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
Looks more like the "Same Old Shit "as usual. NOthing is going to change but people trying torationalize reasons why they should still support him. disgusting.
If the media had given equal airtime in the debates to the other candidates instead of selecting Clinton and Obama as our choices, maybe we would have someone with integrity that was willing to stand up for our constitution and bring it back.
As all the candidates said at one time or another " I agree with Joe", or" As Joe said", yet we got just a snapshot of who Joe really was. obama and Clinton had been pre-annointed.
And "Joe" had some of the best ideas and plans to get our country back on track and bring stableization to Iraq.
If we could re-do it, I think we would have picked a better candidate at this point, knowing what we know now. Too late--it's spilled milk. But we always have Nader---who at this point is my choice. The final straw will be who he chooses as VP. Then I'll make my final decision. VP does make a difference in instances such as this.
Thank you for pointing out what I thought was obvious.
Despite the loud condemnation of the MSM by people on here for giving bush a pass for 8 years, they still let THOSE VERY SAME PEOPLE CHOOSE THEIR CHOICES FOR THEM. They denounce polls in one breath but still yet LET THOSE SAME POLLSTERS TELL THEM OBAMA AND CLINTON ARE IN THE LEAD.
And they didn't even see it.
Did you see any members of the media telling people who to vote for in Iowa or NH? If so, please provide links. Thank you.
"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."
Well stated, and that's the problem with Obama's recent flip flops. By moving toward the center and abandoning his hopeful base, those who believed "change" was on the way in a genuinely integral and true manner, he has renegged on his promise.
Even McBush himself would probably be a better president than Bush. Bush, in that regard, is incomperable. And it's hard to imagine anyone worse. The way he snickers and smiles whenever he talks makes that tag "smirking chimp" seem mild. He gave up golf in order to display his deep feelings for the sufferings of the troops?
Obama is the height of dignity compared to Bush. But he promised us an end to "politics as usual," to bring about "change." Then as soon as he obtains the nomination he appears to have forgotten his principles, pandering to the baser side of the electorate. To the *basest* side. This goes beyond merely disagreeing on some issues. This smacks of posturing and of having sold out his integrity and principles. And that is why so many of his former backers are upset.
One feels unreality and denial setting in and caution thrown to the winds. Mr. Obama is as disappointing as he is superfical--lots of both. He is symied if he cannot read a speech, cannot respond to matters requiring knowledge (he visited 57 of our 58 states, lost ever debate to Clinton where fingertip knowledge was required, and has a "special low interest home loan for $1.4 million). With an experience base that is minimal, he relies on image and illusion, but is frequently caught in the performances of his once supported: the strange clergy friends, the realtor from Hell, aging terrorists now reformed, a less than appropriate chief Vice president candidate searcher and a nasty, old general. Although all of these have fallen under the Obama bus, rumors surface every day of another "challenged" supporter or soon to be discovered self-flaw, or yet another "policy adjustement" that turns older policy statements upside down. None is this is very promising. Perhaps Hillary can be asked to return if enough of the undemocratic "Special" delegates shift votes yet again.
Why should anyone be upset about Obama? He is a chicago politician in the same mold as all of the others.
He sold out anyone he needed to. All the guy cares about is the promise of power.
Obama supporters bought a ticket to ride on a horse that never was.
So now, how does it feel to be had?
I have never felt had. I know it is hard to win. Assume you agree with Kucinich on most issues. Are you upset that he has never gotten anything passed in Congress and maybe never will or are you going to wallow in the pride that he never compromises and just scoff at those who don't maintain ideological purity.
cont'd afed27....
In June, he spoke to the pro-Israel group AIPAC. He told them that he supported their having an undivided Jerusalum. The Palestinians complained. He told them that he sees a Palestinian sovereignty overseeing a portion of Jerusalum. Which words were the truth? He left his church after condemning Wright but he knows he must show religious concern to appeal to the religious right. Suddenly, he is for faith-based programs. There were photos of Obama on the web showing Obama's hands at his sides while others were saluting the flag. It was also noticed that he no longer wore his flag lapel pin. He made lame excuses but there was still criticism. Obama is now touting his love of America & his patriotism. He is again wearing his flag pin. He is flip-flopping on issues, once disdained, but now he is for them. Who is the true Obama? Who do we believe? As of now, I believe none of them.
Obama is attractive to look at, and to listen to, The alternatives are either not charismatic enough or known enough and the only other one that is known, is very unattractive to look at or to listen to. Voting on issues never was relevant: whomever you vote for the government will get in.
