|
||
Senator Obama in The Summer of Awful
The way these last several weeks have shaped up, the dark ride of the Bush years seems as though it's fixing to get darker with every passing, sweltering day.
It's smothering us, yet it remains mostly unspoken probably because we're being presently digested in the belly of it: The Summer of 2008 -- what I'm beginning to refer to as The Summer of Awful -- is shaping up to be one of those cinematic blocks of time that's sure to become the epic setting of books and movies of the future. The heat, the floods, the gas prices, the stock market, the unemployment, the foreclosures, the Olympics in China, the tainted tomatoes, the wild fires, the torture, the eavesdropping, the war, the vanishing Arctic... All of it magnified by this historical presidential campaign. The Summer of Awful. I can't recall a summer in recent memory more overpopulated by history and awfulness and insanity -- stacked up to our eyeballs and so directly impacting each of us on some very personal level.
And so the last thing many of us were prepared to do was to spend what little emotional capital we have left on consternation and hand-wringing with regards to our once-in-a-generation candidate: Senator Obama.
The recent succession of centrist maneuvers by our presumptive nominee has been, in a word, flummoxing. Honestly, I found myself -- a vocal blogotubes Obama partisan since December -- massaging my temples while exhaling, WTF? Simultaneously confounded and disappointed by some of his recent remarks on trade, FISA and faith-based initiatives.
On my day-to-day blog, you can almost bar-graph my blood pressure based on my immediate reactions to these events. He can't really be in favor of this crapwitted FISA Amendments Bill, can he? Did he really just praise the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives? Greenwald and Olbermann are feuding? Seriously? Will we be forced to do that which we were dreading had Senator Clinton been the nominee; that is, defend our candidate on non-issues like calculation and triangulation and capitulation? Say it ain't so, O!
It occurred to me, however, that I lost sight of an important variable in all of this. When I wrote my endorsement of Senator Obama in this space back in December, I made note of the fact that I didn't necessarily agree with him on every issue. This was of course another way of saying, He's not as liberal as I am, but I don't care.
Really, though, who ever agrees with a politician on everything all the time anyway? Watching the brilliant (and too short) John Adams miniseries this year, we were reminded that even the founders were contradictory and often frustratingly inconsistent -- many of us watching and wondering, for example, how a colossus of liberty could have signed the Alien and Sedition Acts. Fast forward to 2004 when we had to choke down Senator Kerry's Iraq authorization vote, not to mention his support for faith-based initiatives. Carrying this argument further, a diarist for Daily Kos reminds us:
Russ Feingold may have been the lone voice standing up to the first Patriot Act, but he voted for the confirmations of John Ashcroft and John Roberts.
Paul Wellstone was a strong liberal voice in the Senate, yet he voted for DOMA and the Patriot Act.Dennis Kucinich, aside from being on the political fringe, was a lifelong pro-lifer until he decided he wanted to run for president.
Chris Dodd may do quite well on constitutional matters, but he voted for the Iraqi war, the Patriot Act, and is too beholden to the big banks and the hedge funds which he oversees from the Senate Banking Committee.
You and I could wait a lifetime for a skeleton key presidential nominee to come along who flawlessly interfaces with each of our pet issues, and, consequently, we'd probably die a politically disappointed and overly cynical death.
What attracted me to Senator Obama's candidacy wasn't that he was going to evolve into some kind of liberal messiah who I would agree with all the time. He never really made any promises of that sort, and it was clear -- especially to Kucinich and Edwards supporters -- that Senator Obama wasn't entirely in line with what are generally considered to be netroots or progressive causes. Rather, he's always been the pragmatic liberal whose every slogan and statement -- often employing the collective pronoun "we" -- seeks common ground between deep blue and blood red. He's the liberal who this week, while simultaneously reaching out to evangelical voters, issued an unequivocal statement of opposition against any constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. That's textbook Obama.
