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.

Bob Cesca's Goddamn Awesome Blog! Go!

Comments

[sufi66]

If he keeps altering his positions and ruining his momentum, then we can expect more years of darkness . What the hell is going on with this guy?

[JennieB]

Excellent post, Bob. Finally, someone with some common sense! The progressives are just dying to "pull a Nader" and keep us exactly where we've been for the last 8 years. It's insane. Scratch that. THEY'RE insane.

[nippersdad]

"The progressives are just dying to 'pull a Nader' ......THEY'RE insane."

Please do tell us, in your infinite wisdom, who has been consistently predicting everything that has actually come to pass over the last thirty years? If I recall correctly, the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again expecting different results. Who, exactly, is it that is insane, here?

[kizzie]

Bravo! Right on.At least we know where Nader stands.

[mossy1]

So.......... Having left overnight, (I'm on the LEFT coast, so it's not even 9 a.m. yet) I find you folks are still at it.
Went to BobCesca's blog first, and agree wholeheartedly with his assessment of you guys, with the added observation that there are a lot of trolls included, who are wearing liberals' clothing.

My observation at this point is this: Do you think we can just take a more generous overview of our candidate (there are, after all, four months left!) and just relax?

Or - will we, in our insistance that he be all things to all dems, or we won't vote for him.........
lose the election???????

[Marlyn]

I won't vote for someone who says they plan to EXPAND the fascist policies of Bush.

[Titonwan]

I'm not going to accept the FISA bill. Whoever votes for it is not getting a vote from me. Real simple.

[jitterbug]

Don't forget, that particular bill is about "civil" liabilities, Barack will get them on "criminal" liabilities when he is in office. Which is more important? What do you think McBush would do? Do you really want someone just like Bush?

[AzRealProgressive]

Elect Obama and you will get someone who lies better than Bush. And that is important to our image. Obama is a much better wrapper for America. All new packaging. McSame.

[patmancando]

So he says! But he has said a lot of things. Yesterday he said............and today it is different.

[MrXfromplanetX]

It's not even just FISA. He's going to get hundreds of thousands of people killed.

Aijaz Ahmad with Real News on Obamas speech to AIPAC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvDrYmGpoNs

Pepe Escobar with The Real News on Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=769SVGpyaD0

This John Pilger documentary backs up what Pepe Escobar is saying
http://mrxfromplanetx.com/paying-the-price-killing-the-children-of-iraq

You might as well vote Nader or do something. I wish Nader would have picked Kucinich as his VP. That would be a great team.

http://www.breakthematrix.com/content/Third-Party-Candidates

[Star123]

You are on the right track waking up here, Bob. Don't talk yourself out of it.

[jbatch]

Bob:

That was an excellent rationalization. And like all rationalzations it contained more salve than reason.

Look, the problem with Obama's fade right isn't simply that there are issues we uber progressives may disagree with him on -- it's three fundamental things:

1) He's doing the same poll-pandering, spinning and equviocating that Hillary and Kerry and even candidate-Gore did. I was willing to back him for his integrity, but people who stear by the bow of the ship tend to get lost, strategically and morally. Integrity is the first casuality of expedience.

2) It's a losing strategy. The three I mentioned -- Hillary, Kerry and Gore -- all lost using this Shrumm-like fade. What's next, a flag burning amendment? This approach has never worked for Dems, and it just meight be the only thing that will defeat Obama.

3) A mandate is abut more than numbers -- it's about the positions you take. If Obama gets elected while pushing Bush-lite policies, then he'll have a mandate to carry out a Bush lite administration.

Is this really what you want; are you really willing to accept this?

I'm not.

[arkgrfx61]

Bob, great post....thank you.
Obama supporter from day one and will continue to be one.

[BlackSheep]

Bob Cesca

Just wanted to say how much I enjoy your columns -- when not brilliantly expressing almost precisely my own thoughts on matters, in this case, you've lightened my heavy heart with a new take on Obama's new and rather shocking political hedging -- goddamn I hope you are right.

Love ya Bob, keep 'em coming.

