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
At last a step back for a wider perspective. Too narrow focus can be considered a visual impairment.
Too wider a perspective might allow us to protect the oil companies as they rape Iraq. I don't know about you, but I don't want my son dying for Halliburton or Big Oil. Why else to keep a residual military presence in Iraq as Barack is wont to do?
No child, Iraqi or American, deserves to be squandered for American corporate profits, yes? Let's change the tide of history and finally stop the greed that allows others to sacrifice for our sins.
In the end, I really think Barack is our best hope for a better nation. It's clear that a politician will never appeal to everyone all the time, but think about the candidate we have now. Barack is with out a doubt as good as, if not better a politician as Bill Clinton. Now this is just my opinion, but I think the base of his movement knows already the caliber of our candidate and the issues he stands for. What I really think is he's trying to reach out to those people ( 1 out of 10 Americans ) that think he's a Muslim or any of the other bogus tags the right has hanged on him. We as a movement for change, we as a people who know that things are going from bad to worse will have the insight to know that he must soften his tone on some issues to attract those who are not so well informed. We can't change everything that's wrong with just one election. Presidential abuse of power started before Dubya or Bill. Barack can't come out and say this, but I truly think that most of us understand this already. On the surface it might make you mad at first glance, but try to look at the big picture. It is absolutely the number one priority that it is Barack that wins in November.
Great article and a good antidote to the angst that Obama's FISA decision has raised with so many progressives (of which I am one). It occurs to me that it is the utter depths to which our government has fallen in the past 8 years, especially with the flaunting of the Constitution and and the laws that Bush doesn't like, that elevates this current FISA bill to the status of a litmus test for Obama's ability to govern any differently from, say, McCain. It's as if after the cesspool we are now living in, nothing but absolute purity will save us. Human beings will never pass the purity test. The best available approximation of that purity should be good enough to elect. We all have to help govern in how we respond to our civic responsibilities in a liberal democracy - which is American democracy - and which is just now in some peril. The rescue depends on the November election!
You're over-complicating a very simple issue. What choice do those of "with liberal or progressive tendencies" have, if they live in a swing state? (The rest of us have Ralph Nader.)
A vote for Nader is a gift to McCain.
Stuff and nonsense.
Finally, a voice of reason amidst all the Obama-bashing! I was beginning to think we'd already lost the November contest. But you are right. Elections aren't about pandering to our every pet issue, but about the character of the candidate and a compelling narrative. Obama has both, plus the integrity to push back against the power grab Bush instituted in the Executive branch.
That's right, pander away. We will vote for the man behind the pander suit.
Let's face it. Obama supporters are going to get more surprises every day. It's the beginning, not the end. His flip-floping, his deceit, his mannerism of his lies, His poor judgement, etc. His tax cuts are dressed up as that, but in reality, he has called for $1 trillion in taxes over the next ten years. His rise in power has been a direct result of his ties to a corrupt Chicago Political machine driven by a never ending pursuit for power. Lean and weep Obama supporters.
.."poor judgment". Now that's rich. Compared to the "judgment" of American that put what will go down as THE WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY in office. You act like he has had all this power and has failed on every level. Honestly, I don't know how anybody could do worse.
Just the fact that I don't have to listen to a child represent our nation and even if Obama get's 10% of what he says done. Is enough for me.
The real issue in this country is not necessarily our leadership. But the completely insecure, weak willed American majority that actually believed all the lies and STILL hold on like a fly clinging to rot.
That Bush "brain" thinking "you" people hold so close to your thin values. Kind of don't matter anymore. "You" failed. "Your" President failed and "You" failed this country. "You" have cost too many American and civilian lives for us to even consider "you" as a viable voice in this nation.
That's right blame yourselves for it all.
Rememember. We were the "un-patriotic" Americans that had the audacity to call out what turned out to be TRUE. So who's the "sucker" now?
10%? Your expectations are very low.
A short story. I was trying to buy a pump for my bicycle one day and asked the man at K-Mart to show me what he had; he brought one that was $19.95, as I tested it I said that it was of very poor quality, and he replied "What do you expect for $19.95?"..
If you go around expecting 10% that may be what you get and if you look at BushCo's track record you may find that his admin may have accomplished 10% of what you wanted, not because it was the right thing to do but because it may have been politically correct.
Obama should have never given his support to the FISA bill as long as there is immunity to the telecoms, that goes against everything he has campaigned about, and for those who think he has to break on his principles in order to get the votes then shame on all off us.
That's how bush got elected - on the prow of low expectations. that's how he 'won' all those debates against Gore, remember?
Now Obama just has to surpass Bush? That's good enough for you?!
Jeeze, FISA be damned! Eviscerate the Constitution! What do I care whether someone I love could be carried off to a black site under the patriot act and not heard from in three or four years and tortured? What the heck. FISA is good enough for Obama!
