the behavior of his father (as Obama said on Oprah); is a man who Muslims think is a Muslim, who feels some sort of psychological need to prove himself to his absent Muslim father, and who is now moving in the direction of his father’s heritage, a man we want as President when we are fighting the war of our lives against Islam? Where will his loyalties be?
Is that even the man we’d want to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency, if Hillary Clinton offers him the Vice Presidential candidacy on her ticket (which he certainly wouldn’t turn down)?
NO WAY, JOSE . . . Or, is that, HUSSEIN?
This will be a zombie lie too. Sort of like John Kerry didn’t really deserve his medals and Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet. And she’ll still be on MSNBC or Fox and Bill Maher saying batshit crazy shit with hosts sitting there taking her seriously.
In reality she’s an unhinged fruitcake who couldn’t argue her way out of a paper bag, but she can go on cable news and get face time.
UPDATE: And let me continue with the rant by noting this is almost the same sort of crap anti-semitic assholes use to question the loyalty of Jews to the United States.
Of course, she’s not the only one accusing him of not being a good Christian since Petey Labarbera has been on that train for some time. Because, you know, the United Church of Christ isn’t a real Christian Church. Only True Christians TM are allowed to talk about Christian values. Trust me, that’ll soon be the next meme.
Zorn addresses the Obama detractors fairly well. While there are decent criticisms of him as a candidate, much of it appears to be bizarrely misplaced anger.
Rich makes a good point that I still haven’t internalized about the Rezko deal:
Apparently, nobody paid attention to the Blagojevich campaign. We had the most investigated governor in modern Illinois history (if not in all the state’s history) winning a race mainly by smearing a mostly honorable state treasurer as a George Ryan crony and a likely crook.
Besides, as I recall, that Whitewater thing went nowhere. It’s my opinion that she’ll have no qualms about using the Rezko deal against Obama, if she hasn’t already. Thoughts
Mea culpa, Rich is right. Blagojevich is really a Clinton wannabe anyway, just without the whole caring about policy and being a good speaker thing. He does have better hair though.
That said, it’s a good test for the team Obama will be putting together. When Clinton throws an elbow, how hard can he throw it back. I can say one thing for sure and that is I’m not going to be following anyone down the path of sitting around and insisting they people know better than to fall for dirty campaigning this cycle.
It also goes to the question Rich poses to Obama. I tend to think Obama’s story on the Rezko deal is credible and as such, the best way to kill it is to produce the previous owners and their real estate agent as well as the assessor for the property he bought directly from Rezko and get them on record supporting what he has said now. If he doesn’t the press will later and it’s always better to get it out now.
If there is any doubt about this rule, I have two words for the Obama campaign.
Blair Hull.
Things that are problems, but not by any means disqualifiers turn into disqualifiers if they aren’t fully exposed up front. As I mentioned in comments over at Rich’s the simple explanation is that if a former Harvard Law Review Editor wants to profit off his public position, there are a lot more sophisticated ways to do that than to enter into a real estate deal with a shady operator. People have disappointed me by doing such things in the past, I tend to think Obama isn’t one of those who is going to let me down on that account.
It’s changing the debate. Atrios takes issue with Obama’s rhetorical triangulation here and I just don’t see it. He references Tomasky’s review of The Audacity of Hope in the New York Review of Books.
Tomasky’s review is okay, but there is one paragraph that descends into utter psychobabble crap:
One can’t dismiss the possibility that such lobbying may have affected Obama’s vote. But I think—from the evidence of his books and other writings—that a more likely explanation is this: he wanted, even if only to prove to himself that he could do it, to show at least one Democratic interest group that he could say no, and he chose the trial lawyers. They are less threatening than the advocates of organized labor and abortion rights. I feel certain that he just wanted to see how it felt.