Thanks
BlackSheep

[mymatrix]

Too many of you purists mean we could easily wake up with McCain as president. The election is simply a choice: McCain or Obama. It doesn't mean you agree with them on everything, just which is a better prospect for the world. Your purist kind of thinking means someone you approve of will never be president. Life presents as it is, not how you fantasize it should be, and you make the best of it. Are you really worried that a Harvard trained Consitutional attorney is not going to do the right thing on FISA?
After Novemember I encourage you to work your hearts our for whatever policies you want...that is how it works. Didn't you learn anything from our last two defeats? Two elections of Bush have been tragic for the world so don't be so immoral as to say "well, mabye McCain is what we deserve."

[Marlyn]

"Are you really worried that a Harvard trained Consitutional attorney is not going to do the right thing on FISA?"

YES.

[kizzie]

Agreed--At this point, I wish we had Clinton. If these facts had been stated before, we would have had a better picture of what was to come.
Personally, I wanted to see Biden as the nominee. Now we are stuck with a person with no integrity and will do "whatever" to get what he wants--not what "We, the People" want. Same old politics as usual.

[BeltwayBette]

A Harvard trained Constitutional attorny just kicked the Constitution in the A** by reinstating the Bush policy of NO separation of church and state.

He's' also promised right wing evangelicals everything this week but his youngest daughter. Not to mention he reinterpreted his earlier version of the fourth Amendment and handed the NRA their first super victory -- and he' s not even in office yet. .

YOu can bet your bupkus I worry. . ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.
Who is this man?

A gal who's worked for, donated to and pretty much trusted the man because he's a htca.

[nippersdad]

I get really tired of having milque toast candidates chosen for me and then have to listen to six months of accept it or be ostracized for personally bringing down the country to the level of some African despotic regime. It is invariably the "centrists" who choose these characters even as they are warned of the consequences of their choices. It is not such as I that willingly choose candidates who have no fixed positions; it is not we who cannot value and recognize integrity when we see it.

Here is your acid test: who predicted what has happened and who do you consistently demonize. If they are one and the same, then it is you and not we "purists" who are to blame for our present plight. I know that it is difficult for such as yourself to internalize, but show a little respect. You need to be looking in the mirror and talking to Republicans; we got it right the first time.

[havisham]

Call me crazy, but rolling back the darkness of the Bush years cannot be separated from a candidate's views on issues such as illegal wire-tapping and the separation of church and state. It's interesting to see how many bloggers are now trying to justify their trivialization of issues in the primary, particularly their rapt, irrational worshipn of a candidate who made them feel good but who had to be cornered into taking a stance on anything. Here's the most disturbing thing about the developments of the last 10 days: Obama gained points in the primary by posing as something he is not and that IS why HuffPo bloggers and commentators supported him. Since we have no choice but to vote for Obama now--what are we going to do, vote for a psychologically unstable republican dim-wit?--I guess the best we can do is treat our behavior in the primary as a cautionary tale. What happens when progressives focus on trivia rather than issues? They become no different than conservatives.

[MrXfromplanetX]

We could vote for Nader, or maybe someone else will jump in the race. Here are some ideas.

http://www.breakthematrix.com/content/Third-Party-Candidates

The above page has this link, but there's a list of who we have to vote for right now

http://votesmart.org/election_president.php?dist=bio.php

[mymatrix]

Yea, MrX, voting for Nader got us 8 years of Bush with two losing wars, lost time on energy crisis and climate change.Let's do that again? What mindset leads you people to expect to get life the way you want it, and if it isn't, then all else be damned? How old are you that you don't accept the limitations of reality and then work the best you can within it? What moral high-horse do you sit on with your purity which directy results in furtherance of evil (Bush Cheney policies that have led to death of hundreds of thousands.) As an American in the lap of privelege, you do have a moral responsibilty to care about the outcome of this election as most of the worlds citizens (like Iraqi's) have no choice.
Grow up.

