Thanks for Trying, Senator Obama
Thanks for trying, Senator Obama. Thanks for trying to rise above the fray, for trying to embrace a post-partisan world and impart a sense of promise and empowerment that many of us have not felt for a very long time. It was wonderful while it lasted.
And though I hope I’m proven wrong, I’m increasingly concerned the mass electorate is simply not ready for you.
This concern is based on much more than the Rev. Wright’s recent assault on your campaign. Though I largely agree with Eugene Robinson‘s take on that matter — “Politically, by surfacing now, [Rev. Wright] was throwing Barack Obama under the bus. Sadly, it’s time for Obama to return the favor.” — I’m not sure such a move would do you much good.
I’m unconvinced of the utility of said bus-throwing because, if I’ve learned anything during your campaign, it’s this: There remains in this country far too much fear, far too much bias. And yes, far too many simple minds — minds that are either unable or unwilling to realize that, if we were all to be damned by our associations, then we would all be … well … damned.
There are among us none who have avoided complex, close relationships with contradictory people. There are among us none who have ourselves been perfect, period, either in our actions and words or in our ties with the actions and words of others. Unfortunately, those realities don’t stop us from holding you — and, frankly, your colleagues, Sen. McCain and Sen. Clinton — to higher standards than we hold ourselves.
Some will argue that this dichotomy, this double standard, is only appropriate — that we should hold the three of you to a higher standard because you are running for the highest office in the land. Perhaps they have a point … to a degree. But I’m concerned we’ve moved well beyond a degree to the realm of infinite degrees, seeking perfection from imperfect people in an imperfect world.
Thanks for trying, Senator Obama. Maybe four years from now, or eight, or 12, the world will be ready for you, after you’ve had more time and more opportunity to prove that you should be defined as we all would be defined, not by whom we have known, but by who we are.
37 Responses to “Thanks for Trying, Senator Obama”
And when he wins Indiana, what then- will you be so ready to roll over like the rest of the media and write him off? if Hillary get's the nomination, McCain will get the White House.
typical “why should I try attitutude” of the surrender monkeys. I say It ain't over till it's over!
Name ONE politician that hasn't had a relationship with a volatile individual…go ahead…I'm waiting. They attract it, like a magnet, it's a given.
If we are so simple minded as to ascribe one person's viewpoint to another by reason of proximity, then we have not budged in the past 200+ years, and in fact have slid backwards.
In order to have change, you have to have the will.
Pete –
“And yes, far too many simple minds — minds that are either unable or unwilling to realize that, if we were all to be damned by our associations, then we would all be … well … damned.”
Inspired writing. I whole-heartedly agree.
This whole idea of 'politics of association' troubles me for the simple reason that it makes future elections seemingly impossible. Am I to understand that we need to vet every candidate by researching every person that they have ever talked to? Done business with? Said 'hello' to on the street?
Ugh.
http://thepajamapundit.com/
Sat in a pew…listened to? Passed on the street and said hello to? If we go that road why was GWB even elected due to his grandfather's Nazi Sympathising?
We are defined by who we are, what we do, not who we know.
Pete-
I have to agree with you as well. It may be too late for Obama to save himself. In a year of change, people are afraid. That's why change s necessary. Obama needs to allay fears as well as inspire hope. The reptilian brain is alive in well in a climate of recession, inflation and terrorism.
Ed
http://edspoliticalforum.blogspot.com/
I have a much different take on it because I don't believe there will ever come a time when it's a good idea to show understanding for the views of extremists. Sen Obama unwittingly gave Rev. Wright the platform that he's now enjoying when he declined the opportunity to disavow all of Wright's extremism in an uncategorical manner. A lot of people do look forward to a postracial America, but we won't get there until someone of Obama's stature is willing to stand up and say “ENOUGH” to the haters who are black and the haters who are white.
The kind of elitist crap you threw out there Pete – “simple minds” and “minds unable to grasp” is par for the course from the messiah's supporters.
What you can't seem to get through your pointy head is that you are the one who is blinded.