I’m not sure getting into Obama’s head is all that necessary if one knows anything about Illinois politics and especially controversy over Madison County as a venue for class action suits. While this vote has become some litmus test for how liberal one is, it’s not some out there bill. The two key provisions mean that class actions with less than 1/3 of the plaintiffs from the state the suit is introduced in can be certified in federal court. On top of that was a coupon provision where disclosure is required when consumers get coupons and lawyers get millions.
The advocates against the law would have you believe the federal courts will kill off all of the lawsuits, but the problem with that is that Madison County has the opposite problem. It is viewed by many as a place you are likely to lose so many simply settle–this is a counter balance to that impulse and makes it easier for plaintiffs to litigate the case. Madison County does kill off consumer lawsuits some of which may be frivolous and most which are not by offering every incentive to settle at first chance leaving the underlying problem unaddressed often.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to disagree with the provisions and Obama, but it’s hardly a litmus test of a progressive as to which side one is on. This isn’t Tort reform of the type to limit pain and suffering or even punitive damages. It is a change of venue with disclosure rules.
But more to the point, knowing Obama’s record as I do, I don’t see the triangulation. It’s a redefinition of the debate. Look at his speech from the Take Back America Conference:
Thank you. Thank you Roger Hickey and Bob Borosage for bringing us all together today and thank you for your leadership in the cause of a more progressive America.
My friends, we meet here today at a time where we find ourselves at a crossroads in America’s history.
It’s a time where you can go to any town hall or street corner or coffee shop and hear people express the same anxiety about the future; hear them convey the same uncertainty about the direction we’re headed as a country. Whether it’s the war or Katrina or their health care or their jobs, you hear people say that we’ve finally arrived at a moment where something must change.
These are Americans who still believe in an America where anything’s possible – they just don’t think their leaders do. These are Americans who still dream big dreams -they just sense their leaders have forgotten how.
I remember when I first ran for the state Senate – my very first race. A seat had opened up, and some friends asked me if I’d be interested in running. Well, I thought about it, and then I did what every wise man does when faced with a difficult decision: I prayed, and I asked my wife.
And after consulting with these higher powers, I threw my hat in the ring and I did what every person on a campaign does – I talked to anyone who’d listen.
I went to bake sales and barber shops and if there were two guys standing on the corner I’d pull up and hand them literature. And everywhere I went I’d get two questions:
First, they’d ask, “Where’d you get that funny name, Barack Obama?” Because people just couldn’t pronounce it. They’d call me “Alabama,” or they’d call me “Yo Mama.” And I’d have to explain that I got the name from my father, who was from Kenya.
And the second thing people would ask me was, “You seem like a nice young man.
You teach law school, you’re a civil rights attorney, you organize voter registration, you’re a family man – why would you wanna go into something dirty and nasty like politics?”
And I understood the question because it revealed the cynicism people feel about public life today. That even though we may get involved out of civic obligation every few years, we don’t always have confidence that government can make a difference in our lives.
So I understand the cynicism. But whenever I get in that mood, I think about something that happened to me on the eve of my election to the United States Senate.
We had held a large rally the night before in the Southside of Chicago, which is where I live. And in the midst of this rally, someone comes up to me and says that there’s a woman who’d like to come meet you, and she’s traveled a long way and she wants to take a picture and shake your hand.
And so I said fine, and I met her, and we talked.
And all of this would have been unremarkable except for the fact that this woman, Marguerite Lewis, was born in 1899 and was 105 years old.
And ever since I met this frail, one-hundred-and-five-year-old African-American woman who had found the strength to leave her house and come to a rally because she believed that her voice mattered, I’ve thought about all she’s seen in her life.
I’ve thought about the fact that when she was born, there weren’t cars on the road, and no airplanes in the sky. That she was born under the cloud of Jim Crow, free in theory but still enslaved in so many ways. That she was born at a time for black folks when lynchings were not uncommon, but voting was.
I’ve thought about how she lived to see a world war and a Great Depression and a second world war, and how she saw her brothers and uncles and nephews and cousins coming home from those wars and still have to sit at the back of a bus.
