Has Obama Been Sufficiently Vetted to Survive the GOP Machine?
Larry C. Johnson of No Quarter has been arguing for quite some time that Obama is insufficiently vetted to withstand attacks from the right. In a recent piece in The Huffington Post, he discusses the basis of his concerns. And while I don’t agree by any means with all Johnson’s conclusions about Obama’s candidacy or Obama himself, the warnings he has sounded and the red flags he has indicated have most certainly given me pause. In fact, it would be fair to say that Johnson’s writings were some of the first to raise serious doubt in my mind about whether Obama is the best candidate for the times (though I continue to hope he will prove to be the presidential candidate of the future).
He writes:
If you think for a minute that the Republican party — who used Willie Horton on Michael Dukakis to devastating effect, who portrayed triple amputee and veteran Max Cleland as a bosom buddy of Osama Bin Laden, and convinced many voters that decorated combat veteran John Kerry was a fraud — will give Obama a pass come the fall then you are in serious denial.
But, unlike the attacks on Dukakis, Cleland, and Kerry, the ammunition that Obama has provided to his political foes is significant and deadly. [Huffpost; links in original]
In light of what we know about GOP tactics, Johnson (like me) is bemused by Obamacrats’ willingness to take him at face value and resistance to questioning (or even allowing anyone else to question) his past and past connections.
“Obama is treated with a reverence and fawning that I have never seen in my life for a political figure,” says Johnson.
Well, yes, and I sort of get why this is, as I am not immune myself to the wish for a clean slate and a candidate who will represent the US to the world as we really are, as we believe ourselves to be.
W has given us a lot to endure. He’s tarnished our idea of ourselves and of what it means to be American. Is it surprising that we’d want our next president to be the Anti-W—someone with no connection to the disreputable past? Why should we settle for a fallible human being whose only promise is to work hard to sort out the current mess? We want, dammit, an iconic president. And Obama seems perfect in this respect. Perhaps every country needs its Princess Diana in these hard, bitter, dangerous times. If only our government were set up to divide the responsibilities of representing us and presiding over the government, the unresolvable issue of the sufficiency Obama’s political cred and past experience would never need to be canvassed. We could install the more experienced candidate to do the dirty work and heavy lifting involved in cleaning up after Bush and could give our love to Obama, the representative and public face of us. Unlike Hillary, he’s the Anti-Bush. Isn’t he?
Maybe; maybe not. Johnson argues that Obama has some significant drawbacks that are likely to be used by the GOP to tarnish or destroy his image.
Obama’s untested Achilles heel is his relationship with three men — Tony Rezko, William Ayers, and Rashid Khalidi. These names will become shorthand for Corruption, Terrorism, and the Destruction of Israel… Unfortunately, the worshipful, servile attitude of many Democrats and media personalities so far has hindered a tough look at Obama’s friends and associates and his judgment. But that will come. What should concern Democrats keen on taking back the White House is whether or not these issues will be fully vetted before Obama is installed as the candidate. My guess is no…. (HuffPost)
To understand Johnson’s specific concerns, please refer to the linked post. If you do read it, please bear in mind his central point: Whether or not these allegations are true or untrue, and whatever (if anything) they show about Obama, the GOP has done much more damage with much less ammunition. In one way, it doesn’t really matter whether they are true or whether there is credible evidence to support them.
And what do Republicans think? I only have anecdotal evidence. I asked an old friend, who served in law enforcement (I’ll leave the particular agency out of it) for more than thirty years, about the William Ayers era. There are a lot of Federal agents who believe that Ayers is a terrorist who got away with his crimes and still owes a debt to society. My friend wrote the following to me today:
I think many of my friends believe Obama is beatable; however they concede that Clinton can win. Therefore, the thinking goes, WE hope Obama gets the Democratic nod and THEN flood the gates with information later.
(HuffPost)
If these allegations are out there at all—whether true or untrue—shouldn’t Obama’s supporters and the media at least be trying to find out more about them? Hillary can’t bring them up; her campaign can’t even point out facts that can be documented and established by evidence without being accused of this, that, and the other scurrilous attempt to tarnish Obama’s reputation.
