What Obama Represents
Andrew Sullivan has a good, albeit a little bit overly enthusiastic in my opinion, post up about Barack Obama:
Obama’s speech yesterday is his most detailed yet on foreign affairs. Read it. It is emphatically not isolationist; it is emphatically not against the use of military force when necessary; it is emphatically pro-military in its call for many more troops. On the critical issue of Iraq, Obama has taken a stand – a clear one for withdrawal, with the possibility of a strike-force over the horizon. This is a very difficult call, and the timing and execution of withdrawal will be dispositive. But one core strength of Obama’s candidacy is that he got this war right when many of us got it wrong. He deserves more of a listening than many of us do. If his speech yesterday was any indication, there will be much to chew on. I’m sorry to see no commitment to a carbon tax; I’m unsure of whether diplomacy can or will work with Pyongyang and Tehran. We will all have to listen and watch Obama closely these next few months in weighing his candidacy against others’.
But this much we can already say: Obama brings something no one else does to this moment. By replacing one of the most globally despised and domestically divisive presidents in American history with a young leader half-Kansan and half-Kenyan, America would be saying something to the world: Bush-Cheney is not who we are. America is not what it has come to appear to be. This country is among the most culturally and racially and religiously diverse on the planet. America has long been a powerful and vital beacon for human rights – not, as recently, the avatar of torture, rendition and executive tyranny. The simple existence of Obama as a new president in a new century would in itself enhance America’s soft power immeasurably, just as a clear decision to leave Iraq would provide much greater leverage for diplomacy and military force in a whole variety of new ways. Obama would mean the rebranding of America, after a disastrous eight years. His international heritage, his racial journey, his middle name: these are assets for this country, not liabilities.
The Anonymous Liberal reacts to Sullivan (and thinks, as Sullivan, very highly of Obama).
Barack Obama is a very interesting phenomenon: he is much more of a uniter than, say, Hillary Clinton; he is able to truly touch more people, both emotionally and intellectually, than Hillary; he unites different cultures, being half Kenyan and half American; he is one of the most intellectually (and politically) successful African-Americans in America today; he is rhetorically incredibly gifted; he is one of the first serious African-American contenders, and, as such, he will be an inspiration to many (blacks, but also to whites); in short, he is a great candidate.
That being said, he is too left for me. If I were American, and if he would win the Democratic nomination and, yes, even the presidency, I could not possibly be very upset – I think that America will win no matter what, really. Hillary will be an acceptable, if not good, president, same goes for Obama, same goes for most of the important Republican candidates – but I would not be filled with joy either.
Cross posted at my own blog.
37 Responses to “What Obama Represents”
I guess Senator Obama comes from the same mold as Former President Clinton. It is not what you say but how you say it. The first thing such politicians do is determine how things will look in the meda.
Politically, Senator Obama is nothing more than Dick Durbin in black face. If Senator Durbin was making the same proposals as Senator Obama no one would be paying attention or considering it revolutionary.
Has Senator Obama make a proposal that would lower the violet crime rate in Chicago or make the Chicago Public Schools safer? No. Could Senator Obama convince gang bangers in Chicago to stop killing each other? No. Then why are we convinced that he can get North Korea or Iran to the negotiating table and convinced them to do things outside of their own self interest?
I guess leadership these days means that you says things that people can use to make themselves feel hip or smart.
So, any great leader needs the ability to reach out and touch people emotionally- that is what makes them leadership material. If no one believes in you it doesn’t matter if you have the world’s greatest solutions, because no one will listen. I would actually like to see Clinton and Obama on the same ticket in ’08; I think the combination of her pragmatism and experience and his charisma would be unbeatable.
The GOP should do itself a favor and stop cannabalizing its own candidates- they are only worsening their presidential hopes by doing so. Their chosen candidate will end up appealing to a narrow base of right-wing voters, leaving the moderates and independents to vote for a Democrat. What will really hurt them in the end is choosing to continue Bush’s war policy, which has already proven to be unpopular with over 60% of voters.
Did President Bush stop or severely limit the gang problem in Texas when he was governor from 1995 – 2000? From the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (administered by the U.S. Department of Justice):
Click here for the link to the entire report. Now I will not take those statistics and hold it against President Bush in his handling of Iraq, North Korea, and Iran. Why does Chicago’s gang banger issue have to be held over Senator Obama’s head? You have to come better than that superdestroyer.
But what has Obama done?
He is not yet served even a single term in Washington.