We are talking about the Constitution here. Not Obama or Bush. Any means to an end will not do, that should be the lesson of the last 7 plus years -
Okay, turn off those five TVs that you have tuned to Fox News, go outside and take a breath of fresh air. Mr. O is a politician, not the second coming of Christ.
He is a politician. Of that set, he is the very best we have to choose from. Brilliant, articulate, handsome, young, urbane, sophisticated, yet his heart is full of aloha for those less fortunate than he.
Oh my God, please just let him be elected safely, so that we may see what good will come from his new administration. Time is running out for our dear nation. Please, fellow Americans, vote on the side of real positive change.
do you hold the constitution in so small regard or is it the American people that perplex you?
You didn't support BO on the issue--yeah we knew that. You like his style. Hmm--and you and many others wondered why a lot woman weren't willing to stand aside from putting the first female in the Whitehouse for.... style?
I have continually supported HRC for about 99 reasons, none of which included that she was a woman. But one reason did UNAPOLOGETICALLY include that she is woman.
Yeah, we know you supported HRC. Guess what? She's still not going to get the nomination. For that, I am UNAPOLOGETICALLY ecstatic.
And, how different is HRC on the issues? Not much. A few centimeters to the right, there in the middle.
Yup. So two almost identical candidates both of whom will do anything to win and what happens? The dems decide we want to have first woman to really have a shot at the Whitehouse step aside for the cooler, hipper guy who will show the world we're not racists. It's business as usual for women.
Say what you want about HRC's imperfections, but it's no coincidence that the first woman to have a shot is eliminated with excuses that she "will do anything to win" (as any candidate does) and is a monster for the a few mishaps and trying to take the opponent to task.
Save me all your other attacks against her and the mistake she made--she is an exceptionally intellectual candidate, who has successfully fought for the poor, woman and children before going to the whitehouse, was twice name as one of the top 100 attorneys in the US, pleased almost impossible to please NYers which got her re-elected and damn....sh
Yikes, a complete non-sequitor as far as I can tell. 99 reasons? Besides being female? Good. Congratulations.
"Summer of Awful" is a great characterization for the finale to "Eight Years of Abysmal" I'm sure the regime was counting on the buzzards coming home to roost from their disastrous, yet self-serving policies after they were out of office. Still, the next occupant of the White House will have a huge mess to clean up.
Unfortunately, if all the Congress and the President care about is not annoying the right wing before the next election, I fear that no real change will be accomplished and even a clear Democratic majority will only slow the our slide into becoming a third rate banana republic wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton.
Sadly, democrats 'control' congress now and look what they have accomplished. The worst - Pelosi taking impeachment off the table. Why? Because the democrats on the gang of 8 were complicit in the illegal wiretapping and torture initiatives of the Bush administration. Unless replaced, that Gang of 8 remains, and remains complicit with Obama as President.
And so what will Obama do when hearings reveal that the democrats were complicit with the bush et al crimes? Nada.
That's what his courage on FISA already predicts. Not one thing. Business as usual.
The most sane article I have read .
Ideally, all candidates should be empty vessels into which the majority pours its desires.
They should never service their own opinions, only the opinions of those that put them into power.
Ideally, that is. :)
Everyone is apparently entitled to their own opinion. Problem is that most folks think their opinion is FACT, which it obviously cannot be. No one is entitled to their own set of facts, which is where "idealism" falls down and takes the rest of us with it.
Except our illustrative president who makes up facts to fit the circumstance. Believing does not make it so, regardless of what our leaders (whoever they end up being) tell us.
Says who?
This isn't about individual issues for some of us. It's about honor. It's about trust.
At this point, how can anyone believe him when he says he would've voted against the Iraq war in 2001 had he a vote? And isn't that one of the reasons you and so many others campaigned for him (well, that and the fact that he represented a different kind of politics)?
a lot of us voted for him in the Primary because he seemed more trustworthy than Hillary. Because he seemed to be motivated by what's right, rather than winning. Now we're not so sure.
I'll vote for him over McCain, no doubt. But I won't be doing it with any enthusiasm that his election will usher in a new age of "change we can believe in" Unfortunately, he's already fallen short on both the change and the belief part of the slogan which leaves us with pretty much nothing...
There is no way Obama would have voted against any military action in 2001 in a post-9/11 climate. Back then most people were all for a get tough policy and Obama would have done what he's always done...wha
To quote VP Cheney, "So?" If, upon close observation his self interest coincides with my self interest and the interests of the working class (lower economic) does not that make him a more preferable office holder that one whose self interests promote the interests of the top 1% of wealth holders in the country? We must be alert and aware that the "unitary executive powers" philosophy is the receipe for dictatorship. (banana republic indeed!) There are congressional representatives who claim membership in the Democratic Party and continually vote against the interests of the middle class (employed at low wage and small business owners). "It's the Economy, stupid!" There can be no economic growth without a large and stable middle class, the consumer class as well as the producers. Obama is not the sole mover of reform. Inform yourselves as to the records of YOUR OWN representatives. Vote!!
