The Latest Media Blind Spot: Viewing All Criticism of Obama Through a Right/Left Prism

In the last two weeks, there has been a flurry of stories, both in the traditional press and in the blogosphere, that has tried to portray criticism of Barack Obama's recent stands as the sole province of disenchanted members of "the left" -- also referred to as "the far left" (New York Times), "left-winger bloggers" (also New York Times), "the liberal blogosphere" (USA Today, Christian Science Monitor), and "left-wing supporters" (The Telegraph).

And many of these stories have cited me, using the two posts I wrote urging Obama not to water down his brand and tack to the middle in an attempt to attract undecided swing voters as examples of the "fire from the left."

They must not have read the posts carefully. Actually, they must not have read them at all. So allow me to repeat a key graf from the first of these posts:

[I've] looked at the Obama campaign not through the prism of my own progressive views and beliefs, but through the prism of a cold-eyed campaign strategist who has no principles except winning. From that point of view, and taking nothing else into consideration, I can unequivocally say: the Obama campaign is making a very serious mistake.

Therefore, I am not "angry" or "outraged" or "howling that Mr. Obama is selling out the left." And his "policy switches" haven't given me "whiplash." I am not offended that he isn't marching in lockstep with progressives. I'd be worried if he was marching in lockstep with anyone. Other than himself. And that is the point I was trying to make.

My problem isn't that Barack Obama doesn't always agree with me. My problem is that Barack Obama has started to not always agree with himself -- falling prey instead to the Conventional Wisdom sirens.

That's why the seven suggestions I offered him were all about him "staying true to the vision and message that took him from longshot 'unlikely candidate' to presidential frontrunner" -- and why the first one was that he should "load up his Kindle with passages from leaders who were looking to fundamentally change the country and following an inner compass, not the latest focus-group results." It's why I reminded him of the words of Dr. King: "There comes a time when one must take the position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular, but he must do it because conscience tells him it is right."

That's why I had no problem with his position on faith-based charities or his departure from liberal orthodoxy on merit pay for teachers.

Obama doesn't need to go down a checklist of progressive issues and mark 'yes' next to each one. His job is not to please the disaffected voter profiled in the New York Times who has decided to vote for the Green Party candidate or Bob Fertik of Democrats.com, who has raised over $101,000 for Obama -- but has put it in an escrow account, payable once Obama demonstrates "a firm commitment to progressive values."

He needs to remain true to himself -- and, above all, to make it clear that he will not lead by sticking his finger in the air to see which way the political wind is blowing.

In the 1950s, Jacques Soustelle, a close aide to President Charles DeGaulle, returned from Algiers, where he had taken an informal poll, and told the president that all his friends were bitterly opposed to his policies. "Changez vos amis [change your friends]," DeGaulle replied.

In 1977, when President Anwar Sadat went to Israel, he did so despite fierce opposition even from within his own cabinet.

A real leader lights the way for others. That's why I respect the leadership of Chuck Hagel -- even though we disagree on more issues than we agree on. But on the seminal issue of our time -- Iraq -- he followed his heart and his gut and his principles and stood up to his own party. That's leadership.

And it's why I respected the leadership of John McCain in 2000 -- again, even though I disagreed with him on many issues -- and why I am so troubled by his transformation from maverick to panderer.

This isn't to suggest that leaders should never change their minds. Of course they should -- when they are confronted with new evidence and new facts on the ground. Just imagine how different the world would be if George Bush had done that.

So nothing is more important, especially for real leaders, than doing whatever it takes to stay true to themselves. And that starts with something ostensibly very simple but very important: getting enough sleep. Even if that means not scheduling a third event that day or not flying across the country for another dinner with big donors.

How to raise money and how to get your message out has changed radically -- but campaign operations have not.

Look at all the money raised online, and at all the voters who have been reached via YouTube. Both these things can happen while the candidate is sleeping -- and making sure that when he is awake, rested and recharged, his message is one that inspires donors to give and voters to turn out, even if they haven't done either of these things before.

The conventional wisdom pundits, the conventional wisdom campaign advisers, and our own worst instincts -- whether it be too much caution, or not enough -- come to the fore and hold sway when we are sleep deprived.

"Every important mistake I've made in my life," Bill Clinton once said, "I've made because I was too tired."

So tell the donors: the press-the-flesh dinners can wait until Obama is in the White House. His time is currently much better spent walking on the beach or doing whatever else it takes to stay connected to his own truth, his inner strength, and his core principles.