In my case, it was the very superficial knowledge of Obama that I have been able to obtain from what’s out there currently that made me jump back off the Obama bandwagon just as I was preparing to climb aboard. As I have said many times, I am not immune to his appeal; when he speaks, I feel just like Chris Matthews. But I don’t feel comfortable supporting a candidate I don’t feel I know for the office of Chief Executive of the United States and the awful (in every sense) job of presiding over the nation in these difficult times. So every time I start to lift the cup of delicious Kool-Aid to my lips, I find myself setting it down again.
Hillary at least has been thoroughly vetted. The so-called ‘scandals’ attributed to her have been completely documented. No amount of digging by her political enemies has succeeded in implicating her in Whitewater and the Lewinsky scandal was all Bill’s doing and doubtless hurt her feelings more than ours. Since then, she’s been in the public eye pretty much all the time.
The Pollyanna-ish part of me wonders whether Americans, including those who were duped the first time, will have learned to discount attempted ‘swiftboatings.’ But then I take a look at what’s being done to Hillary and Bill Clinton in the media and by members of their and my very own party and I begin to despair again.
Johnson, no Pollyanna, predicts:
Feelings of hope and inspiration about Obama will evaporate when the commercials tying him to a convicted felon slumlord, an unrepentant terrorist who hates the troops, and a Professor of Middle Eastern Studies who has been a PLO official spouting anti-Israeli rhetoric. Oh, YES THEY WILL! YES, THEY WILL. (HuffPost)
The comments to the post reveal that a number of Democrats share his concerns. But you can read it yourself and draw your own conclusions.
I don’t think I made it sufficiently clear in my past posts how much I hope that Obama is just as good as he seems—if I’m not enthusiastic about him as a current candidate for the presidency, I certainly hope to see him become a future one. In the meantime, intimations of fallibility do recur. In response, his supporters—instead of acknowledging them—rush to defend him and to reframe/neutralize any potentially unflattering facts. Isn’t Johnson—whether or not you agree with his personal opinion of Obama as a candidate—right about the need not to let partisanship make us as credulous as Bush’s erstwhile supporters?
Aren’t we Democrats supposed, at the very least, to be more cynical than that? Have we learned nothing?
CROSS-POSTED AT BUCK NAKED POLITICS
Share This
Related Posts
-
NSA Surveillance Coverage from Germany, France, Switzerland, Brazil and Colombia
Posted on Jun 13, 2013
-
Obama’s Data Nightmare is Europe’s (Handelsblatt, Germany)
Posted on Jun 10, 2013
-
‘Hypnotized’ Western Public Wakes Up to Obama Abuses (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Germany)
Posted on May 25, 2013
-
Like the Brits and Americans, Europeans Must Re-Embrace Keynes (Die Welt, Germany)
Posted on May 21, 2013
So Obama supporters aren't allowing anyone else to question his past connections?
How exactly are they accomplishing this? Because as much as I like Larry Johnson, that's about all he's done on his blog for months now. Same for Taylor Marsh.
I respect their support for Mrs. Clinton, thought I think both have gone beyond the bounds of acceptable primary criticism, Marsh more than Johnson.
As for what Johnson is describing, angry Obama supporters trashing Hillary, perhaps he should look a bit closer at his own commenters who compare Obama to a 1930's Nazi leader.
Comment trolling is easy! It's stupid, but it cuts both ways.
I welcome as much vetting of Obama as possible. Even though I'm an Obama supporter and welcome all who support him, I can't help but feel that some people support him without fully understanding him. They really need to listen to what he says (and not how he says it) and look at his positions before voting for him (or any candidate).
I feel both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will get “serious business” from Republicans. Senator Clinton's completely documented scandals will get new like. They'll be re-examined, re-baked, re-fried, and re-lived with a dash of 2008-nish. And it will have an effect just like Senator Obama's “new and fresh stuff”.
Senators McCain, Clinton, and Obama are all articulate and cut from a different cloth than President Bush. And either one of them can win the presidency.
I, too, welcome vetting. I honestly don't think these particular issues hold water, and if we're waiting for a candidate about whom you can't say something like: he served on the same board as, and got a campaign contribution from, an ex-Weatherman, we might as well just stipulate that we won't nominate anyone who hasn't spent his or her entire life locked away in solitary confinement.