After I read the letter of support he sent to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club, I remembered why I chose to support the senator's campaign -- and why it evolved into an enthusiasm for a politician that I've never quite experienced in my adult life. So why then...? In the simplest terms possible, choosing to support Senator Obama has never been about issues, but rather, it's always been about, 1) electing a thoughtful, smart president we can reference with pride -- a president who won't flatly embarrass us every damn day, and 2) electing a president who can inspire and negotiate the necessary support he'll need to roll back the darkness of the Bush years.
To that effect, and even though there are many who come close, I can't name another presidential-quality politician who's shown himself to be better suited to achieve these broad goals. Despite how we feel about individual issues like FISA or NAFTA, I think most of us with liberal or progressive tendencies can agree that we have a candidate here who is going to succeed on these challenges, while potentially forming a long-range coalition of support that could one day result in a purely progressive netroots candidate.
Those of us who have been strapped into this dark ride -- arms and legs locked into the tram, following these crimes and scandals and unconstitutional measures for too long... we've been damaged a little. We've been round-house kicked in the throat once too often. Sometimes by members of our own party. So it makes sense when some of us express shock or disillusionment at the actions of a politician regardless of their party affiliation. Besides, there's nothing wrong with criticizing the friendlies (though we're told that, politically, it might be wiser to keep our powder dry until after Senator McBush is soundly defeated). But what has served to keep me sane during these last weeks -- or saner -- has been the broad-stroke recollection of why, irrespective of the finer points, I decided to back this guy named Barack Obama for president in the first place.
If we're able to deliver the mandate he'll require in November -- which means a solid electoral college victory and expectations-defying down-ballot victories -- Senator Obama will help to vindicate our long-suffering, dark ride generation and, thusly, our time in American history -- a time that seems to be so perfectly summarized in thumbnail-form by this current Summer of Awful. If we can keep our attention focused on the big ideas that attracted us to the senator in the first place, he will make us proud.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Liberals want Obama to be a liberal George Bush - governing from the extreme wing of a party. I challenge you all to read/listen to The Audacity of Hope (again if needs be). He has many liberal and also some conservative views, but that's not the point. The point is that he wants to change the discourse within politics. Remember 2006. His liberal means "listening to all" and "doing what works". If people on both sides find that out (and he's been showing his hand a bit lately), he'll NEVER be elected president. And if he is elected, it will be the greatest experiment in governing the world has ever seen, and if it works, he would have re-invented the United States...for the better.
It's not time for revenge - it's time for the Obama Revolution.
Obama revolution, my foot! The man you think is so qualified and such a wonderful candidate is not coming anymore from the left. He is coming from the center/right. Check his stance on abortion. Consider what he is now saying about Iraq. Gun control is on its way out.
In inspite of his position on FISA , faith-based initiative or whatever, I am supporting him 100 percent.
He is still solidly behind the important issues like the economy and the war. He is the best choice we have. Actually, he is the only choice. I trust him to the point of believing that the future of our country depends on his winning the presidency. With four more years of the present administration. we are doomed. A McCain presidency will be utterly disastrous. The thought of it gives me the chills.
The thing is ... the FISA deal that everyone is so flummoxed about is complicated and multi-faceted. Let's let this thing shake out before we get all befuddled about Senator Obama. He seems to me a level-headed guy. Perhaps ... and just suppose ... this is about the specific language in the bill, and perhaps ... and just suppose ... Senator Obama knows that the bill references CIVIL charges for the Telecoms, rather than CRIMINAL charges. Then, perhaps ... and just suppose ... when we ELECT him president, he has HIS Attorney General (someone like John Edwards?) look into the matter ... won't we look all goofy for doubting the guy?
I'm just saying!
"In the simplest terms possible, choosing to support Senator Obama has never been about issues, but rather, it's always been about..."
----------
A common mistake political pundits make, and you make it here, Bob Cesca, is that you think the rest of the world thinks as you do.
To me, choosing to support 0bama has been mostly based on issues. And, because of his stand on issues, I supported him enthusiastically, doing fund raisers for him and volunteering time.