“Post partisanship?” Name one meaningful attempt at bi-partisanship Obama participated in. Immigration reform? Absent. Judges compromise? Not there. Fact is, he's never stuck his neck out – he's a political coward.
A “new kind of politics?” From a guy who made his political bones in Chicago? Are you fricking kidding me?
Those who can't see that hypocrisy drips from every word this guy utters deserve his presidency. And please, don't set yourself up as our better – there is nothing “new” or “empowering” about a man who says one thing on the stump and then carries on politics as usual elsewhere.
CS: hopefully he will.
Although I disagree that it's never good to show “understanding” for radical views. Those views are almost always grounded in some sort of real (and commonly held) fear.
For instance, it's ridiculous to think that the government invented AIDS or crack to destroy the inner cities, but on the other hand there is a long history of the government running experiments on naive minorities and the poor and military service members. The extremism isn't the deep mistrust in the government and the belief they are capable of injustices, it's that there is no evidence that the government was involved in those particular things he cited (and more generally, any mass race based targeting of populations in the last 50+ years). Although even as I say that, there is a lot of evidence that the government actively oversaw some aspects of the drug trade during the 80s as part of their anti-Communism campaign, so it's hard to argue with someone that proclaims there was a vast conspiracy even if that is extreme.
Instead, I'd say there is never a time to pass of extremism as mere “disagreement.” I was somewhat disappointed that Obama has basically been just saying that he doesn't share the views, while not condemning them directly, but part of it is that in the current environment it's nearly impossible to condemn an extreme belief while simultaneously respecting the underlying emotion.
For instance, the “extreme” belief that a lot of religious people have is that secularists, etc. are all secretly ganging up to destroy them and rid public life of them (and visa versa) as if there is some grand conspiracy. These beliefs are grounded in a real feeling of frustration that their values don't have as much influence as they used to and that the general message is that's OK — so they feel it's harder to raise their children like they want, etc. To counteract that idea, some people attack the whole package as ridiculous and offend someone like you who has some of the same underlying feelings while being open to dialog.
I hope that Obama makes it clear that it's OK to have fears of uncertainty and doubt, but that we should always strive to overcome them by looking for opportunities to interact with people on an optimistic and respectful level — and part of that includes banding together against those that are actively seeking to promote strife, regardless of their ideology.
Rick, I have to agree with what Hilzoy wrote way back in the day.
That judges compromise was in no way bi-partisanship. I'm not sure how it's a “compromise” when one side gets what it wants in return for not completely rewriting the rules. Using that logic, it would be compromise for Clinton to agree to let Obama be the nominee in order for her to not retroactively decide that only the largest 4 states count or some other metric. (I really can't believe that the Democrats saw the Republican led Congress block dozens of nominees during Clinton's term without even a hearing while they blocked a small handful and they couldn't control the media spin).
As for immigration reform…well in all honesty there are so many large blocks that want so many different things that it's impossible to get a real agreement at this point in time. I respectfully disagree with any one that claims there is a “right” approach to the situation.
Yes, mikkel, I agree with your expanded view. I misstated in saying that one shouldn't 'show understanding', although I still think it's a problem to show the understanding without being explicit in drawing a line right at the bounds of understanding the underlying emotions. If any room is left for people to presume that the understanding justifies the extremism, then the politician hasn't sufficiently dealt with the person who is touting the views.
An aside: has anyone else noted that a key talking point by Obama supporters now is that Wright is such an egomaniac and the problem is that he's claiming to be a representative of the black church in general- in essence, claiming more than he has a right to…and yet Obama himself gave him that opening when he said that he can't disown Wright because that would be like disowning the black community itself?
Rassmussen has Obama at 51 over Hillary at 34 in NC.
Besides, this too shall pass. The media wants to dent Obama to keep the ratings high by trying to drag this thing on into August.
They are dying for a brokered convention.
However, on Sunday in Indiana there is the jefferson Jackson dinner and it will be broadcast on Cspan. and I'm guessing it's going to be closely watched.
And I think Obama will address many things in his speech and blow away the pundits who now have a stake in tearing him down.