And I thought about how she saw women finally win the right to vote. And how she watched FDR lift this nation out of fear and send millions to college on the GI Bill and lift millions out of poverty with Social Security. How she saw unions rise up and a middle-class prosper, and watched immigrants leave distant shores in search of an idea known as America.
She believed in this idea with all her heart and she saw this progress around her and she had faith that someday it would be her turn. And when she finally she saw hope breaking through the horizon in the Civil Rights Movement, she thought, “Maybe it’s my turn.”
And in that movement, she saw women who were willing to walk instead of ride the bus after a day of doing somebody else’s laundry and looking after somebody else’s children because they walked for freedom. And she saw young people of every race and every creed take a bus down to Mississippi and Alabama to register voters because they believed. She saw four little girls die in a Sunday school and catalyze a nation.
And at last – at last – she saw the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.
And she saw people lining up to vote for the first time – and she got in that line – and she never forgot it. She kept on voting in each and every election because she believed. She believed that over a span of three centuries, she had seen enough to know that there is no challenge too great, no injustice too crippling, no destiny too far out of reach for America.
She believed that we don’t have to settle for equality for some or opportunity for the lucky or freedom for the few.
And she knew that during those moments in history where it looked like we might give up hope or settle for less, there have always been Americans who refused. Who said we’re going to keep on dreaming, and we’re going to keep on building, and we’re going to keep on marching, and we’re going to keep on working because that’s who we are. Because we’ve always fought to bring all of our people under the blanket of the American Dream.
And I think that we face one of those moments today.
In a century just six years old, our faith has been shaken by war and terror, disaster and despair, threats to the middle-class dream, and scandal and corruption in our government.
The sweeping changes brought by revolutions in technology have torn down walls between business and government and people and places all over the globe. And with this new world comes new risks and new dangers.
No longer can we assume that a high-school education is enough to compete for a job that could easily go to a college-educated student in Bangalore or Beijing. No more can we count on employers to provide health care and pensions and job training when their bottom-lines know no borders. Never again can we expect the oceans that surround America to keep us safe from attacks on our own soil.
The world has changed. And as a result, we’ve seen families work harder for less and our jobs go overseas. We’ve seen the cost of health care and child care and gasoline skyrocket. We’ve seen our children leave for Iraq and terrorists threaten to finish the job they started on 9/11.
But while the world has changed around us, too often our government has stood still. Our faith has been shaken, but the people running Washington aren’t willing to make us believe again.
It’s the timidity – the smallness – of our politics that’s holding us back right now. The idea that some problems are just too big to handle, and if you just ignore them, sooner or later, they’ll go away.
That if you give a speech where you rattle off statistics about the stock market being up and orders for durable goods being on the rise, no one will notice the single mom whose two jobs won’t pay the bills or the student who can’t afford his college dreams.
That if you say the words “plan for victory” and point to the number of schools painted and roads paved and cell phones used in Iraq, no one will notice the nearly 2,500 flag-draped coffins that have arrived at Dover Air Force base.
Well it’s time we finally said we notice, and we care, and we’re not gonna settle anymore.
You know, you probably never thought you’d hear this at a Take Back America conference, but Newt Gingrich made a great point a few weeks ago. He was talking about what an awful job his own party has done governing this country, and he said that with all the mistakes and misjudgments the Republicans have made over the last six years, the slogan for the Democrats should come down to just two words:
Had enough?
I don’t know about you, but I think old Newt is onto something here. Because I think we’ve all had enough. Enough of the broken promises. Enough of the failed leadership. Enough of the can’t-do, won’t-do, won’t-even-try style of governance.
Four years after 9/11, I’ve had enough of being told that we can find the money to give Paris Hilton more tax cuts, but we can’t find enough to protect our ports or our railroads or our chemical plants or our borders.
I’ve had enough of the closed-door deals that give billions to the HMOs when we’re told that we can’t do a thing for the 45 million uninsured or the millions more who can’t pay their medical bills.