As for the media: Not everyone is approaching everything in this campaign from a right vs left perspective. Stop trying to force everything into that tired old way of looking at American politics.

Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff

Comments

[ThomasMc]

Obama and McCain are just the two products the Powers That Be have allowed us in the election, as though there were any difference. Just let us THINK we have a choice, so we don't start another American Revolution. For them, it's a win-win situtation, either way.

[nogimmicks]

An excellent point, Ariana. Also, a general observation of the methods the commercial Media uses to spin their agenda. Never give away the true variable, always confuse the public by pedaling the dimension beneficial for your side: for example, never clarify or discuss pro-war - anti-war, but instead: liberal - conservative, or for gay marriage - against gay marriage, black - white, old - young.

Socrates bless you.

[beaupritchard]

Condolences to the late Roy Huffington ...

[xoxox]

oldwiseone, I agree with what you have said. Of course, I'm a somewhat older, wiser one too, so maybe that's why. We've been around awhile and have experienced a lot of shifts and changes in our country. And a candidate who is willing to adapt to change isn't something bad, no matter what some anti-Obama people say. Nor do we always have to agree with a candidate on every issue. I (and many of my older, wiser, friends) are supporting Sen. Obama.

[abouttime]

Arianna,
I agree with your sentimants about Obama's dilemna (and ours) - that: "My problem is that Barack Obama has started to not always agree with himself -- falling prey instead to the Conventional Wisdom sirens."
He must stay true to himself. A leader will fall if he does not stay true to himself. No one but the gullible or weak hearted will follow! His FISA reversal was disapointing, to say the least. However, he is only one man. His power comes not from the neocons, but We the People!
Congress must challenge the new president every step of the way. And we must gather (assemble), petition and continue to speak our minds.
Thanks for all your hard work.

[Raymondf]

Obama just needs to be Obama, and don't us the n-word.

[RobertAndropolis]

I love how everybody is offering unsolicited advice to Obama on how to run the his campaign, the country, and his sleep cycle.

[Sioen]

Actually, it is solicited -- by Obama. He told us that we would own this campaign and that we needed to keep him honest.

And the best leaders welcome advice from supporters (and critics, and supporters who are being critical), whether it is solicited or not.

So I guess I agree with you -- I love it, too. Thanks Arianna, and let's all keep it up; it's the only way we will start to takeback our country.

[Raymondf]

Both Obama and McCain need to stick to the issues, economy,gas prices, Afghanistan, tax cuts for the people making less than 100,000 dollars. Once below 30,000 was poverty level it is now 50,000. Anyone making less than 50,000 a year should be counted as below poverty level, which means I'm really below the poverty level, being on a fixed income of 28,000 a year.

[oldwiseone]

I'm rather new to the political scene, and rather old in life. But I have come to have certain ideas about the political scene.

A significant observation is that it seems to me that the so called "liberal" is a politician who is concerned bout the people while a conservative is concered about the business.
I am struck be the shift toward business in our country as if the people exist for the business. Wouldn't that make us slaves?

I am also aware of a concept called neo liberalism when the used in the europeon sense which is ooposite to the American sense, so really it is akin to neoconservatism. A google search reveals that the goal of neo conservatism is to reduce ALL ASPECTS of life to the business model. THis means that, for example, productivity will become the purpose of life. And the absurdity of this concept can be seen when health insurance, needed to maintain productivity, will not be allowed for the disabled, that ism the disabled will be regarded as a profit drain.

So I am wondering how in the F did this shift from of the prople for the people by the people turned to "business? And why?

[JJK]

That was very good advice when you first gave it and it remains good advice today. I also heartily endorse your comment that this is not about ideology, but about "cold-eyed campaign" strategy.

Presidents get elected because they manage to get a lot of people who disagree with them to vote for them, not because they see eye-to-eye with the winning candidates on every issue but because they are comfortable with them. The American voter has demonstrated time and again over the last 25 years that the critical mass of their number who determine the outcome of an election will put aside their own views and even their best economic interests to vote for someone they feel they can trust. As long as a candidate's views fall within a broadly-described "mainstream" (and Obama's views clearly do so), trustworthiness and comfort trump ideology with these voters.

Obama's "challenge" is that most people in that critical mass of voters which will decide November's winner haven't focused enough on this campaign enough to know enough about him to be comfortable with voting for him; that is why we should take today's polls with a rather hefty grain of salt.

Obama's best chance with these voters is to "stay the course" with his core beliefs, typically portrayed as "progressive" but actually quite moderate, and go before the voters as someone who knows who he is and whom they can trust.

