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
These are just excuses for supporting a Republican-lite sell-out. But some things should not be negotiable. Obama's support for legalizing government spying on its own citizens (which will lead to oppression)... his support for using our tax dollars to fund religious institutions... these things should not be negotiable.
Why all the tortured words and excuses? We've been conned by another sell-out politician. Just say it.
"his support for using our tax dollars to fund religious institutions... these things should not be negotiable."
Please don't misrepresent Obama's position on this issue. You can go to some right-wing site with that kind of crap. If you have a problem with Obama, then let it come from an honest place. I really don't understand what a liberal gains from negatively misreprsenting his positions.
Your reply was not correct. Sen.Obama,by promsing to have a faith based initiative inthe White House and promises to given them a better (rad more money) budget than Bush did, Is saying that the faith based initiative will be funded with tax payer dollars.
Some may agree with that; others will certainly not. But his promise has been made public. Fact.
"...using our tax dollars to fund religious institutions..." is at best misinformed -- at worst deliberately misleading.
Grants would go to organizations to fund programs like health clinics for low-income neighborhoods, tutoring and mentoring programs for at-risk youth, neighborhood clean-ups in "blighted" areas, anti-drug progams -- the list goes on. These would be overseen by members of the religious community who would not be able to base employment on religious affiliation and would not allow program workers to try to make religious "converts".
Initiatives like these can benefit entire communities. Funding through religious organizations simply puts the ability to help into the hands of those most likely to see the need for help.
I'm glad you woke up and saw the light now if we can get everyonr back on message which is to win this election not apease to our selfish emotions...we [Obama Supporters] would be in a better place
My "Summer of Awful" was 1968 when I was in Vietnam and voted in my first election. I voted against Nixon. Since then I've voted against
Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush and Bush.
This year I'll vote against McCain.
Do you catch my meaning?
Do you get my drift?
Obama is not the second coming, he's just another pol, but better than McCain.
I also voted agaisnt Ford and what did we get?
Incompetent Jimmy Carter who couldn't deal with Ayatollah Khomeini and his invasion of American Territory (Embassies are the territories of the country that owns it, not the country where it is located.)
Pacifist Jimmy led us into the problem of Iran today.
"Pacifist Jimmy led us into the problem of Iran today." ???
WRONG! The USA has meddled in Iran's government for decades, way before Carter. In 1953 the CIA assassinated their the popularly elected nationalist prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, and installed the Shah of Iran in his place.
You might perhaps find a book and, I don't know, read it? History is more complex than Republican talking points might at first glance suggest.
Appeasment, diplomacy, and all of that notwithstanding, there are some things you just don't compromise on, such as the integrity of the Constitution and the separation of church and state. Faith-based initiatives should be unacceptable to someone who has sworn to uphold the Constitution.
Using the money from taxpayers of many or no religions to support the activities of Christian-only endeavors is wrong. For that reason, I can no longer vote for Obama.
Churches are tax-exempt. That should be more than enough of a financial break for them, and even that is questionable. If churches had not been permitted to accumulate the vast wealth that they have, we would not be on the verge of a fascist theorcracy now. Faith-based initiatives are a violation of the separation of church and state.
You've misread his policy entirely. Obama seeks funding for ALL faiths including Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Hindus in the fight against poverty. Already these religious groups taking on secular issues are waging the battle and we need any and all faiths to fight. As long as they aren't proselytizing, it will be okay. Bush's failure was that he gave cash to a single religion and focused on the evangelical sects, excluding other faiths.
BTW, there is precedent for funding religious institutions. The GI Bill gave money for returning veterans to attend religious-affiliated colleges of their choosing.
How does that get around the separation of Church and State. I am pretty sure that they will not be giving money to WICANs (witches) or Satanist. These are a little weird, but still religious.
"funding for ALL faiths including Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Hindus in the fight against poverty."
SCIENTOLOGY is a church, they say. It was founded by science fiction writer, L. Ron Hubbard. They worship Xenu, overlord of the universe. They have lots of "secular" programs to help the poor and needy, and they'll gladly step up to the public money trough.
The Constitution would never have been written or signed without compromise. Thank God for those 39 men who were willing to compromise for our country.
I agree. This is not the 'summer of awful' for me. It is a summer of hope. Those who bash and tear down are on the same shelf as FOX...fair and balance.
We must comprimise, change outlooks, and open minds to have a Renaissance in the USA. Bob Cesca's article was food for thought. Good for Bob!
"Thank God for those 39 men who were willing to compromise for our country."
And thank God they said the USA shall NOT fund religion. Remember that part? Or do you think we should COMPROMISE on that?