I’ve had enough of being told that we can’t afford body armor for our troops and health care for our veterans and benefits for the wounded heroes who’ve risked their lives for this country. I’ve had enough of that.
I’ve had enough of giving billions away to the oil companies when we’re told that we can’t invest in the renewable energy that will create jobs and lower gas prices and finally free us from our dependence on the oil wells of Saudi Arabia.
I’ve had enough of our kids going to schools where the rats outnumber the computers. I’ve had enough of Katrina survivors living out of their cars and begging FEMA for trailers. And I’ve had enough of being told that all we can do about this is sit and wait and hope that the good fortune of a few trickles on down to everyone else in this country.
You know, we all remember that George Bush said in 2000 campaign that he was against nation-building. We just didn’t know he was talking about this one.
Now, let me say this – I don’t think that George Bush is a bad man. I think he loves his country. I don’t think this administration is full of stupid people – I think there are a lot of smart folks in there. The problem isn’t that their philosophy isn’t working the way it’s supposed to – it’s that it is. It’s that it’s doing exactly what it’s supposed to do.
The reason they don’t believe government has a role in solving national problems is because they think government is the problem. That we’re better off if we dismantle it – if we divvy it up into individual tax breaks, hand ’em out, and encourage everyone to go buy your own health care, your own retirement security, your own child care, their own schools, your own private security force, your own roads, their own levees…
It’s called the Ownership Society in Washington. But in our past there has been another term for it – Social Darwinism – every man or women for him or herself.
It allows us to say to those whose health care or tuition may rise faster than they can afford – life isn’t fair. It allows us to say to the child who didn’t have the foresight to choose the right parents or be born in the right suburb – pick yourself up by your bootstraps. It lets us say to the guy who worked twenty or thirty years in the factory and then watched his plant move out to Mexico or China – we’re sorry, but you’re on your own.
It’s a bracing idea. It’s a tempting idea. And it’s the easiest thing in the world.
But there’s just one problem. It doesn’t work. It ignores our history. Yes, our greatness as a nation has depended on individual initiative, on a belief in the free market. But it has also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, of mutual responsibility. The idea that everybody has a stake in the country, that we’re all in it together and everybody’s got a shot at opportunity.
Americans know this. We know that government can’t solve all our problems – and we don’t want it to.
But we also know that there are some things we can’t do on our own. We know that there are some things we do better together.
We know that we’ve been called in churches and mosques, synagogues and Sunday schools to love our neighbors as ourselves; to be our brother’s keeper; to be our sister’s keeper. That we have individual responsibility, but we also have collective responsibility to each other.
That’s what America is.
And so I am eager to have this argument not just with the President, but the entire Republican Party over what this country is about.
Because I think that this is our moment to lead.
The time for our party’s identity crisis is over. Don’t let anyone tell you we don’t know what we stand for and don’t doubt it yourselves. We know who we are. And in the end, we know that it isn’t enough to just say that you’ve had enough.
So let it be said that we are the party of opportunity. That in a global economy that’s more connected and more competitive – we are the party that will guarantee every American an affordable, world-class, top-notch, life-long education – from early childhood to high school, from college to on-the-job training.
Let it be said that we are the party of affordable, accessible health care for all Americans. The party that won’t make Americans choose between a health care plan that bankrupts the government and one that bankrupts families. The party that won’t just throw a few tax breaks at families who can’t afford their insurance, but modernizes our health care system and gives every family a chance to buy insurance at a price they can afford.
Let it be said that we are the party of an energy independent America. The party that’s not bought and paid for by the oil companies. The party that will harness homegrown, alternative fuels and spur the production of fuel-efficient, hybrid cars to break our dependence on the world’s most dangerous regimes.
Let it be said that we will conduct a smart foreign policy that battles the forces of terrorism and fundamentalism wherever they may exist by matching the might of our military with the power of our diplomacy and the strength of our alliances. And when we do go to war, let us always be honest with the American people about why we are there and how we will win.