Now, because of his stand on FISA, my enthusiasm is much less.
For me, it is mostly about issues. I say "mostly", because I don't know how to entirely separate the man from his stand on the issues.
.
Thank goodness we have Mr. Cesca to help us through the maze , to see the light, to see the error of our ways. Mr. Cesca's words, wise beyond his years, I would say, help us understand how wrong we have been to let our " pet issues" get in the way. I mean, they aren't really so important when the stakes are so high, right?
Just when we thought we had a candidate prepared to stand up for the basic principles of the American experiment, a champion that might actually lead the nation away from the dark and dangerous policies of the despicable Republican Party and their trusty sidekicks, the pathetic Democratic Party, our champion goes and makes concessions on "issues" that we, naively, of course, thought really did matter. But never fear, we have Mr. Cesca to set us straight.
Life will be so much easier, now. Whenever we doubt our adolescent hope, our embarassing and inexcusable need, to believe that there actually are some principles too important to compromise, Mr. Cesca will help us work though our dilemna. Gosh, isn't it liberating not to have to think! Thanks, Bob!
I share your frustration.
I understand gamesmanship and appealing to key demographics across the spectrum in order to win, but Obama's vote for the Telecom Immunity bill was a full frontal assault on the Fourth Amendment. Though the vote was put off until January, unreasonable search and seiure has already been made legal since 9/11 and the Constitution is without any value whatsoever.
I'm willing to give Obama some benefit of the doubt in terms of political strategy and he may revert to form after he takes the oath, but this recent dark age has proven that any rights we thought we had can disappear whenever the House and Senate are in session.
Bill of Rights?
What Bill of Rights?
Thank you for this post. I have been wrangling with the same confused opinions for several days, but deep down I have known that my support for Obama is unwavering, despite how upset everyone is. I think some of the "upset" is from people who hadn't really been listening to his statements, or hadn't read his books, with the exception of his decision on FISA, which is clearly a change in his stance.
I think it's important to keep putting pressure on Obama, let him know when and why we're unhappy, but also continue to work tirelessly to get him elected. He's a candidate that shows the ability to listen to all sides and make a measured decision, in my opinion. He doesn't have an ideology that he has to stick by -- he goes with his common sense and what he thinks will help/protect our country the most in the long run.
I prefer a candidate who has a platform he or she is running on and sticks to it. Otherwise, we're not talking about Democracy but about a "religious" belief in a leader.
So Obama would be a president who "doesn't embarrass us everyday"? How about every other day?
This piece suggests we don't have any choice, that change is drastically needed., so stick with Obama. Thus it is not the issues that matter, but charisma. The problem I have with Obama and the rest of the Democratsis that they always capitulate. No matter what they say to us, including what Obama said about FISA during the primary campaign, they continually vote along the lines that Bush wants or demands. No principles seem worth fighting for, only getting elected matters. So for those of us who understand what is said to us today, is not what was said yesterday, we are quickly disillusioned. FISA now is not what Obama said before, nor is NAFTA, campaign funding and others. Try as you may, you will not succeed in changing those facts. Now we are being given the drivel, as he learns the facts, he needs to change his approach. So many are articulating how bad it has been so we need to elect him. Seems to me that approach says we will only have ourselves to blame again. But that is what this is all about, the electorate get what they deserve. Someday the voters will stand up to them all. The FISA action by Obama is clearly not what he told us in the Primaries. The Bush cabal is superb at rewriting history, now the Obama supporters are being asked to begin doing the same.
The FISA issue is a big deal no matter how much one would like to portray the situation as just a "win some, loose some" political disagreement with a candidate. Obama has thrown his support behind the issue that exemplifies and defines the corruption and criminality (both specifically and tacitly) of the Bush years. With that said, he is still a better choice than McCain. People like change, but not too much change. Obama '08... I guess...Yawn/ Sigh.
I prefer "The Summer of George"!
I prefer the last awful summer of George, and make sure that next summer is the first summer of Barack!! It will never be as bad again.