There's one point I really disagree with, though, namely:
“Hillary at least has been thoroughly vetted. The so-called ’scandals’ attributed to her have been completely documented. No amount of digging by her political enemies has succeeded in implicating her in Whitewater and the Lewinsky scandal was all Bill’s doing and doubtless hurt her feelings more than ours. Since then, she’s been in the public eye pretty much all the time.”
I really, really don't think it's wise to assume that there is nothing new to discover about Clinton, especially if you assume that the Republicans will feel free to use anything bad they discover about her husband. We do not know that no new dirt has come into existence since — see, e.g., this recent NYT story — and I see no reason at all to assume either that there is nothing, or that if there were something, the Republicans would have used it now, rather than saving it for the general election campaign.
“I see no reason at all to assume either that there is nothing, or that if there were something, the Republicans would have used it now, rather than saving it for the general election campaign.”
In fact, if we accept the supposition that the GOP would prefer to run against Senator Clinton, it would make sense to hold off on releasing any dirt, real or imagined, that they managed to dig up until after the nominee was decided (assuming it's Senator Clinton).
I feel Johnson wants people to live in fear of the amazing Republican campaign machine (though look at the results of that amazing machine in the 2006 Senatorial campaigns). Or perhaps, better put, we are supposed to choose the candidate that millions of Americans already dislike, fairly or unfairly (mostly unfairly in my opinion), instead of the one they might come to dislike when attacked relentlessly. Doesn't that seem a bit odd?
Shifting slightly, Damozel, I definitely get the impression that you feel, not simply conflicted about your vote, which is normal, but under pressure to join some bandwagon or pilgrimage and that peer pressure, of sorts, keeps making you jump back. If you feel that pressure, try to step away from the political boards and circles. It only feels like everyone wants you to join because you are running in political circles in your spare time; most people who will vote are on no bandwagon and are just making a slightly educated guess about who the best Prez would be. Once you are away from the political pressure, maybe you can just look at the two candidates and decide who you think is best. Don't be swayed by evil or wonderful supporters of a candidate. They make up about 2% of the population. Just vote your heart.
It's crunch time for me, as I am attending the Hawaii Caucus tonight. I've been supporting Obama at least since Richardson dropped out, but I will be visiting Clinton and Obama's campaign materials once again before I go to see if I should change my mind.
We want, dammit, an iconic president.
I think this desire is actually Obama's achilles heel. Democrats don't seem to be asking the hard questions not only about integrity but also about policy. They seem to fail to do so because they are caught up in the undeniable allure of the man himself.
If his policy ideas turn out to alienate enough people in the center he will most likely loose the general election. If does win the general election based on his force of personality, he will not be able to actually get his ideas passed into law.
The Presidency is no job to hire for based on emotion.
Shannon, which policies of Obama are going to alienate the center and how are Clinton's different? Also, how does the data consistently suggesting that Obama draws independents in while Clinton does not fit with this image of Obama losing the Center? I actually would like to know, as I vote tonight, and I am open to changing my mind.
Dam: You're pro-Hill shilling is getting more and more silly.
Obama is being vetted now, by the likes of Johnson et al, and in no small way by the Bill and Hill machine. If there's something there, they will use it (though I don't believe they'd get as base-nasty as the Republicans will in the general). The lame claims of plagiarism, etc., indicates to me that there's not a whole lot of “there” there.
Also, it seems more than a little counterintuitive to claim that somehow Barack's liabilities could possibly outnumber or be worse than Hillary's. In addition to Hillary's own negatives (which approach the upper 40's in the general populace), she also has to, fairly or unfairly, be prepared to answer for her husband's foibles.
The idea that any of the candidates have been “vetted” so far or that the MSM will “vet” them is absurd. The only people who can do a real vetting are those regular citizens who will go to their appearances and ask them the questions the MSM is too corrupt to ask. Here's one for Hillary, and here's one for Obama. No one from the MSM would even dare ask either of them anything like that, and aside from me no one else seems interested in pressing them on issues like that. Hopefully that will change, but they won't be “vetted” before then.