And let it be said that we are the party of open, honest government that doesn’t peddle the agenda of whichever lobbyist or special interest can write the biggest check. The party who believes that in this democracy, influence and access should begin and end with the power of the ballot.
If we do all this, if we can be trusted to lead, this will not be a Democratic Agenda, it will be an American agenda. Because in the end, we may be proud Democrats, but we are prouder Americans. We’re tired of being divided, tired of running into ideological walls and partisan roadblocks, tired of appeals to our worst instincts and greatest fears.
Americans everywhere are desperate for leadership. They are longing for direction. And they want to believe again.
A while ago, I was reading through Jonathan Kozol’s new book, Shame of a Nation, which tells of his travels to underprivileged schools across America.
At one point, Kozol tells about his trip to Fremont High School in Los Angeles, where he met a girl who tells him that she’d taken hairdressing twice, because there were actually two different levels offered by the high school. The first was in hairstyling; the other in braiding.
Another girl, Mireya, listened as her friend told this story. And she began to cry. When asked what was wrong, she said, “I don’t want to take hairdressing. I did not need sewing either. I knew how to sew. My mother is a seamstress in a factory. I’m trying to go to college. I don’t need to sew to go to college. My mother sews. I hoped for something else.”
I hoped for something else.
I’ve often thought about Mireya and her simple dream and all those before her who’ve shared that dream too.
And I’ve wondered – if she is lucky enough to live as long as 105-year-old Marguerite Lewis, if she someday has the chance to look back across the twenty-first century, what will she see? Will she see a country that is freer and kinder, more tolerant and more just than the one she grew up in? Will she see greater opportunities for every citizen of this country? Will all her childhood hopes be fulfilled?
We are here tonight because we believe that in this country, we have it within our power to say “yes” to those questions – to forge our own destiny – to begin the world anew.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is our time.
Our time to make a mark on history.
Our time to write a new chapter in the American story.
Our time to leave our children a country that is freer and kinder, more prosperous and more just than the place we grew up.
And then someday, someday, if our kids get the chance to stand where we are and look back at the beginning of the 21st century, they can say that this was the time when America renewed its purpose.
They can say that this was the time when America found its way.
They can say that this was the time when America learned to dream again.
Thank you.
I suppose the argument could be that he doesn’t say this in every speech, but it’s hard to see how this isn’t a call to change how the debate is fought putting it on the ground Democrats do best and adhering to core Democratic values.
Which apparently, despite an almost obsessive compulsive effort to hawk his own book, David Sirota seems to think Barack Obama hasn’t really made clear his position on structural globalization issues even though, it’s in the Audacity of Hope as two quotes I picked out below address.
“But it is downright destructive to peddle the idea that paying teachers
more or better funding the No Child Left Behind Act will be th
majore key to solving the problems inherent in a globalization
policy that incentivizes slave labor, sweatshops, union busting
and environmental degradation.”====================
As I wrote in my profile of Obama in The Nation, when it comes to these structural issues, he is a man who seems caught between his background as a community organizer in touch with real people, and his current existence surrounded by Washington insiders and consultants who, by profession, push politicians to avoid challenging power. Peddling the Great Education Myth is the ultimate way to avoid challenging power. If this is just a fleeting tactic and Obama goes on to get serious about the real heart of our economic challenges, then he may be the great presidential candidate Democrats need. But if this aversion to confronting power previews the rest of his campaign, there will indeed be a major opening for a real populist candidate to win the nomination and the presidency.
Here are the quotes from Obama in The Audacity of Hope:
On page 174:
“And while upgrading the education levels of American workers will
improve their ability to adapt to the global economy, a better education
alone won’t necessarily protect them from growing competition…In other
words, free trade may well grow the world-wide economic pie — but
there’s no law that says workers in the United States will continue to
get a bigger and bigger slice.”
Obama continues on Page 176
“This doesn’t mean however that we should just throw up our hands and
tell workers to fend for themselves…I am optimistic about the
long-term prospects for the U.S. economy, and the ability of U.S.
workers to compete in a free trade environment — but only if we
distribute the costs and benefits of globalization more fairly across
the population.”