CS your question had me go back to the speech. I disagree that he used that logic.
I read that to mean that he was highlighting the major social influences on his life. I dunno, you can disagree.
Also I feel that my prior comments perhaps were too hard on him:
blah blah etc.
My comments were referring to his comments since then. I've noticed that Obama has a big tendency to want to spend a long time developing a response and then get it all out there exactly how he wants and once that's done he really thinks the issue is over and is dismissive. I can't say I blame him, if I ran for office I'd give an “economics speech,” “environment speech,” etc. and tell every one to read them all and my stump appearances would mostly be Q and A. I still stand by my assessment that one of the major problems is he hasn't directly attacked the reasoning process and conspiracy mindedness of Wright's statements.
I think you're probably right in that he meant it that way, but that's not how it comes across to all listeners- in particular, to Wright and anyone else who is on his side of racial politics.
The big open question is why hasn't he? Is it because he doesn't get it (possibly- there are certainly signs of a bit of insularity-if I want to stop short of using 'elitism' -that make him a bit tone deaf to how some of his words are received.) Or is it because he knows that he can't afford to alienate the people that some of us feel he needs to marginalize? That's my biggest concern- not what all of this says about Obama himself, but what it says about the still too pervasive attitudes of black leaders, which make it impossible to move beyond race baiting politics. What disappoints me is that Obama strikes me as someone who could move toward postracialism but he seems to lack the courage of his convictions. That may be just due to personal connections with people like Wright, or it may be due to pragmatic considerations of his own career and as Wright puts it, “saying what he has to say to get elected.” (though I mean that in the reverse- that Obama is 'saying what he has to say' when he refuses to disown Wright, not when he does repudiate his statements.)
RickMoran:
You are using far too little of your fertile brain these days and your cynicism lobe is getting far too great a workout.
Your ad hominem attack on Pete is not informed by his long and thoughtful journey from the bowels of Republicanism to qualified support for Obama. Someone like myself would be a much better target for your comment.
In any event, we'll all be getting a good long look at how Obama's “elitist crap” plays at the White house. I'd say at least four years.
CS I don't think it is racially based actually. For instance, he has simultaneously praised Sen. Brownback while taking a similar tone about some of Brownback's wilder ideas.
In all honesty, the vast majority of people –i.e. all sometimes (even the centrists) — tend to ascribe their problems to “others” that can easily veer into focusing on plots for power. Hell, a lot of the time those fears are real, but it still is often about a lack of power and a feeling of helplessness rather than trying to fix things.
It seems like Obama is focused more on trying to make everyone feel good about their own internals and just point out that there are areas of overlap that they can agree on, rather than challenging the American mindset, some of which has real problems. In that way it's a traditional populist movement. On the other hand, his populist movement is the most rational one at the moment.
mikkel, I didn't mean to imply that it's all about race, just that in this case that's the particular divisive politic that's in play. In all of those cases, I'd feel the same way: that the leader who wants to really make progress might need to acknowledge the underlying fears or grievances on a divisive issue but then also refuse to allow those grievances to be used as fertilizer for extremism. The way Obama has handled the Wright incident (and more than the incident, his entire relationship with Wright and his church) indicates to me that he thinks it's possible to do the first part without the second. Maybe he gives too much credit to people for being able to assume that the common ground will be found just by airing the grievances, and then the extremists will be deflated as the problems get solved- but in the real world I don't believe that it works that way. I take your penultimate paragraph above to indicate that you disagree with me on this point- that you believe that if people have their grievances acknowledged, then they feel empowered and they're less likely to 'act out'. Again, I don't completely disagree about the acknowledgement part- but only if it also comes with a sharp rebuke about illegitimate uses of the grievances.
This has all kinds of negative implications for someone of my mindset. It goes to how effective he'd be as a unifier in our domestic politics as well as how he'd conduct foreign policy. That's why this strikes such a chord, I think, and if I'm reading the electorate correctly I think that Obama's supporters ought not to underestimate how this resonates even if they don't think people like myself ought to see it this way- we just do, whether or not you agree with that.