Wacko — if you had the transcript for what Obama actually said at the event you are asking about, I would be interested in reading it. It's possible (likely?) that such a transcript would answer your question, in fact. Since little or nothing seems to go unrecorded these days, I'm sure such a transcript can be had.
Re: The vetting. I agree totally with Mike_P that Obama is getting vetted right now, even as my little fingers dance across the keyboard.
Regarding Rezko: I've looked at the issue every way I can, and I really don't think there's anything more there. However, knowing Rezko's trial starts soon (next week?), I'm positive a more thorough “vetting” on that subject is imminent.
Currently, Hillary Clinton is throwing everything — including the kitchen sink. If it's there, Damozel, we're absolutely hearing about it right now. Furthermore, it's taking exactly the same form it would from the GOP in the general — as attacks.
We are, in fact, learning a great deal about both of them at the moment, are we not?
Cosmo:
“Dam: You're pro-Hill shilling is getting more and more silly.”
….Whereas your constant popping up to rebuke me for preferring Hillary is proof of your wisdom and disinterestedness. You know what I think; feel free to read the many posts here that are pro-Obama.
I am not 'shilling' for anyone. I don't feel strongly about Hillary from a personal standpoint (I would have preferred Edwards or Gore to either of these by a moonlight mile); I just don't trust Obama and I definitely prefer her to him. And I intend to keep saying so until I feel differently. (Note that I haven't said that your shilling for Obama is silly or indeed felt it necessary to analyze your motives or attack your reasoning. I could do so just as easily as you since I know approximately as much about you as you do about me.)
PACATRUE:
“Shifting slightly, Damozel, I definitely get the impression that you feel, not simply conflicted about your vote, which is normal, but under pressure to join some bandwagon or pilgrimage and that peer pressure, of sorts, keeps making you jump back.”
No, not so much that. I AM slightly envious of the Church of Obama. It would be nice to feel that passionate about a candidat. What can I say?
I wish I had their faith. And I am speaking from personal experience with any number of impassioned Obamacrats. I don't feel that way about any candidate.
I don't know how Dems where you are behave—possibly they are different—-but I'm in a town where there are a lot of besotted Obama supporters.
Attacked, Vetted and Swiftboated, Oh my!
It is not the past or that will come back to bite Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama in the ass during the general election but their policies. The biggest stumble on the campaign trail so far for Mrs. Clinton came in a debate via her answer to a question regarding drivers licenses for illegal aliens. It was not her waffling on the answer that hurt her standing, rather it was her underlying policy, (i.e., that illegals should be granted state issued drivers licenses). A majority of American disagreed with her policy, which caused her to waffle, which brought more attention to her policy, which caused her to drop in the polls.
I have not reviewed any policy statements that closely, but I believe what I have read that in general, there is not much of a difference between the policies of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. On the other hand, there is a great difference between either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain. Because there is so little difference on policy, all of the debate has been personal, (who can lead on day one, who has the vision to change, etc…, etc…) without any real scrutiny on the policies.
Whoever becomes the nominee for the democrats, they will not be able to run against Mr. McCain on any personal level, (1996 notwithstanding), but will only be able to run on policy and I expect that the republicans will gain more support for their policy proposals. So, there is no need on either side to worry about the past, it doesn't matter. What matters are the policy proposals for the future and how they are viewed by the voting public.
“Dam: You're pro-Hill shilling is getting more and more silly.”
….Whereas your constant popping up to rebuke me for preferring Hillary is proof of your wisdom and disinterestedness. You know what I think; feel free to read the many posts here that are pro-Obama.
Dam:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shill
1. a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.
2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.
–verb (used without object)
3. to work as a shill: He shills for a large casino.
–verb (used with object)
4. to advertise or promote (a product) as or in the manner of a huckster; hustle: He was hired to shill a new TV show.
When you put up a ludicrous post like this, titled as it is, that is shilling. It is not about you preferring Hill, but trying to booster her by acting as an arm of her media machine, rather than objectively looking at a fact.
I prefer Obama, and can argue why, but I am not posting nonsense like this on a blog. That is shilling, and you are acting as a shill. Don't like it? Don't shill. Perhaps try to not participate in the fulfillment of the stereotype of all bloggers as pajama-wearing wannabe journalists.