It seems to me that those most aghast at Obama's recent statements regarding the FISA compromise were just a few short months back those most taken with the highly inspirational (and highly UN-specific) rhetoric of the Obama primary campaign.
I supported Sen. Clinton for president because I felt I knew where she stood on most issues and was the most qualified overall among a field of VERY GOOD choices....including Sen. Obama. While Icontinue to believe that, Sen. Obama has my full support.
That is NOT because his views correspond point-by-point with mine,
but that his judgement will be informed by an OVERALL...call it progessive (I'm not ashamed to call it a LIBERAL) view of governance.
I'd advise my lefty bretheren all a-tizzy about FISA to take a breath and focus on the BIG stuff...........Bringing our troops home, making the tax code and the economy work for WORKING people again, health care for ALL Americans, Supreme Court justices who are NOT right-wing idealogues, simple HONESTY and COMPETENCE .....in short, MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR US Again.
Tell ya' what........ If Obama can get the BIG things I mentioned above done.....I wouldn't care if Dick Cheney himself listened to EVERY ONE of my phone calls. I'm sure he'd get bored pretty quick...
Meanwhile we'd have a U.S. to be proud of again.
My two cents........................................................................................................tm
He probably would get bored pretty quick but that's not the point, is it? It's about the rule of law and the constitution and I thought, with Obama, a con law professor at that, we wouldn't be reduced to quibbling about who was listening in to whom -
Sure, you are not likely to get swept off the street and rendered to a black site where you will be tortured for the next, say, two or three years (before Obama can even figure out where the black sites are located and free you). No. Most likely you will be fine taking for granted the molestation of civil liberties that those on our fringe hold dear.
Come on. You reference John Adams and the founders. These are the kinds of intrusions they meant to guard against, not just for you, John Doe, with your acceptable name sitting pretty, but for those the government might abuse and suspect for no other reason than because they appear different. And shouldn't that be what a Barack Obama of all people should guard against? After all these years of injustice?
The Constitution should not be politicized. FISA and telecom immunity tramples the fourth amendment that's the point.
Senator Obama took an oath to uphold that Constitution. I, for one, was looking forward to watching him do that every step of the god damn way. Now, I just don't know what he will do next. But those are my rights, and yours, he's disregarding.
Apologies "Mosh" (btw I read and enjoy your comments frequently.....so I'm familiar with many of your views and usually for the most part concur)
There isn't a word you say that I don't agree with, I just don't see this particular bill grating CIVIL immunity only as the mortal threat that so many do.
I'm NOT an original Obama supporter
(I continue to believe both Sen.'s Clinton and Biden were MUCH more qualified)
I repeat: those MOST exorsized about his FISA reversal seem to be those who (unrealisticlly, in my view) projected thier OWN very progressive beliefs onto Obama's deliberately vague and unspecific campaign rhetoric.
Let's remember, it was the Administration that eviscerated the bill of rights after 9-11 at every turn. That damage is done.
As a retroactive affirmation of those policies?...........well of course it's APALLING.
As a shocking example of politics-as-usual directly at odds with Obama's high flown rhetoric?
Well, yes...shocking, but not surprising, for, you see, I never bought into Obama's pitch that he was more moral, more progressive, more committed, than Clinton or the others.
I AM comfortable with his charachter, and becoming more so.
Longer term, we have bigger and more important fish to fry and, If anything I'm more confident in Obama's willingness to defy his "base" . There will be ALOT of that required to enact the agenda that's important to ME
Thanx for your response. Regards..............................................tm
He IS different but not in those ways
Why don't you give Obama supporters credit for demanding accountability from him when he runs off the rails?
I agree with this article and was just discussing some of these very points with friends. I think the whole country is so gun shy when it comes to politicians and trust, much the way we reacted after Nixon left office. So Obama has a very difficult road ahead restoring trust.
And trust is at the core when listening to Obama's policies and even if you find you are not in agreement being able to go along and support because you believe the and other public servants are doing what we pay them to do, act in our best interests, with all the information they have at hand.