[lauraq]

I consider myself to be a pragmatic progressive. I think Obama is one, too. His campaign message--from the beginning--has consistently said, "We are not blue states or red states. We are the United States." One of his campaign slogans early on was "Respect. Include. Empower." Does this make him a lefty or a centrist? Or does it make him someone who says that to have a country that is united (enough) to get the things done as recommended on his website under "Issues", you have to work with others. Sometimes this means compromising. Sometimes that means taking an incremental approach to change so that people who are scared of radical change can learn to live with changes. That's called wisdom and maturity.

[hp5231]

Obama has just about lost me over the way he threw Gen. Clark under the bus instead of defending him.

[Marlyn]

General Clark spoke the truth, and Obama rejected the TRUTH. Ooops.

[kempis]

Wow. Cesca managed to rationalize Obama's Clintonian triangulations. Clintonian triangulations are admirable--as long as a Clinton isn't doing them, eh?

[Marlyn]

Obama should wear a triangle around his neck.

[jollyelle]

how about a triangular shaped flag pin??!!!

[Piatt]

The "liberal messiah" was a Clinton/Republican aspersion. I've always seen him as a practical, intelligent politician with an ability to inspire and unite. In a pluralistic society of over 300 million people, it's simply not going to be possible for all of us to agree with every decision he makes.

I don't like the FISA move but understand his reasoning and appreciate the respect and civility that he extends to those who disagree with him.

As a secularist, I wasn't crazy about the faith-based initiative until I learned that it would require measurable results and prevent proselytizing and discrimination. Faith based groups have done more to help the people of New Orleans than the city, state and federal governments combined.

Think we all need to be careful about demanding "purity" on every issue from Senator Obama or we're going to end up putting Walnuts McSame in The White House. This country's in big trouble. We don't need to extend that nightmares of the past eight years into twelve or sixteen years.

[Marlyn]

"it's simply not going to be possible for all of us to agree with every decision he makes." ???

How about the decision to NOT support the Constitution? Could we agree on that?

[Marlyn]

"it would require measurable results and prevent proselytizing and discrimination" ???

This would require another level of bureaucracy. The Church of Scientology, for example, has many "secular" programs, so now our government is going to support Scientology?

This whole approach of using CHARITIES (religious or not) is flawed. Talk about a middle man!!! This is the Republican way of handling government services, get rid of them and outsource the service to friends. Corrupt fascism, pure and simple.

[Jonni Rae]

I don't like his position on FISA, on the death penalty, on separation of church and state,on gun ownership, and now, his statement that "mental distress" is not a reason for a woman to have a late term abortion. I don't mind a practical candidate. I just want a principled one. You know the liberals and progressives are tired of being taken for granted, being used,then thrown away because we have nowhere else to go. The Clintons did it, abandoning the progressive agenda as soon as they got into office. They balanced the budget on the backs of the poor. And I don't like his ads touting how great he did on the "welfare to work" iniative, which is the single most important ingredient in the rise in homeless families,poverty among children, drug dealing among kids, incarceration spikes in poor communities, drop out rates in high schools. I am a maxed out donor in the primary, the mother of a bi-racial child, and I will never vote for McCain, so you see I am not a "troll" which I have been called on the Obama site. I don't think I can listen to anymore of his speeches on "hope " and "change" although I will vote for him. I just want him to understand how i and many others like me feel. I want him to be ok with that, or change. " I am waiting for a rebirth of wonder" --Ferlinghetti

[Hatchibakku99]

Piatt, you are SO on the mark about this!!! I had similar reservations about some of his more recent stands (I almost fell off my chair on the "faith-based initiatives" thing!). But after my knee stopped jerking, my brain resumed operation. Community outreach programs conducted by many churches have made a HUGE, POSITIVE impact on so many people who otherwise would not have had access to health care, educational assistance and housing assistance. Too many people fall through the cracks created by many government-operated programs. But when you're living in the same neighborhood as those who need assistance, it's much easier to see and address those needs.
I see Barack Obama as a wise and reasonable man. I'd rather have him as my President than someone too inflexible to see that valid points come from more than one direction.

[AbstractImp]

Character: America's last hope.

[Star123]

If only we could find some.

[nypoet22]

he may not embarass us every damn day, but he sure embarassed me this week.

[patmancando]

And you ain't seen nuttin yet