If I'm wrong about the extent to which voters will feel as I do, and if Obama wins the primary and the general election, then I only hope that I'm also wrong about the effects of this particular part of his personality and judgment.
Through Super Tuesday I stated the obvious fact, that the smart money was on Clinton. Obama turned that around on Super Tuesday. Since then he's been the leader and among many (not just cultists) the prospective Dem nominee. The race is far from over, though. And that goes for Obama as well as for Clinton.
[note subtitle, dear to Shaun "Dead Horse Whip" Mullen's eyes]
…
Obama Weathers the Wright Storm, Clinton Faces Credibility Problem
National Discontent Approaches 20-Year High, Bush Approval at 28%
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?Re…
Rick Moran asked
“Post partisanship?” Name one meaningful attempt at bi-partisanship Obama participated in.”
Well, there's the Lugar Obama non proliferation act.
Then there's the Coburn-Obama bill on openess in government contracting.
You see Rick, sometimes parrotting Karl Rove's talking points makes you look a wee bit goofy.
The sad part is I've read Rick a lot of years. He isn't simple minded.
But lately he's been sinking to the level of his commenters.
Why I support Obama and Why I support Rev. Wright………
I'd like to add a different perspective to this debate, and a pointer as to why Obama will LIKELY NOT repudiate Rev. Wright outright. I consider myself a reasonable and intelligent person, like most Americans I'm sure. As a member of the African American community many of the statements Rev. Wright makes have some legitimacy and credibility in my eyes. Certainly I agree with Obama that the tone, delivery and reasoning of Rev. Wright in some instances is both intellectually dishonest and self serving, BUT I ALSO agree that many of his comments are borne from an underlying reality that is both factual and honest albeit communicated crudely. I'll give a few concrete examples, many people term ridiculous the comments about AIDS, but I'll profer that many in my community do not consider it beyond the realm of possibility. Likey maybe not, impossible……do not have that level of confidence in the government to say so categorically. Next….KKK comments……….definitely intellectually dishonest for Wright to make such sweeping generalizations, but is there truth in the underlying sentiment? Certainly when there is irrefutable proof that racism was tacitly and actively institutionalized through government, not now perhaps, but certainly in the past.
And finally the infamous 911 comments…….again intellectually dishonest on the part of Wright since obviously the terrorists didn't discriminate and spare those Americans who potentially might have been sympathetic to their grieviances but again is there truth to the underlying sentiment that chickens came home to roost? Certainly in my book, America's long foreign policy history is far from illustrious especially in the part of the world manufacturing these terrorists.
My point, as I said earlier, Rev. Wright is obviously not the sanctioned spokesperson for the black community or the black church, neither is that community monolithic in their support for him but the underlying point is does he AND HIS VIEWS have legitimacy and credibility in that community? Certainly and a lot, including with people like me who don't share much of his perspective. Barack Obama knows that and that is why he will disown some of his statements but not the man. And that is why I support Barack Obama because I think he has been put in the prime position of demonstrating you cannot pretend these grieviances away including even if you think they are illogical….the sensible thing is to confront them through sensible and rational dialogue as opposed to highly emotional and divisive rhetoric.
“I take your penultimate paragraph above to indicate that you disagree with me on this point- that you believe that if people have their grievances acknowledged, then they feel empowered and they're less likely to 'act out'.”
Actually CS in previous threads I've said my main concern about Obama is that he is not realistically presenting the conflicts that are bound to arise based on fundamental disagreements and that at the first sign of difficulty the entire thing will fall apart.
It's easy enough to band together and be fed up with the current political scene, but entirely different to actually make something new. What I said in the prior post was more a statement that it's not that certain subgroups have such clinging to divisiveness but that we all tend to use it as a defense mechanism (to use an Obama idea) . If he truly started attacking that mindset to the extent that it exists I think he would quickly lose all support.