Oh please, this makes me barf---I don't give a d@#m what they look like or if they are personable and funny. I'll never have a beer with any of them. Ii want someone who is going to take back the country, get her back on track, and stand up for the constitution. Ggive me a break with this likeability crap----so childish. That's what's wrong with this country now--the "Good Ole Boy" mentality that got us into this mess in the first place!
And we had a quality well informed candidate the the media bashed relentlessly. We had a candidate that was accused of being a liar for embellishing a real event....B
Sure, it's like watching bread rise--all supericial and no substance because behind the speech, there is no content.
Egobama is neither "attractive to look at"nor"to listen to".That is only true if you have drank the koolaid.So
Except that old tired saw of 18 million is falling apart. We are coming together to defeat McSame. Have you seen the latest poll numbers?
As for Iraq, what he's saying sounds responsible. We can't just let it devolve into a massive civil war, we have to get out of there carefully. That's why I'm for Joe Biden's plan of soft partition (look it up). I hope he goes along with Olbermann's plan for him on FISA, and then I would be satisfied.
All that said, I was very glad to here this from Cesca. It was a great column.
The only issues I haven't agreed with Obama on are his support of the overturning of the DC handgun ban, his support of the death penalty and his support for FISA. I think Obama's right about the faith-based initiative. Federally funding churches to attack secular issues such as poverty is a great idea, but Bush didn't actually have anything done in that office. He used it, as Obama said, a photo-op to get evangelicals behind him. Obama worked as a community organizer in the South Side of Chicago. If anyone here read his first book "Dreams From My Father", written before he ever ran for public office (if you don't trust his word otherwise), he makes it clear that to get anything done, he had to do it through the churches. It was the only way to actually organize people to stand up against the problems facing that impoverished community. As for NAFTA, this whole time he said he was for free trade and globalization. Read his second book "The Audacity of Hope", which is all policy. He hasn't turned back on anything he said in there. He does believe that it needs to be re-negotiated so that environmental standards are set to help against global warming and that worker's rights are made clear so corporations can't just vacate the U.S. for cheap labor and leave factory town workers without jobs.
I guess it never occurred to you that faith based initiatives might be unconstitutional? That this country was founded by religious people who WANTED CHURCH AND STATE SEPARATED? Just so you know I am a practicing, progressive Chritian who is horrified by faith based initiatives.
And totally wrong in your statement, Christian or not. The church and state arguement is a red herring.
If you are horrified by faith based initiatives, state why?
No practicing Christian would be afraid of a faith based initiative unless that is just an outright lie.
If you are a practicing Christian you are in fact an illiterate practicing Christian when it comes to constitutional interpretation.
Prayer was allowed in school up until the late 70s when anti Christian activists stopped it. One supreme court ruling said one thing, it could be easily overruled on another day.
Think about that.
Thank you for the article. I also thought, 'what is he doing?' But, Barack is all about getting "things" done. Here is my bottom line. I am against gridlock, I will not always agree with Barack. If he can restore our pride and our image in the world, at the very least, I will be happy. It is going to take us a long time to restore the damage the Bush Admin has caused. I see Barack as a fabulous beginning. He is exciting and honest. I am absolutely impressed that he wrote the response to all of us regarding FISA. We all tend to get impatient and forget to look at the big picture. Thanks to your article we can calm down and think rationally.
He is a s exciting and honest as any Chicago politician ever was.
Here is another acolyte ready to lay down his faith in Obama, who he does not know and who could care less about him, and anybody like him.
Obama will do this, and restore what?
The whole world is laughing at Obama right now! What a way to command respect !
Obama is far more dishonest than Bush was before he was elected. So how does that put a fresh face on America by electing a bigger liar than Bush?
Maybe Obama will choose Jane Fonda has his VP.
1) The reason that only civil lawsuits are addressed in the bill is that Georgie can pardon the telecoms from criminal charges only. This seals the rest off.
The idea of telecom immunity is to keep it all secret. What they want o stop at all cost is discovery of what went on at trial. Telecom immunity is not just the powerful getting away with it--it's making sure we never know.
2) I reject the idea that the only function I as a citizen have is to make one a/b choice in November and then sit there and hope.
3) I deeply resent Obama's dishonesty. This was a long primary season, and throughout it, not one peep on these positions. And we all know why: because had he mentioned them, Hillary would be the nominee by a comfortable margin.
4) I am not a 'hard lefty'. I don't want to nationalize any industries;.