He has not served in an executive role in a state house, or even as a major city mayor.
He is black, and (unlike Sharpton or Jackson) unthreatening to non-blacks. That is basically his sole qualification for the presidency.
His starlet charisma is a creation of the MSM. No one has questioned him closely, or scrutinized him (as Hillary has been, and still is regularly).
Kritter notes the GOP’s cannabalizing of its own candidates…but that is not the critical difference.
The leading Democratic candidates have notably less experience and demostrated ability than the GOP. But no GOP candidate…certainly not Guiliani…has benefitted from promotion by the MSM as has Obama.
I am beginning to think there was something to Limbaugh’s bizarre “Magic Negro” comment. What else can explain the Obama boomlet? Hillary at least has a long track record, and demonstrated political experience.
I await responses indicating Obama’s notable pieces of legislation…his successful programs…his demonstrated courage in the face of crisis and adversity….
Obama is merely a nice smiley face that has the Child Vote all dewy-eyed.
The smart money is still on Hillary Clinton and Kritter is right (not merely because she’s thinking what I’ve long thought, you understand):
> I would actually like to see Clinton and Obama on the
> same ticket in ‘08
Obama is OF COURSE the natural choice for VP, all ready to be groomed for the Presidency after Clinton. When Obama gave the convention speech that had liberals lusty, did you see the look on Hillary Clinton’s face (at the convention when he gave his speech)? Smart money says she was thinking, ideally, “That’s my VP!” (can’t quote Ike about Nixon even though objectively that’s how she would have felt about a VP choice).
What will be interesting, be it Obama or someone else as VP, is how the VP role could be used and expanded by Dems as opposed to the Bush administration as the current model for the GOP (like it or not). The VP should be the equivalent of the First Officer aboard a ship and the primary domestic policy official, ideally. (Cheney as a strong VP is actually a good thing, rather than have the position be merely a parking place for somebody.)
He voted against the war on Iraq.
While there’s certainly no harm per se in engaging in beauty contest musings at this point, there’s another 9 months to the first meaningful set of primaries and another 7 months after that to the convention.
That leaves an awful lot of time for world and national events, competing candidate rhetoric, bonafide debate forums and most significantly, gaffes……..all of which, IMO weigh in at about 5 times the value of scripted campaign articulations.
I think this whole “sooner the better” tendency is going to eventually reveal some downsides……for both sides.
Obama probably isn’t about to slobber over President Treason, I mean Ronald Reagan, anytime soon. That alone makes him more qualified than the entire GOP field, sans Ron Paul.
Michael said:
Michael,
What about Obama’s given positions are too far left for you?
I agree that Obama is the most un-Bushlike of all the major candidates. If there weren’t many other reasons to support him, that would be enough.
Sometimes “experience” is overrated. The most experienced Democrat is actually Bill Richardson, who is attractive for other reasons as well (governor of swing state, Latino, moderate). But experience alone is never the sole factor.
> He is black, and (unlike
> Sharpton or Jackson)
> unthreatening to non-
> blacks.
He’s not radical. Now, has he been examined for who he is? He’s a Cyanide Nation classic Dim Party politician. He happens to be young, fresh-faced, and a minority group member, which makes him PC untouchable and promotable by the liberal media, even acquiring sainthood.
He certainly has the Child Vote, the idealistic, naive crowd, the Web nutroots included, all excited. He’s a younger, minority smiley-faced Howard-Dean-voter candidate for 2008. [sighing and shaking head]
*But no GOP candidate…certainly not Guiliani…has benefitted from promotion by the MSM as has Obama.*
C’mon, you have to be joking. Yes, Obama has gotten a helping hand from the MSM, but you honestly think that Giuliani hasn’t? Man of the Year, “Hero of 9/11″ Giuliani? The only reason he’s on stage is the metanarrative the MSM crafted for him — as soon as that breaks apart, he loses support.
> Sometimes “experience†is overrated.
Yes, in the sense that people in Washington stay far too long. Americans want term limits! (We also want a much smaller Washington.)
However, Obama is at the other extreme. He’s nothing but a relatively young, smiley-faced, minority candidate, and the children who are wooed by a nice smile and nice talk love him and seriously want him to be President. He has less substance than Schwarzenegger in California!
> President Treason, I mean Ronald Reagan,
The suffrage should be qualified, and better still, weighted…
T-Steel asked:
> Did President Bush stop
> or severely limit the gang
> problem in Texas when he
> was governor from 1995
> – 2000?