I am a strong believer not only in post-racial or post-gender worldview, but a post-identity worldview. Like I often joke that I am a terrible [computer scientist][guy][sports enthusiast][etc.] because my self expression is pretty tangential to my interests/traits, while most people define themselves in terms of their interests/traits. I'll tell you, it really weirds some people out (to the point of extreme hatred occasionally) that they can't figure out what I will think or do in general.
My “liberalness” exists inasmuch that I believe that the vast majority of people operate on identity lines, and moreover there is a huge discrepancy between how different subgroups are treated. So on one hand I'm empathetic with the view that people should just get over race, or sexuality or whatnot, because to me it's about as defining as the fact that I don't like raw tomatoes…but I also acknowledge that most of the time when people are told to “get over it” it's about marginalization. A lot of people that (rightly) complain when race is used as a justification for victimization or whatnot have no problems turning around and victimizing themselves when their views are marginalized. The “Obama is only where he is because he's black” line is a humorous example of this. There is a very strong pull to wash away the experiences of millions by pointing out there is one person who isn't fitting the stereotype so obviously we'd all be better if no one brought it up.
The progress the country has made is that I have met very few people whose individual interactions are changed by bias. In the vast majority of cases, it is possible to work closely and be friends with someone you vehemently disagree/look down on, and that is Obama's primary message…and I think that over time that sort of realization will deflate extremism. People are so defensive that sometimes it's better to talk past them about something else rather than try to convince them they're wrong. As long as Obama fights against illegitimate uses as they come up to affect public discourse, I'm not sure it's too bad.
I fully agree with everything you say but there is no way that the country will change to reflect that on any predictable timescale. It might not even be possible due to human nature.
suiji, do you feel this is repudiating him outright?
“”I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia explaining that he's done enormous good. … But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS. … There are no excuses. They offended me. They rightly offend all Americans and they should be denounced.”"
The progress the country has made is that I have met very few people whose individual interactions are changed by bias. In the vast majority of cases, it is possible to work closely and be friends with someone you vehemently disagree/look down on, and that is Obama's primary message…and I think that over time that sort of realization will deflate extremism.
What puzzles me is why Obama seems a better example of this to some people than McCain does, since McCain has walked that walk for many years now.
Because, it's McCain running today and not McCain of 8 years ago. You bring back that McCain and he wins in a landslide.
I don't recognize the one I see today.
{snark alert}
What's up with the TMV old guard coming back from the Dutch lads Romney/NRO site? Atleast TMV doesn't send it's Liebruls to the back of the bus.
To Mikkel…..that certainly repudiates him outright……..well I guess that is that.
My personal opinion, I am now dissapointed in both. I guess that's just tough for me then. Rev. Wright has done immense disservice to his intellectual stature and record of achievement in his community. On the other hand I have to be brutally honest that I think a portion of Obama's response is less principle and more pandering to White discomfort at confronting such racially charged outbursts. Like I said, many of Rev. Wright's comments have been shared or repeated in private company, even in jest …….so the moral indignation to a certain degree just rings hollow.
Rick,
Is “Chicago” the new rightwing fright-word? San Francisco! Chicago! Hollywood! Oh my god! Run for the hills! New York City!!!!!!!!
If you have something substantive to say about Obama's experience in Chicago, then say it. The same thing goes with your accusation of hypocrisy. Where's the beef? ™
I can tell you from having the pleasure of meeting Pete that no, Rick Moran, his head isn't pointy, any more than mine is (though you'd get argument from the more extreme lefties on this site about the latter fact).
Concern about his relative lack of experience in Washington is valid, even if it risks being labeled (often wrongly, though who knows, maybe not all the time) as hypocrisy if it comes from those who don't want people in Washington forever. (McCain is a “fixture,” as I've said before, for example.)
The truth is, at least informally as observed here in Iowa, nobody I have spoken to has any problem with the competence of any of the three candidates. We would like to know, as is true in every election, who else the candidates would want to bring into their Cabinets and adminstrations. (Brzezinski is advising Obama on foreign policy, for example. Carter retread)
Chris:
Chicago is old, run-down, Cyanide Nation, corrupt Dem-machine-ridden notoriety.