Torture, habeas corpus, and the right to privacy are not screaming lefty issues. I was, am and will be ready to differ with Barack Obama on his health plan, the mortgage crisis, military reorganization. Not on my basic freedoms, and transparency in government.
5) Do I want John McCain as President? Hell no. Will I vote for Obama? Yes.
What do I want? I want Barack Obama to change his positions on FISA and Faith-based initiatives, because he's wrong.
With a capital R.
How do you make Obama change his position on anything ?
Offer him a below rate mortgage?
Ok,
Any suggestions? He holds on to opinon polls closer than Bill Cinton did to an intern.
So vote for McBama. He is a vote for McSame and the failed Bush policies. In the final act Obama will be no different tha Bush.
I'll tell you what, irregardless of the Senator's so-called "moving to the center", us being able to send a President Obama onto the world stage in January and putting a new face on American behavior and relations with the rest of the planet will be much preferable to a President McCain and more of the disappointing same old, same old, war and more war. It will also be a damn sight better than the buffoon we currently have as president. In any event, all of us knew going in that Sen. Obama was not the most liberal of the candidates that were in the primary, no matter what they say about his voting record. Also, do you all actually think that Sen. Clinton would not have had the EXACT SAME or even more to the right views on these issues?
So, image is more important than substance is your point.
Obama is ,and will be no different than Bush as president. Except he lies better than Bush.
Wake up people! He is a Chicago politician, his finger is always testing what way the wind is blowing.
If Obama thought he could get elected by joining Jerry Fallwell's church and adopting his dog he would.
As Reverend Wright said, Obama is a politician.
Obama supporters= suckers.
I see the republican machine is at work again. I would like to have a leader that will think and oh YES plan before they take a leap. AT LEAST HAVE A PLAN. Look at the mess the country is in right now. Can you honestly say you want 4 more years of George Bush if so elect McCain but it will never happen on my part. I'm electing someone for change, someone that can unite, we have had enough divisiveness in this country. I can already hear the State of Union address if McCain gets in office he'll put his audience asleep and then he will take a free hand to do whatever he wants. NO 3RD TERM BUSH FOR ME. Let's talk about the issues at hand that's something the republicans run from.
Kucinich would have been a MUCH better nominee. He would have really held his guns for us without compromise before his loss this November.
Keyword:- "....Befor
Some of us Liberals tend to want to knee cap our leaders even before they get into a position to change things. If he runs to the center but governs as the most progressive leader in current times, what would be the down side?
You assume Obama is a real progressive,
Big mistake, and very, very ignorant to think he is.
How do you know?State on issue obama has not changed on yet?
Ok,
If there are any ,he will change them next week because he ran out of time this week.
Bush=McSame=Obama no difference. Not a bit.
Kucinich or Biden were our best bets, but the media annointed our choices to obama and Clinton. Too bad, our country needs a leader, not more of the same.
You are probably right.
"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."
Me neither..
The progressives who are bitching about Obama are a part of the problem, not the solution. With their obsessive demands for ideological purity, they pretty much guarantee that nothing substantive will ever change, because the majority of the American people will never buy in to the complete progressive agenda. If they did, it would no longer be progressive; it'd be something else entirely.
Progressives need to remember that you/we are only a percentage, and maybe not even a majority, of the people who put Obama where he is today. I know a lot of people who consider themselves hardcore Republicans, but they're supporting Obama because they feel betrayed by their party They know that it's THEIR sons and daughters who will be sent to fight and die in Iraq, and they're having none of it.
True. The people who put Obama where is he is today, the black people who voted for him because he is black, the young folks who really thought he was honest, and the rest of you who have been and continue to be mesmerized by an empty vessel are the ones who put him where he is.
Where we ALL OF US are now stuck. We will vote for him, but we can now legitimately say that he is what we all knew he was....jus
Lets all pull the Obama lever in November while repeating what have become my 2 favorite words in any political discussion SUPREME COURT, and then acknowledge the Senator for being just another politician.
"Lets all pull the Obama lever in November while repeating what have become my 2 favorite words in any political discussion SUPREME COURT,"
This argument is not going to cut it with many of us........
A fine piece. Keep up the excellent writing.
"choosing to support Senator Obama has never been about issues"
That explains a lot. It certainly helps explain why I cannot for the life of me figure out why people who consider themselves real progressives could support him. I still can't understand the "Faith Based" support you have for him. I see a slick manipulator, you see a savior.