Immediately after that passage Obama talks about how workers need a need social safety net, and spends about 10 pages talking how workers need better unemployment and trade adjustment assistance, and introduces the concept of wage insurance, expanding EITC, better bargaining power for unions, portable pensions, health care, bankruptcy reform to fix the garbage that was passed, etc.
I get the skepticism of the media frenzy. It’s kind of funny to watch and all, but one thing the blogosphere is around to do is to put a check on the press’ coverage, not simply take it at face value. Because Obama didn’t give a long policy based speech in the one that was aired, does not mean that Obama hasn’t taken positions or doesn’t have them. Having watched him in 2004, he was the policy wonk out of a very talented Democratic field. In this field the policy wonkishness goes up to a different plane, but he’s still well documented.
Well documented if you take what Obama says in things like books that he writes and not just one speech on C-SPAN.
I mean, how else do you explain this garbage other than Jeff Greenfield is pitching for an end to business casual:
The senator was in New Hampshire over the weekend, sporting what’s getting to be the classic Obama look. Call it business casual, a jacket, a collared shirt, but no tie.
It is a look the senator seems to favor. And why not? It is dressy enough to suggest seriousness of purpose, but without the stuffiness of a tie, much less a suit. There is a comfort level here that reflects one of Obama’s strongest political assets, a sense that he is comfortable in his own skin, that he knows who he is.
If you want a striking contrast, check out Senator John Kerry as he campaigned back in 2004. He often appeared without a tie, but clad in a blazer, the kind of casual look you see at country clubs and lawn parties in the Hamptons and other toned (ph) locations.
When President Bush wanted in casual mode, he skipped the jacket entirely. Third-generation Skull and Bones at Yale? Don’t be silly. Nobody here but us Texas ranchers.
You can think of Bush’s apparel as a kind of homage to Ronald Reagan. He may have spent much of his life in Hollywood, but the brush-cutting ranch hand was the image his followers loved, just as the Kennedy sea ferry look provided a striking contrast with, say, Richard Nixon, who apparently couldn’t even set out on a beach walk without that “I wish I had spent more time at the office” look.
But, in the case of Obama, he may be walking around with a sartorial time bomb. Ask yourself, is there any other major public figure who dresses the way he does? Why, yes. It is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who, unlike most of his predecessors, seems to have skipped through enough copies of “GQ” to find the jacket-and-no-tie look agreeable.
And maybe that’s not the comparison a possible presidential contender really wants to evoke.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GREENFIELD: Now, it is one thing to have a last name that sounds like Osama and a middle name, Hussein, that is probably less than helpful. But an outfit that reminds people of a charter member of the axis of evil, why, this could leave his presidential hopes hanging by a thread. Or is that threads? — Wolf.
If you dress business casual, the terrorists have won.
Truly silly people.
H/T TPM
Rich writes a very good column about Obama and his prospects and addresses the Lincoln comparisons in a fairly rational manner.
He also brings up the chief problem for many right now–the Rezko house deal.
I think Obama has handled the fall out from a dumb decision to get involved with Rezko at all relatively well. He’s answered the questions in long form and tried to be relatively transparent, but the next step is needed and that step is for the press to do interviews with the people who sold the house and for the Obama camp to release to the press all of the paperwork they have on the deal.
The only part of the deal that seems to be at issue is that the house sold for less than asking price while the lot sold for asking price. Obama indicates the land and house were listed separately–find the listings and provide those. Confirm with the buyers that they insisted on closing on the same day. Then go and find whomever bid on the lot at $625,000 and do two things–confirm the bid and make sure it was a real potential buyer. Finally, find out who else bid on the house—there was apparently another bid and confirm that it was lower than what Obama bid. If these things are confirmed, the story stands relatively well and assuming there aren’t any other types of transactions that show up, the story dies.