I am not 'shilling' for anyone. I don't feel strongly about Hillary from a personal standpoint (I would have preferred Edwards or Gore to either of these by a moonlight mile); I just don't trust Obama and I definitely prefer her to him. And I intend to keep saying so until I feel differently. (Note that I haven't said that your shilling for Obama is silly or indeed felt it necessary to analyze your motives or attack your reasoning. I could do so just as easily as you since I know approximately as much about you as you do about me.)
See above, and learn the definition of a word before you misuse it. And part of being a shill is that the motives are transparent.
Damozel,
Thank you for linking to No Quarter. Before I knew of that site I thought that hillaryis44.com was the most biased fever swamp supporting Hillary Clinton on the Internet. I now see that I was mistaken. No Quarter clearly takes that title.
The media will be attacking McCain as an “extremist conservative” once the Dem nominee has been selected.
Polimom: what Obama said at the event is immaterial, and what he did say is probably just his standard fare. The damning part of it is that he was there at all. What exactly is a U.S. Senator doing supporting illegal activity at an event organized by those linked to a foreign government?
Actually knowing what Obama's positions are is rather difficult. ?Extrapolating from his voting record and the known position of his advisors, I think he is farther Left in most areas than Clinton. He might be further right on economics but again, it's hard to tell.
I might quickly condense my argument this way: Clinton is widely disliked. Even people who vote for her often have reservations about her as a person and public figure. Most Clinton votes are votes for Clintons policies not the person. By contrast, people like Obama the person, even if they don't know the specifics of his policies. Even Republicans really like him as a person. Votes for Obama are mostly votes for the person, not the policies.
He runs the very real risk of winning as a person just to find out he does not have an actual mandate for his policies. Something very similar, I think, happened to Bill Clinton in '92 and he ended a very weak President, forced to concede virtually every major policy area to the Republicans.
Just for disclosure, I am a right leaning independent who will probably who will probably vote for McCain over Obama. Even so, I can see definate social and political advantages for the country as a whole if Obama wins based on his attributes as a person. On the other hand, I don't see any significant advantage in a Clinton win. You might want to factor that in as well.
FLYERHAWK:
It's true that Johnson doesn't have a lot to say about Obama that's favorable. I don't know that he's right, but I've been reading his blog for some time and I can't dismiss his allegations as clearly noncredible. The piece to which I linked was at The Huffington Post, not at No Quarter.
I started reading No Quarter quite some time ago while researching torture/intelligence issues. As Johnson's bio reflects, he is more qualified than most bloggers to speak on those matters. This doesn't mean he is right about Obama, but it does mean that I have read his past opinions with respect. He's been right about a lot of things. He's not a fool, not credulous, and strikes me as amply qualified to assess a potential red flag.
The point of my piece wasn't to say that the allegations he refers to are true or even that I believe they might be true—I trust not. The question is whether they are sufficiently unexamined or sufficiently credible to imperil Obama's candidacy down the line. I choose to believe that a thorough examination would reveal them to be groundless, but I am very very nervous about all the unknowns
SHANNONLOVE:
I agree with you, including with what you say about Hillary Clinton. People don't like her. Since I don't view McCain as a credible option for me, I'm pretty much stuck between a candidate I personally like and respect and who I feel certain could do the job (but who is widely loathed) and one who is widely adored but whose credentials don't impress me and whose personal and political history seems still to be quite hazy.
I AM going to have to come to terms with Obama—-this is increasingly clear. And it is actually helpful to read the responses of people who already have.
POLIMOM:
I don't think Clinton IS really bringing up everything she could on Obama—partly because there has been such a backlash every time she (or anyone connected with her) has said anything at all about him.
There's a blog called Rezko Watch that I've been looking at and I've also read some of the doubts raised by Obama skeptics such as Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune. Rezko definitely ISN'T a good connection for Obama to have had.
At the end of the day, I'm convinced that he'll either not be implicated in any way or, if implicated at all, ultimately vindicated. I don't have any grounds for thinking so except that he seems like an incredibly intelligent and good person to me and I want to believe that he will.
But…my point is that there are still a lot of unknowns about him and I'm not comfortable with that. I don't understand him or really feel I know who he is (which I do feel with Hillary).