You could ask other questions as well, such as about education.
DLS,
Don’t you think it’s a little ironic that the right has annointed Reagan to sainthood while it’s unquestioned that Reagan provided military support to the two regimes that those very same righties consider grave threats that only their candidates can deal with?
Just to echo Elrods comment above, the current President had all of 5 years in Texas prior to getting the White House. Less than that techincally since he spent a large amount of time on the campaign trail. And most of what he did there was based on the fact that the govt was split pretty evenly between dem and repub. He merely steered a very slow moving tugboat. His legacy in Texas is/was very minor.
The fact that Obama has less experience in Washington, imho, is a good thing. I’m concerned too many of the current candidates dem & GOP, have too much time there. The go along to get along/ I scratch your back you scratch mine, nudge nudge wink wink time.
So why is he too far Left Micheal? What specifically?
I’ve got to repeat Chris’ question.
On what position is Obama “too left” for you Michael?
Personally (and it has been expressed), I would like to see Obama be a VP before being President. His appeal domestically would be worth it in gold-pressed latinum (Star Trek reference) to any Democratic presidential nominee. In fact, I think you would be a stone fool not to make him your VP.
A white female president with a black male vice-president in the USA… Who’d have thunk it!
Not saying it’s a sure thing but it’s interesting how that would be looked at internationally.
Chris asked:
> Don’t you think it’s a
> little ironic that the right
> has annointed Reagan
> to sainthood while it’s
> unquestioned that Reagan
> provided military support
> to the two regimes that
> those very same righties
> consider grave threats
> that only their candidates
> can deal with?
Reagan used money from Iran to fund defensive efforts against Soviet-led aggression in our own hemisphere, to the bitter hatred of a Communist-friendly Democratic Congress, who turned Oliver North into a celebrity and a hero in the process.
To address a much larger issue, Reagan’s entire presidency, even the (honest) Left has acknowledged that Reagan made a difference, historically; he’s the most important president since JFK, and the GOP has yet to provide anyone who has been Reagan’s equal. That’s in spite of many of us who weren’t all that impressed with Reagan and didn’t know what all the leftist fuss and hatred were about. (The Left was reactionary and remains so since 1980, when the US public repudiated US liberalism and its failures.)
Probably anyone in office from 1980 onward who was not a typical New Deal dinosaur liberal would have been as refreshing to Americans as Reagan was. Rescue, restoration, revitalization of this country was what happened after 1980.
T-Steel said:
[Obama as VP]
> (Star Trek reference)
Indeed — I deliberately left that out of what I wrote earlier, but it’s obvious. First officer Spock. Was his position merely a place to park people? No, he was a real first officer, thoroughly involved in all activities aboard the ship.
That’s what the VP should be. There’s also the business model to consider, but the first officer analogy is the best.
[...] See more here: Michael van der Galien [...]
If you look at total [official] government experience, Obama is one of the most experienced democrats running with more than Hillary and Edwards.
Anyway I really really like Obama and I think he is much more than rhetoric. I think that on domestic issues he is really going to surprise everyone by getting very diverse groups to support his agendas. On the foreign policy side, I’m sorry but I think experience means ****. The current corps has more combined foreign policy experience than probably any group in history. Plus, I think little of Kissinger who has the most of any individual.
Still I’d like Obama to be VP first because it’d help him a lot. First of all, I’m scared he is too idealistic and will try to bite off more than he can chew. Being VP would give him a better idea of the areas he can focus on and the areas he needs to pass on.
Course I don’t like Hillary (mainly because she’ll be decisive — IMO unfairly so) and I think Edwards is way too of a leftist populist. Gore is not going to be in the picture, and Richardson has no chance. Plus I can’t vote for McCain of 2000 and the rest of the GOP has varying shades of the things I’m most against on a “dangerous to our fabric” level (like religion in the government or authoritarianism in Rudy’s case). So I’m stuck.
Wow DLS, that was quite a distortion of history you just outlined there. You and Bill Kristol must be on the same crack.
DLS said:
But what DLS should have said:
Having read both of his books, I too must ask why the author believes Obama is “too left” for him. Although his voting record appears to be clearly liberal, his advisors appear to be all over the place. Additionally, his most recent foreign policy speech was praised by none other than Kagan of the ** . I guess I wouldn’t really call Kagan or the idea of increasing recruitment levels by 55,000 troops liberal. Additionally, his ability to empathize with opposing views and incorporate them into legislation make him an invaluable mediator, a role frequently needed in the Executive Office.