[ebanks84]

I truly wish we could move the elections up a bit or impeach bush ....one or the other because he is about to take over this country and NEVER give it back.

[Balloonman]

Follow your heart regardless could be held up against this DEMOCRAT CONGRESS we voters allowed to happen. Aside ameliorating the BIG LIES BUSH and THUGS cemented domestically that ruined AMERICA likely decades, IRAQ was the issue. GET OUT! Responsibly but let IRAQ conduct it's own civil war. OUT! Our EMBASSY fortress symbolizes permanent occupation.

OBAMA loosening up moderatism? (He never was outright initiator vote left Liberal. Teddy, Kerry and Feingold. okay However, he is born liberal. Ethnic BG shines populist. Yes, it disheartening he allows telecommunications off the hook for spying on us. Offend most powerful support? Plus don't cut off patriots, our country right or wrong. Votes? Yes more troops for Afghanistan border War is sad. Pakistan. Preempt war at that. Smart bombing is invasion isn't it?

OBAMA not going matching public financing, easy to forgive. Fix something not broke? Get the the MAN in there!

Reaching out to evagilicals, ambivalent Independants, confused Republicans and flagwavers? Votes? I see his strategy (I think) but 'pander'? A big majority of us, both sides, aren't we so fed up? OBAMA the MAN of our times is trying to cover all bases that past candidates neglected. He be sooo careful now. No, I don't like it, that while he a politician and no saint, he panders, but get this man in office!

[Okieborn]

First and fore'most "HAPPY BIRTHDAY" !!!

Arianna,

Thank for your in- depth mature studies on articles before you place them up for print !!
I have noticed several comments on people 50 or above are not for Sen. Obama as we say in Oklahoma "HOG WASH ".
I have worked for Sen. Obama in Oklahoma, Texas and Missouri and might I add with large groups of 50 or above !!
The ones who are coming up with these figures need to find another group to do their statistics on.

[drolleen]

The problems Obama has is with the American people. Racism runs VERY DEEP. Now many of my acquaintances are saying: We elected the first African American presidential candidate. We don't need to also choose an African American president, do we?

Every excuse in the book is used, but the result remains: A vast majority of people over 50 are racist. The only way Obama will win is if there's snow on election day.

[JJK]

Your comment that the "vast majority of people over 50 are racist" is almost too ill-informed to warrant response. What is a "vast majority?" 60%? 70%? That's just insulting to this demographic and suggests bias and even bigotry itself.

Some facts. In 2004, 54% of the electorate was over 45, according to the exit polls (that's how they gathered the data, using 45, not 50, so it's what we have from the last election). Those voters do tend to be more conservative and 52.3% of them voted for Bush over Kerry. But, the last time I checked "conservative" does not equal "racist," at least among reasonable observers.

Comments and bigotry like this do not help Obama and if our objective is to beat McCain we should lose them, fast.

[mesmerize]

I disagree that a lot of older people are racist. I just think that a lot of older people are just stuck in their way and will vote for the person they are most familiar with.

[ignrnthllblly]

Do you really mean for us to draw the reflexive inference that a clear majority of people under 50 are not racist?

Might want to examine your presumptions.

[janedarcy]

...and you are..ageist....

[nogimmicks]

Come on, the problem is what (or whom, in this case) a small 'club of owners' of this country and the Media really want. They do not care how he or she looks, as long as the politician quietly works on their todo list. If Obama is obedient in promising the include the right people into his future cabinet and makes some key assurances, he will get the Media support he needs.

[theyank]

I totally agree. I think that after he goes overseas he and Mc Bush should announce that they are taking the rest of the summer off and they should go do, oh lets say Senator things and meeting with economists and military advisers and other great minds of this country and tthen take the time to absorb and reflect upon what they have learned and re-emerge in the fall renewed, refreshed and READY to take on the increasingly scary problems this country is facing and LEAD this country into a new era of stability,­productivi­ty, a renewed commitment of integrity in the workplace from the board room to the new-hire and restore respect and hope for this country both at home and abroad. Obama does need to be the Obama that brought him to where he is and not an Obama re-designed by the DNC .
Oh and added plus to the time-out....the talking heads will be at a loss for words!

[NoFactsJustTruth]

It sometimes almost seems, Arianna, the same DLC-type 'handlers' that turned Senator Kerry from a fighter into a 'wait and see'-er have now sunk claws into Senator Obama. Let's hope he's NOT bought into someone's rhetoric that, because of the Clinton years, they best understand how to put a candidate into the White House, and how he must transform himself to something he's not.