I most definitely do think that the right will be much more aggressive in dealing with him than his fellow Democrats. No Democrat swiftboated Kerry during the last hard-fought nomination process. That didn't happen till the GOP decided to undermine his very real heroism in Vietnam.
I'm sorry to be a skeptic and—believe me—am working to change my opinion since I imagine he will be the nominee. But I would rather have had any of the others this round.
COSMO, I've no objection to being thought, or to having my posts, thoughts, titles, etc., thought 'transparent.'
Otherwise, I don't need lectures from you, thanks. Your hectoring tone automatically causes me to dismiss what you say. I don't like to be shouted at and I don't like being lectured in boldface or patronized by having someone recite the dictionary to me. I can't hear the merits of your arguments through the no doubt intentionally offensive tone.
Don't like my position? Feel free to read the many other writers here who support Obama rather than Hillary. If you don't believe I am struggling with my feelings for Obama, that's your privilege. Just move on.
Till I've resolved my doubts about him, I will speak as I find. Just…scroll down and share your thoughts with someone whose position you find worthy.
Feel free to have the last word—-in all caps, if you wish. I'm not engaging any further on this issue.
Thanks for the response, Shannon. To make sure I got it, in the last paragraph, you advised that, if I must vote for Clinton or Obama (over McCain) that you see the best hope for improvements in America with Obama, right?
I've been doing some reading on Clinton's and Obama's policy decisions today. Basically, I wanted to give Clinton a chance to show me I've been wrong before I go vote in the caucus tonight. I am sure you are aware, but both candidates have policy positions at about the same level of detail on their campaign web sites. I will link to the Issues page for both, in case it helps people.
Clinton
Obama
Many of the policies are quite similar, as we all know. One strong positive for Obama to me is that he has a position right there on fiscal discipline where I did not see something similar for Clinton. If Obama can successfully hammer this point, that might help him with some centrists in a general election.
Getting back to the point, Obama seems to have policies at a similar detail level as Clinton's. I think the difference between the two is that Clinton is selling her policies. Obama is selling a way of working or a manner of conducting governance primarily. Policies aren't lacking in the latter, they just aren't focused on in a stump speech. Since both are necessary, shouldn't we be hammering Clinton for not detailing her manner of working with people?
Damozel, thanks for the post. I don't know whether you're shilling or not and it doesn't particularly matter to me. What I see in your post are well considered thoughts (I don't agree with everything you say) and some of the choices you've made. As Americans we are blessed with the responsibility of choosing our leaders in an informed manner. The personal journey we go through (and choosing who to vote for, especially this election, has been a journey for me.
I welcome any scrutiny that either Hillary or Obama receive and the point of my earlier post is that people need to make well-informed decisions. Most people let one or two issues form the full basis on whether to support or NOT support a candidate.
Look what we got because the Bush/Rove machine was able to frame the 2004 election around national security and managed to convince the American people that the Dems would endanger us… If more people made well-balanced decisions our country would be in a very different place.
So while we have differences, it's great that you're going through the process and care (like everyone posting on here) about our country and want what is best and take the time and responsibility to consider and debate the various issues (not just policy issues, but other issues such as electability, the tone, etc.).
Thanks for all who post on here, defending your positions and considering others' opinions. It's really great that we all care about our country and will get into these arguments.
Dam:
'COSMO, I've no objection to being thought, or to having my posts, thoughts, titles, etc., thought 'transparent.'
Otherwise, I don't need lectures from you, thanks. Your hectoring tone automatically causes me to dismiss what you say. I don't like to be shouted at and I don't like being lectured in boldface or patronized by having someone recite the dictionary to me. I can't hear the merits of your arguments through the no doubt intentionally offensive tone.
Don't like my position? Feel free to read the many other writers here who support Obama rather than Hillary. If you don't believe I am struggling with my feelings for Obama, that's your privilege. Just move on.
Till I've resolved my doubts about him, I will speak as I find. Just…scroll down and share your thoughts with someone whose position you find worthy.
Feel free to have the last word—-in all caps, if you wish. I'm not engaging any further on this issue.
reply'
So sayeth the shill with the hand in the cookie jar. Don't want lectures, don't try to couch them in such puerile nonsense. Period.