Crook County is the perfect stereotype and club, less powerful than it could be only because so much of Cyanide Nation is less important and relevent than it was in 1960. (hahaha)
Obama's left-wing-Dem agenda is almost identical to Clinton's left-wing-Dem agenda (while dishonest people say she's not lefty).
Ameliorating our concern over such an agenda is that the GOP may hold either in check. Also, though Clinton was responsible for 1994 due to arrogance and conceit as well as offensive far-left politics, we suspect she has learned lessons since 1994 (making the kiddies mad, as they were over welfare reform; tsk, tsk) we don't have the fear, much less paranoia, of her the lefties like to imagine. Just normal, sound wariness. That and cynicism, which we share about McCain (and with our disillusionment and worse regarding Dubya & Co.).
My criticism of Obama isn't that he's hypocritical, but that not only every piece of his speeches but his entire speeches constitute sound bites. As my brother said in a call from Portland (OR) after his appearance there, “Talk about an exercise in content-free material!”
[shrug] His most adoring groupies aren't good objects for substance anyway*, and as the election goes on I suppose we'll learn more good and bad about him. Even if faults are exposed, they will be evaluated in comparison to those of the others.
* Yet they're often elitist! Now _that_ is where you have hypocrisy…
Thanks for a great post, Pete.
I see it produced some interesting comments (some less so).
To get my own thinking straight, I've separated the different subtexts.
We have Obama the person, Obama the politican, and Obama's ideas.
It's clear now, that this nation is not ready to make that same kind of separation, and I suspect that is what holds us back, stuck in the same old rut..
I think the very nature of politcs (the need to pacify and appeal to the electorate) makes it hard to separate the ideas from the man and the politcs – at least in our current culture. Simplistic slogans ('tear doen this wall') are so much easier to sell than transformative ideas. We lose however, every time we scramble the man, the politician and the ideas in the same pan, without noticing that there are diffenent ingredients involved.
This, to my mind, is really more of a test for the nation than for Obama.
It looks like we're failing,the test, and I'm proud to be elitist enough to say that the inability to deal with ideas above the immediate gratification level is the cause.
That's not to say, however, that immediate concerns should not be understood or taken into account. In fact, a lack of understanding all around is the major contributor to the urge to operate by denouncing ( as if that solved anything) instead of correcting .and moving forward.
Using Rev. Wright as an example, again, we need to reject his “crazy' notions about the spread of HIV/AIDS. But how crazy are his notions when the memory of Tuskegee is still alive? What's more, by denouncing the man, we can't destroy his notions.
I don't see how we can fight extremism by reacting in an extreme fashion, without stopping to understand where that extremism comes from. How much more fruitful it would be to stop sweeping history under the rug, acknowledge the bad in the past along with the good, and only then talk about the need to move past the scars of history?
Isn't that why the Confederate flag still flies in the South, because we've never acknowlled their sense of loss?
It's always the winners who say 'enough is enough', and I find that ironic. After I cause you suffering I'll tell you when it's time to stop being angry about it. Reconciliation can only take place when both sides feel equally understood and acknowledged, and saying 'enough is enough' is a duet, not a solo. A supplement to this would be an appeal to pragmatism by pointing out what is simply counterproductive, rather than insisting that the offending party kneel before us in repentance. Reason above retribution, is my choice.
Regardless of how this race turns out, it will be up to us, the US nation, to decide if we keep Obama's ideas alive, even if the man and the politician are vanquished..
Whatever. This campaign is getting ugly because it is politics, we all knew it was coming to this. I'm sticking to my main 2 priorties, hoping the GOP doesn't get it again as punishment for their disastrous policies of the Bush years, and not wanting another ex-presidential family member to be placed in the Oval. That leaves Obama and even though he's getting tarnished pretty good lately I'm going to keep supporting him on that basis.
Sorry to get off topic, but I think that people who feel as you do about McCain are actually mostly mistaken about his past rather than correct about him changing so much. I think a lot of people read things into his past positions which led them to believe he was less conservative than he really is. I honestly don't see that he's changed much at all- just that some independents and people who lean to the left who formerly thought that he was sticking it to the rightwing didn't see his past actions in the correct light; all along he's been someone who has a mostly conservative perspective but tries to forge bipartisan coaltions.