Obama clearly has his work cut out for him. Based on recent polling, the MSM has all but buried Obama in favor of Clinton. I think it is because people still don’t know him well enough. They are skittish about his lack of governmental experience, although some obviously appreciate this particular characteristic.
The good news is there is still plenty of time to get to know him. The important point to remember when it comes to experience is that the man has a wealth of personal experience that make him the wiser choice. If you want someone in there who has invaluable personal experience, such as having to wrestle and put to bed inner identity struggles, having lived all over the world and having worked the streets of Chicago as a community organizer, then Obama is your choice. All of his unusual personal experiences will help him make the right decisions in leading the country.
So I would advise all bloggers here to just keep their eyes and mind open when it comes to this guy. We would all be really, really lucky if he became our next president.
Crack? No, just truth. I know it hurts you and other libbies sometimes.
Oh, for once I was wrong. Sorry. It hurts often. *grin*
Thank God our support for right wing terrorist groups made Latin America pro-US and capitalist……er wait.
Also I like this little tidbit from wikipedia:
I’ll never understand the desire to pick a side when they are all rotten to the core.
Are we now suddenly acting as if Obama is right of center? If not, he is ‘too left’ for me.
Anyway, here is a hint: “Although his voting record appears to be clearly liberal…”
I think the press is attracted to Obama’s openness- his willingness to listen to all sides. This is not necessarily a partisan thing- the media likewise had a love affair with John “Maverick” McCain before he made his trip down to visit Jerry Falwell. The media loves someone who they feel is a breath of fresh air, who can offer the country a break from bitter partisanship.
Obama might keep catching on like wildfire. Or he might crash and burn from staying too long in the spotlight. To me he’s not so much something new as a throwback to a time when politicians didn’t stay in attack mode 24/7. And that quality is very attractive, especially after 7 years of an uncompromising partisan who can only play to his base.
Michael,
Want to provide some substance to back up your opinion? Or can we just assume you aren’t really informed about Obama?
Obama may not win the nomination, but he would be a great candidate for VP. After serving in that capacity, maybe the complaints about his inexperience would cease. I have to say to me it said a lot about the Democrats ability to embrace diversity- to have a woman, Hispanic and a black candidate. The GOP debate had 10 middle-aged white Christian males who were very homogenous.
kritter,
The line-ups from both sides really were striking in their superficial differences. It really emphasized the Old in the Grand Old Party.
Chris- I was happy to see that at least one of the major parties was willing to break some artificial barriers-the other seemed to be reaching back in time to embrace an icon of their party – because unlike the 80′s when the US had a strong leader who was adept at diplomacy, they now have an incompetent leader who has isolated himself in the WH and America in the world. One party was forward-thinking looking for solutions to global warming and inequality, the other backwards looking, stuck in the past, resorting to its old fearmongering tricks.
Doesn’t anyone care that Clinton is the wife of a former president? Where would she be without that on her resume? Working at a firm somewhere and certainly not holding elected office. What has she done as a Senator except go the politically expedient route in all matters? When has she ever done a speech that didn’t just spit out pre-digested poll friendly talking points?
Obama answers with not just charisma, he is one of the few candidates I’ve heard ever that actually answers questions with some depth and insight. He might be inexperienced, but really on the experience scale no one in sight of the white house from the dem side has much except for Bill Richardson. The guy is on point every time I’ve heard him speak and seems to take the long view, something sorely need in the executive branch for a change. You think the nation is divided now, wait until we have another Clinton in the oval office. God, I can see the right wing talking morons almost wanting her to get it so they can bitch about it for 8 years.
But go ahead. Vote for another candidate because they’re related to a former president. After her two terms we can elect Jeb, and after his Chelsey should be old enough to run. We can just make it hereditary after that.
I’m not really sure I understand all of this talk of being qualified or not.
If we can all agree that each of the candidates is a good leader, thoughtful and intelligent, then we can skip totally subjective notions of qualifications.
We should be focusing on the candidates suggested policies and viewpoints. By not doing so, we buy into the Beltway PR machine that wants to keep the Presidential elections a popularity contest.
I’ve watched Mrs Clinton speak a few times and saw her debate performance. She can handle whatever comes her way- she was the most impressive of the field. If she had as her only qualification that she was Bill Clinton’s wife it would have become readily apparent. She’s tough as nails.