While it appears the GOP is running scared, and even mc-same-ol­'-same-ol' now tries to co-opt Senator Obama's foreign policy positions, something also now seems missing that was so visible just a couple months ago every time he spoke. I don't think fires have gone out, but the flames of a passionate desire for change definitely appear more subdued. Perhaps its only concern about loading ammunition into the opponent's breech for them, but its perhaps it's also something more insidious.

I remember how Bill Clinton had won the LGBT vote in 1992 by implying changes were on the way, and how many were disappointed post election as he turned his back and then even delivered 'Don't Ask - Don't Tell' for conservative oppressors. Such bipolar performances are guaranteed should republicants retain the White House, but we MUST continue believing that Senator Obama sees OUR country's and even OUR planet's survival likely depends on his commitment ...to change.

[research]

Rahm Emanuel boasts he WON the 2006 elections for the democrats by going centrist and pro war.

I think the GOP lost, the Dems didn't win.

[bavaria]

Yes,
I thought it was my imagination
but Senator Obama has changed since his one hour meeting with Hillary Clinton.

[janedarcy]

...well that must be reassuring...having a commander in chief that changes with every strong personality he talks with...

[JJK]

You can't blame this one on the DLC or DLC-type "handlers," as Obama has kept their ilk about as far away from himself and his campaign as possible. It's my impression that he views them as relics and that they have little or no influence with him; the idea that he would put Sam Nunn or Evan Bayh on the ticket is almost laughable and their inclusion on his VEEP list is probably a vanity play, as they can be helpful to him in Indiana and Georgia in the fall. (Don't confuse respect shown to an important House Leader like Rham Emmanuel as anything more than prudent politics with someone whose help in Congress he would need as President.)

No, I think this is a miscalculation by his own people and suggests that they might have some polling that worries them. As I've said several times out here, I believe that his "move to the center" is a mistake.

[okayigive]

I prefer to be true to myself, even at the hazard of incurring the ridicule of others, rather than to be false, and to incur my own abhorrence. Frederick Douglass

It is easy to be critical of Sen. Obama when one doesn't understand the core principles of the man. His value system is based on his Christian faith, love of family, his mother's view of the world, his understanding, compassion, and living among people of various ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds. He is an "out of the box thinker" that sees each issue we face not as fitting precisely on the right, left or center. His mannerisms and even temper shows that he processes information and draws conclusions on a different level than the majority of us do.

IMO: Sen. Obama views every issue as contributing to the whole of societal survival instead of separate entities unto theirselves. If you heard or read his speech yesterday regarding his plans on the war, you will notice that every point he made has a relationship with another part of his vision for America. He seeks first to rid out the underlying problems/causes that have given rise to issues that are dealt with superficially with pseudo programs, quick-fixes, and plenty of acting like we are doing something without a plan, funding or manpower. Politics have been jaded for so long we don't truly understand a new way of doing politics and dealing with someone with a conscience.

[mjforobama]

Well put! I agree totally!!

[mosh]

Somehow I think you miss the point of Arianna's post. The man you describe is certainly Barack Obama but it is the Barack Obama I believed in before the FISA vote. Arianna is cautioning him to stay true to himself, I believe, on issues like FISA where the line is clear. He didn't show leadership on that vote, in fact, he showed the opposite.

I still want to believe in Barack. I will move on from his pandering on FISA simply because he does appear to be the person you describe, but his voting record does count too. And his vote for FISA was a sad vote for America.

May the Barack you describe remain true to his values and remember that as Commander in Chief.

[esky]

And you know all this (and we don't) because...­..........­..........­.....?

[Sabreen60]

D@mn, Hillary lost !!! Get over it. Geez!! You'd think the woman was a god or something.

[Sabreen60]

You are dead on and don't let anyone tell you differently.

[StillIRise]

Finally, someone has eloquently stated what many of us, including myself, have been trying to say for the longest, especially since the FISA vote. Some of us embrace Senator Obama's call for a change in our government, and yet insist that he adheres to business as usual, catering only to the left of the Democratic Party. We generally have a very tunnel-visioned view of our politics, on any given issue. We either like it or we don't, and we want Senator Obama to share our point of view, sometimes demanding it or threatening to abandon him if he doesn't. But his vision is much broader than ours, and encompasses implications that we're not even aware of. Senator Obama is trying to bring a new consciousness to our government and to our country and bottom line, even when I don't agree with him or understand a position he's taken, I trust him.