Absolutely. I have been a Progressive and voting for over 20 years now. I was so, so disappointed when I saw that BO wasn't a REAL Progressive, his most recent positions are further validation of what I've known for months now about him. Cesca is just like the rest of the cult followers of an Iconic Man -- rationalizing their absurdity. Herein lies the problem -- voting for a person -- NOT a Party nominee that encompasses millions of VOTERS and participants values, goals, political positions and democratic principles is doomed to FAILURE. This experiment is Icon worship; i.e., "the guy you want to have a beer with" has been played out for the last 8 years. And, it will be dommed to failure, once again, with the "cool guy" who is hip.
Wake up, REAL Democrats. We don't need an icon, we need a democratically elected nominee -- not a bogus SELECTEE.
Thank goodness I have found someone who thinks the same way I do. Obama was appointed to be the candidate by the DNC and MEDIA. We do not want a person who does not have the ability to be our President, and Obama is exactly that person. He is not capable of being the CIC as he knows absolutely nothing about the mililtary. Why the people are falling for those empty words he preaches, I do not have a clue. My hopes are that somehow, someone will get through to the citizens that Obama will not do the USA ANY GOOD! Someone who does not honor our pledge, flag, and the Constitution of the USA does not belong in the office of President. Makes no difference how much he pretends to be patriotic NOW! He is still an UNKNOWN and as time goes by, I DO NOT believe we will learn the true facts about him. This is scary.
Never said any better anywhere, my compliments. People in presidential elections vote for the best person above the party.
The DNC sold everyone Kool aid.
Hip and cool are image, not substance. big difference.
Then who should real progressives support? Oh, wait...the
It disturbs me no end that American voters so easily accept that there are only 3 choices in these elections--vote Republican or vote Democrat or don't vote at all. What kind of sheep are we? What kind of "democracy" is this?
There's actually a wide-open field of candidates, representing a spectrum of political philosophies. If the two 'major' parties continue to stick us with 'Evils' of one degree or another, it's our own damned fault. Sure, the odds are stacked heavily against a 3rd-party candidate; but that doesn't mean we should meekly throw in the towel, hold our noses, and vote for a candidate we consider only less evil than the candidate of the other major party....o
Back in the 1840s and 1850s the 'major' parties were Democrats and Whigs. Maybe Americans were made of sterner stuff back in those days; but those who liked neither party's candidate got off their backsides and founded the Republican Party. First time around, the Republican candidate (Fremont, I believe) "lost"; but those voters of a Republican bent didn't quit and stay home for the next elections. In 1860 they nominated Abe Lincoln...
What happened to the Whig Party? It faded away...jus
Real progressives refused to drink from the DNC kool aid. Too many did, and now the awakening has begun.
This guy won the nomination under false pretenses. How willing are you to 'overlook' facts about the candidates that the Democratic Party offers every four years? "Change", my a**! Obama is just more of the same old thing. Anyone who actually believes that Obama is a progressive ought to have his/her head examined; this Party conspires against ANY genuine progressive, while they boost candidates like Clinton and this Obama guy by telling us that THEY are 'progressive'.
Keep enabling this kind of political abuse, and continue to nominate 'lesser evil' candidates. You keep returning to these 'abusers' like the victims of domestic abuse who periodically forget the facts and convince themselves that their abuser will change. Abusers will NEVER change...s
The geniuses who strategize for the DNC are OBSESSED with luring back all of those so-called 'Reagan Democrats'. Give it up, all you consultants and marketing 'experts'.
BillzBubb, he is a Chicago politician, and that means a master manipulator with a Kool aid stand.
Obama hasn't gone centrist. Only Obama's words have gone centrist just liek hist words had gone leftist.
He stands for change and no one has a clue how he would really change things. Will he pull out of Iraq regardless of circumstances on the ground or what the Generals say, or will he listen to the Generals and see what is happening? Will he stay or will he go?
Is he really a different kind of politician, one worthy of the halo posters or is he a typical politician who sucked up to the left to get the votes fo the left and sucked up to the center to get votes of the center?
And now he is pandering to the hated religious right by supporting Fairth Based initiatives while he supports abortion, even partial birth abortion.
"he supports abortion, even partial birth abortion." ???
There is even talk that he is "flexible" on that.
Obama needs a clear path, just like you need spell check.
Name one issue, and by the end of the month you will not be able to tell him from John McCain.
So, did he lie to the hard left to get the nomination? Or is he lying to the center right crowd? Did he sell both out because he is power hungry?
So, what glass of Kool Aid are you going to choose? drink up!
He was groomed and scripted by a slick combination of Chicago/Da
With the country in the worse shape it has been in decades, we can not afford to elect a neophyte.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