Rudi: As far as I can see in this thread, I must be the “Dutch lad” reader that you are referring to. I do lurk here at TMV more than I comment these days, mainly because I find it so annoying to be met with responses like the one you made here. So if your intent is to drive people away from this site, keep up the good work!
I dunno, I've read about his past quite a bit. For instance I don't think he's a saint at all considering his past uh…financial indiscretions.
But earlier in the decade he made statements against how much radical religion was affecting the GOP. Now he's accepting Hagee, which in all honesty has said as many or not more crazy things than Robertson, et al. while I am not aware of humanitarian contributions from him that that first group had.
He's said in the past that Bush's tax cuts were awful because they weren't accompanied by spending cuts. Now he's proposing massive massive tax cuts with hardly any reduction in spending. Etc.
Don't get me started about the indirect cover he gave to Bush on torture, which I actually felt personally pained for McCain as I'm sure it was devastating.
No one that knows much about him ever thought he wasn't a conservative, it's just that for the last 4 years he has seemed to lose most of his principles, and it's morphed even more during the race. A lot of life long Republicans I've read feel the same way too.
mikkel, again in the interest of not hijacking the thread I'll keep it short…suffice it to say that whether or not the perceived flip flops are over ideology or just general principle, I just don't see the great disparity or change that some people do and I think a lot of it involves a misunderstanding of his former positions. On torture, for example, he never wavered on the general idea that we should abide by our international obligations and that the president isn't above the law. He simply didn't think it was wise to publish to our enemies which specific interrogation techniques would be permissible to the CIA- beyond the general guidelines of Geneva Conventions or other international agreements that bound us. In the past, perhaps you thought his thinking on it was more in line with yours (which I presume to be that it is more important to bind the president's judgment with specific limitations, rather than leave it open to interpretation of what is permissible under international agreeements) than it really was.
The reason I think it's important is that some people might still support him if they see themselves having some differences on principle, but not if they think he sacrificed principle for political expediency. For the most part, I think it's the former much more than the latter.
Well I don't have anything to add other than that I strongly disagree with your view.
McCain's actions have been about as bad as Specter's when it comes to talking up a good game and ultimately caving (I'd bet that decades from now people will still quote when Specter stood up on the detainee right's bill and said it was a disgrace that overturned 800 years of law and then voted for it anyway) and their view that we should constantly make “compromises” has greatly led to the Administration's failures, not only in upholding the law but also just massive policy blunders formed by hubris and ideological rigor.
I'm not sure it was for political expediency and could very well agree that it was out of genuine concern that they were doing what was the best for a bad situation, but ultimately they were key in emasculating Congress. If he (and a few other moderate Congressmen) stood up for what they believe in, I guarantee you that we would not be focusing so much on trivialities in this election, but rather debating about what it means that the top leaders sat down and created a program that broke the Geneva Conventions, generals were paid to be media consultants, we're missing tens of billions in Iraq, etc. etc. and how to move on.
The only other option is to think they never actually believed any thing they were saying.
Well, I meant to add that even if one doesn't assume that there was a flip flop for political expediency, that the disagreement on this (or any other issue) might still be a deal breaker for some (as it apparently is for you.) And I don't have a problem with that, although I can't tell whether or not you really leave room for an explanation of the difference of position which doesn't presume politically motivated flipping. On the one hand, you seem to do that when you say that they may have made what they felt was the best decision of several bad options, but on the other hand you wind up saying that they couldn't possibly have done what they did if they actually believed what they had said in the past. I strongly disagree with that, because what you leave out is the concern that we shouldn't broadcast a specific list of interrogation techniques to our enemies. To you, perhaps that's not a sufficient concern to override the other ones, but to McCain apparently it is and I tend to agree with him on that (or at least give him the benefit of the doubt that he isn't just using that as an excuse for political wiggle room.)