There’s no real doubt to me that Rezko was trying to influence Obama and for that is where Obama made his mistake in buying the strip of land–even though he paid twice as much as the assessed valuation. And Obama admits that. However, the real test is to see if the story holds up regarding other bids on the two properties and if it does then Obama comes out looking like a guy making a mistake, but not a crook.
Krol brings up that Clinton will go negative on it and he’s probably right. Except one thing that such an ad let’s Team Obama do–retaliate and I’ll take one house purchase deal over Whitewater and cattle futures. While both turned out to be less than what the investigations tried to make of them, they certainly provide fodder for far harsher commercials on Hillary’s ethics than anything she can dish up on Obama. It would be a dumb strategic move to pull out the ethics card and give the Democratic field an excuse to go after her. That doesn’t mean her consultants won’t do it, but it’ll be dumb when they do.
While I was against Obama running initially, I’ve converted and I’m guessing he’s in and I’m on board (no not the campaign, as a supporter–I do accept free drinks).
Four posts by others point out why they think Obama is in a very good position.
Kos: 2008: If Obama runs, he wins.
Jerome Armstrong: On the ’08 Presidential field
Dan Conley: A Life All It’s Own
Pastor Dan: Obamarama
Let’s start off with what should be a fairly non-controversial statement unless you live within 10 miles of Washington D.C.
Hillary Clinton is not going to be the nominee. It’s great for Republican fundraising and it’s great for overpaid over the hill consultants, but that’s about it. She has no personality, no presence, and people don’t like her. They’ll say they’ll vote for her as long as she is the Democrat they know the name of the easiest, but once the other candidates raise their profile, she’s toast. For some reason no one has noticed that absolutely no grass roots Democrats are behind her and while the grassroots can be oversold, you have to have some support and buzz.
We can also stipulate that Evan Bayh and Joe Biden are wasting our time. I don’t care enough about them to worry if they are wasting their own time, but they are definitely wasting our time. Neither has a compelling argument to be President other than being ‘experienced’. Never mind much of that experience is being wrong about everything, but what the hell.
Biden is my favorite to watch though. There’s the great story of Joe Biden meeting with Iowa activists and spending all of his time grooming himself. Not just his hair on his head, but while pretending to talk to an A level activist, he groomed his chest hair out the top of his shirt.
The level of pomposity to do that is truly evidence that God has a sense of humor.
John Kerry was a horrible candidate once and he will be again, but without the shield of Dean to surprise everyone. Not to mention that foot is really hard to remove from his mouth.
Chris Dodd, who I happen to like a lot, is dead in the water. There is no space for him to occupy and I doubt he’ll even make it to Iowa. Richardson simply isn’t compelling–his ability to hit national security is limited by Clark.
That gets us down to Tom Vilsack, John Edwards, Wesley Clark, and Barack Obama. I like Vilsack a lot, but I just don’t see how you get traction. I tend to believe being from Iowa is a huge problem because it means people cede Iowa to you and then you don’t get the chance to field a strong grassroots organization to overcome other disadvantages. This is especially a problem for Vilsack who ran an incredible campaign in 1998 to become Govenor of Iowa. The very place he could do the best is the place he takes off the table.
Clark I like a lot and he’ll have to field a strong operation that he didn’t last time. He still needs to demonstrate he can do that–as Markos said, he’ll need to start a buzz early and build upon it.
Edwards is a favorite, but he has three significant problems. Many of the people who seem to most strongly support him seem to criticize Obama for a lack of experience. There’s an irony there. That said, he’s an excellent candidate and I voted for him last cycle. Second, he voted for the war and was an early vocal proponent even though he has renounced that since.
The final problem is one not talked about very often. Elizabeth Edwards is a person you love and pledge your undying loyalty to, or she’s a pain in the ass who is petty, vindictive, and overly demanding. She’s driven away many a consultant from one who was quoted explaining why Senators weren’t supporting Edwards–there was no criticism–just a description of what Senators thought, to Steve Jarding and Mudcat Saunders to David Axelrod (see Conley’s post here).