I have to remind you that your fears are playing into the GOP narrative. Remember, it is they who are the masters of fearmongering. Do you believe that giving in to those fears will somehow create the tomorrow you crave? I don't think they will.
As hard as it is to believe, sometimes the truth plays into the GOP narrative. That doesn't mean I'll deny or ignore it. Denying the truth in the name of party politics won't create the future I crave either.
O000oo--another consipricy theorist who thinks anything that turns our adoration from Obama is calcualted by the GOP. Get real.
Obama wants to 'refine' his position on Iraq if elected by gathering information from the commanders in the field. Had he been in the Senate when that vote was taken, had he had access to more information then, how would he have voted? How can you say unequivocally he would have opposed it?
Obama's opposition to the invasion was no different or meaningful than my own or the millions of other Americans opposed to the invasion.
Obama's not asking us to take it on trust that he was against the invasion, it's a matter of public record - he gave a public speech opposing the invasion while Hillary and co. were busy voting for it.
He gave a speech to a constituency that wouldn't have voted for him had he been for the war. Enough said. Read the record.
Sadly, I agree with you. His 'real' vote on FISA and his lack of a vote on KYLE_LIEBERMAN speaks volume -
I too would rather believe in change and hope and regardless of his trampling on the Constitution with FISA and his trampling on world peace with KYLE_LIEBERMAN will vote Obama. Why? What viable choice do we now have?
If the majority of Democrats and progressive independents truly wanted someone more to the left, we'd have an Edwards or even a Kucinich as a nominee. We don't because, face it, most Americans fit into the moderate mold. The radical coup that took place is that the idea of paradigm-shifting change coming from the middle is possible. People tend to think that major change can only come from the radical fringes of "left" or "right". After all, how could Obama run on Unity *and* Change, otherwise? The left and the right are having problems with this, and thus, are painting Obama as the one with the problem.
But, as Bob Cesca points out, who doesn't have specific viewpoints that will seem inconsistent with their overall "ideology" -- and who ever has a completely static point of view, anyway?
Beautifully stated . Our electorate never checks the records of the people we plan to hire to manage our way of life . Polls show we all have a low oppinion of our law makers but they all advertise experience when campaigning . In what ?
And it's thanks to all the people with your low standards that we suffer through the inept leadership we do, and are in the tragic state we're in.
My low standards -- like speaking out against the Iraq War (to the point of writing to McCain in protest of his support)?
Like not owning a car for five years now?
Like explaining to people for twenty years now why they should support local farmers and craftsmen (and doing the same)?
Like, being willing to support HRC or Obama, throwing my weight behind the one who got the nomination, while imploring that people not degrade either?
Like NOT voting for the inept leadership we have?
You have three choices: vote for Obama -- and have an uphill chance at a better future. Vote for McCain for more of the same -- only worse over time. Or, not vote at all, take your chances, and risk have the second choice foisted upon us.
So, instead of judging my standards (notice I'm not judging yours over that which I don't know about) -- go and refine your own.
I guess I really am a lefty. Kucinich seemed the logic choice to me and before Obama flipped on FISA, abortion rights, and Iraq, he seemed reasonable to me. Now he really is up for grabs.
The last few weeks have been disappointing. This is an excellent analysis that makes me feel better.
Thanks Mr. Cesca.
We all have so much emotion and hope invested in this election. I'm going to keep supporting Obama. I just PRAY he doesn't flip and back down on ending the War on Iraq.
You better start praying...
"because he most definitely will back down on Iraq..."
When did you develop this ability? You know, the ablity to see into the future? I stand in awe.
And when will we know? After the election?
Who's gonna protect big oil in Iraq? That's the question. And that's the reason Obama and McCain will ultimately see it the same.
I guess this, at least, is an improvement. We'll be going from a man who has never paid any dues, and doesn't seem to even regard "paying dues" as a legitimate concept, to a man who hasn't paid his dues yet. Because that's what we'll be getting with B.Obama, no question. A young man who's getting pushed up to the front of the line without anything like a consistent track record to judge him on. So far, he's just been a projection of what Democrats wanted to believe would make a good president. Now that he's going for the G.E., he's trying to morph into a projection of what the majority of Americans think would make a good president. And he's got to do it with a hand tied behind his back because he's, well, black, and he has a Muslim sounding name. Suddenly he has to become a LOT more appealing to swing voters, and that's what he's trying his darndest to do. Good for him, I guess, but we, as Americans, most certainly deserve better. It's Catch 22-land; anyone crazy enough to want to be president is de facto unfit for the job. Alas.
We're not happy with the way our affairs have been managed by the present law makers (?) but many of us will vote for the candidate with the most experience at law making (breaking) .
Bottom line.....T
Thanks for the thoughtful post, Bob. After struggling with my support of Obama (and tentatively withdrawing it) I am seriously reconsidering after having read this piece. It expresses where I have been with my disappointment; where I am on the issues and where I would like to see a candidate in my "ideal" world. Perhaps I am coming around to the pragmatics of what we may need to do in order to realize those finer things.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