I want Obama to be able to change his mind, refine his policies as he moves through this process. I want change in this country and I am tired of eight years of listening to how if you are not in lock-step agreement you are a traitor, or unpatriotic.
If Obama is going to change things fundamentally, when we disagree with him we need to let him know and why we disagree, not resort to name calling .
There is no one panacea for our problems, no one plan that will work on every front and no one man or woman holds all the cards to make this mess right again. But with hard work and focus, Obama and the democrats can make a healthy start to right the wrongs.
I disagree. There is one thing we must, as patriots, hold dear. And that is the Constitution and the rights it enumerates. They are hard fought, most especially the amendments, and Obama should know that.
Especially, as you say, when the country is so 'gun shy' after Bush and the way his administration trampled on the Constitution - how can we allow Obama to even compromise? Let him compromise on, oh, I don't know, some environmental right that has nothing to do with 'search and seizure' or the eight amendment or the geneva conventions. Because, last I looked the patriot act was just the opposite and if Obama doesn't agree with that, with the fact that torture is against the law and not some quaint stricture imposed by those quaint folks of Nuremberg, well, then, why should I or you trust him?
It is not enough that he is better than McCain. He has to be who he said he will be. Otherwise, on with the revolution.
Yes. I'm working for Obama because I think he really understands the big issues and is an effective politician. My big fear is that our children will look back on this summer of awful and be amazed that we had it so good and didn't know it.
I do have to add that Obama believes in community-based organizing, as do I, not the faith-based cash for votes program Bush started. Read his position.
Do want to rethink that statement, supporting Obama has "never been about issues"?
In this one statement, you make it clear why Obama has been a cult figure, rather than a legitimate candidate...
Justify it any way you want, you canidate is a flip-flop. You have no choice but support him no matter what he says or what he does. He belongs to you. You deserve him. Enjoy!
I get such a chuckle out of every story I read where he's fliped and flopped again. How much fun it all is.
To "pansycritter", and all the other Junior Nazis (and their multiple screen names!) who regularly show up to let us all know how they're "chuckling", and how they find progessives to be "hysterically funny":
I am stymied at how you'd find the last seven years of Bush to have been anything but a disaster for YOUR country. Not just MY country; YOURS. What about all this do you actually LIKE?
Beyond that, anyone who believes that thinking American citizens, who want nothing more than to fix the disaster, are somehow pathetic, "funny" creatures, reminds me of the semi-retarded boy in my school as a kid. He hung out with the class bully a lot, and was made to believe that it was everyone else who was semi-retarded.
Take the hint.
~~~
Cesca: "He's not as liberal as I am, but I don't care."
Yeah! I'm deeply suspicious, every time I read the narrative (unsupported) that progressives "don't get that we have to win" and "don't understand that Obama has to run from the center".
YES WE DO! BUT, SINCE WHEN IS A STALINIST POLICE STATE "THE CENTER"?!?
If I get a knock at the door, and I am asked by gentlemen in suits to explain a recent, invective-laden IM to a friend, made out of frustration... it really won't matter to me if the POTUS is an old, corrupt cracker, or a JFK-like Black Democrat. In fact, the latter would piss me off more.
Seeing how flip-flopping is important to you - are you voting McCain? Don't see how you could.
Except, as you say, he's our guy and we will support him.
Chuckle as you might, it is your country too and I get the feeling you are on the bottom on the food chain no matter who wins the election.
Idealism! This is the schism that separated a generation from the over thirties back in the day. Forty years later it must feel the same for the (idealistic) youth today as they look at my generation now graying and gray. Principles! Yeah, after Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II it seems as if I would throw that notion out of the window. But no, I may make compromises, but not as it speaks to my core beliefs. In a democracy deeper compromises are made by politicians. I know that there will always be a struggle being progressive. Whether the Democratic candidate would have been Obama or someone else, I‘m certain that after voting for them that it would not end my pestering obligations, nor should it yours.
It is deeply bewildering and sad nonetheless.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