I know people who would take a bullet for the women as well and when they went to law school, one classmate always said they knew one of them would run to be President, but everyone thought it would be Elizabeth. The problem then? Campaigns cannot be run when the entire staff has to answer to someone outside the traditional hierarchy. It creates fear and people tend to avoid taking risks.
A final option is if Al Gore gets in the race. I’m torn on this because I remember him being a giant ass in his primary against Bill Bradley and frankly his condescending tone drives me batty. Probably because he has been mythologized by the 2000 election debacle and not many blogs were around to document the obnoxiousness of that primary, he’s seen positively. He’d be a strong contender in that race though I think many of his annoying traits might surface again.
Of the above, there’s only two who I can’t stand and wouldn’t feel enthused about in a general election and that’s Bayh and Biden. Even Clinton I could deal with, but I don’t believe that’s a real concern.
Finally, Barack Obama. I’ll stipulate his legislative record at the federal level is thin and that he doesn’t have executive experience. Then again, only Richardson, Bayh, Vilsack, and Clark have run large organizations. Only Dodd and Biden have long legislative records. Kerry has a decent record on investigations such as BCCI, but his legislative record is weak. Clinton’s experience legislatively is weak and her experience in the administration was damn near disastrous.
Compare him to what Democratic voters in the primary want and he comes away doing very well. He was against the war and wants us out starting soon. He thinks the war is a failure and its time to move on. He is strong on health care, his foreign policy experience is slim, but substantial for someone with his experience, he actually has real ideas for energy policy, and he led on reform. He was a strong voice for immigration reform that values a path to citizenship for those who work in the US.
Other than giant screams of triangulation which does not actually rest on what he said when taken in context, he fits with what most Democratic primary voters want and he is inspiring. For some inspiring language doesn’t count for much, but the primary power of the President is to persuade and that is not something to dismiss. To some activists it’ll seem as though he’s not fighting the way they want him to do, but his abilities to communicate go beyond simply fighting the same fight better, he wants to fight an entirely different fight on his terms, not the press’ or the Republicans’.
Edwards looks to be putting together a strong labor team, but Obama is likely to do well with SEIU which has been one of his strongest supporters in Illinois–in fact, if you want to point to a reason he did well in the primary, it wasn’t Blair Hull’s implosion, it was the SEIU’s support and a strong volunteer corps along with great media and a good plan. When you talk to people in Illinois, unless they were Hull partisans, virtually no one believes Hull’s numbers were going to improve significantly or take the remainder of votes out there. Then again, maybe some people think SEIU is all about private jets.
Stoller has suggested he’s weak with the netroots, but that would be true of just about anyone at this time in a race other than those who have run before. I have some concerns about the online strategy the campaign might try, but in 2004 he hired much of the Dean team after the primary, but the entry of Keyes made that unnecessary.
But I think Stoller misses a larger point—candidates can improve their relationship with the netroots, but many of the strongest operations come from individuals on the net doing it on their own with campaigns coming in to open up communication and responsiveness.
Finally, as much as I believe in on-line activism–John Kerry had very little presence in 2004. 2008 will increase the importance of online activism, but it isn’t everything.
Let me add one other thing—Stoller says there is no Dean in the race. That’s true. Obama is to the left of Dean in general. What’s most strange about the complaints about Obama is here is the guy who was against the war from the beginning, trumpeted the EITC and civil rights and death penalty reform in Illinois. Dean’s record was relevant in Vermont when it came to civil unions. Why isn’t sponsoring SB 101 relevant in Illinois? Or how about passing a serious racial profiling law? Extending CHIP? I know early education and care aren’t big issues to the young male dominated blogosphere, but how about many bills to improve the quality and affordability of care for infants and toddlers?
Oh, and he introduced a bill for public financing of judicial elections in Illinois and a Constitutional Amendment for universal care in Illinois. I mean, if filing a bill counts by Sirota’s position, that’s a hell of a record. In fact, what he did pass was impressive.
ArchPundit