As a progressive Independent who believes in the Constitution and governmental accountability, allow me to point out that the American political system of checks and balances was created to safeguard against abuses of power. Barack Obama has failed to demand an investigation into the abuses of power carried out by the Bush administration. John McCain has already stated he would altogether forgo an investigation should he win the presidency. Why is this so? The candidates’ failure to call for proper legal action against the Bush administration demonstrates that they are derelict in their duties as members of Congress. Both men swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, yet both men are refusing to do so in the name of political expediency and personal ambition. Accordingly, neither Barack Obama nor John McCain can be trusted to faithfully carry out the duties of the office of the president.
Restoring America’s credibility will begin with the restoration of the rule of Constitutional law and the prosecution of those who have violated it, not by having a pair of presidential candidates play the part of Good Germans and look the other way in their quests to win the White House.
When we reach political maturity in this country, we will realize that
(a) just plain folks run for office. The Buddha, Krishna, Jesus,, et al do not stand for office.
(b) you don't always get everything you want. Sadly Santa doesn't deliver each toy you requested. Nor does one's candidate.
Until then some folks will be mightily disappointed when they discover their candidate has all the foibles and failings of humans.
And when their imagined political saviours turn the water into wine but it's more Ernest and Julio Gallo than Lafite Rothschild.
Those who are mature will (as the wise saying goes) pick the lesser of two disappointments - cause that's the only choice one gets in an election.
I do believe Sen. Obama is a very thoughtful man who can lead this country with pramaticism and grace. l like the fact he's trying to be inclusive. Every leader should be willing to hear all sides of an issue. There aren't any absolutes when trying to govern. Every leader goes on the information given to them at the time. Everything is a judgment call. I would rather have a leader admit changing his mind, then stubbornly cling to lies even after the truth is clear! Haven't we had enough of strident thinking the past 8 years?
I want a leader who thinks for himself using all of the information available as indicators to what the right decison may be. I don't want a "yes man" whose trying to please a certain group. Sen. Obama is right. We need everyone to confront the challenges we face as a nation.
Oops, on my last post I listed the Senate votes for FISA to move forward. This link gives you the vote tally for the House votes for FISA
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-437
If you think this summer is "awful," you ain't seen nothin' yet. If Israel, or its puppet Bush, actually bombs Iran, instead of simply rattling all the sabers they can grab, according to a leading expert on the oil market with no axe to grind, on NPR, Americans can expect the price of oil to double or TRIPLE overnight. Needless to say, that would wipe out world financial markets much, much more severely than 9/11, and threaten a worldwide depression of unprecedented proportions. McCain, like Hillary the Obliterator and Bush, is completely in the tank for Israel and bombing. But the American masses, already angry and deeply frightened by $4 or $5 gas, with no relief in sight, would clearly go absolutely ballistic if gas shot to $8 or $12 per gallon--let me repeat that: PER GALLON--and their life savings were wiped out by a world stock market crash, forcing layoffs not seen since the Depression.. Obama's the only hope for sanity towards Iran--not the sanity of a wimp, much less a naif, but the sanity of a leader with the charisma, brains, and moral authority to galvanize the world behind him to try every possible form of pressure on Iran short of bombing. Obama would be the anti-Bush in every respect, as we'll see when huge mobs hail him as a hero already, wherever he goes in Old Europe, where he will be the most popular American political figure since JFK.
"when huge mobs hail him as a hero already, wherever he goes in Old Europe" ???
That won't happen now because Old Europe sees that Obama is NO DIFFERENT after all.
What do you think will happen to the price of oil the day Iran lights off a nuke?
As for Israel: if they are threatened by Iran, they have every right to end the threat. They don;t ahve to sit there and die to keep our oil prices low. If the Europeans and Bush had taken Iran seriously, and dealt with it years ago, we wouldn;t be in this position today.
Just remember, America did not sit still when Russia put nukes into cuba. And that was under liberal Democratic hero preident Kennedy.
OF course there is no releif in sight for energy costs becuase Obama and the Democrats want them to go up. Not only has Obama said that he likes high oil prices (Yes, he did), but the Democrats vote agaisnt every measure that increases energy supply.
Do you think the Ayatollahs of Iran and Achmadinejad will be so charmed by Obama that they will unilateraly stop trying to develop nukes and ICBM's?
You think energy prices are too low? Vote for Obama.
If you think he will lower them, tell us exactly what policies he would implement that have any chance of lwoering prices. Note: takingoil company profits won't change the price at the pump.
"the day Iran lights off a nuke?"
They don't have any.
" They don;t ahve to sit there and die to keep our oil prices low." ???
You honestly think Israel is fighting to keep our oil prices low?
Hello JanP, did you notice it is Bush who is giving you high oil prices?
Jan:
Iran has no nukes and is unlikely to develop any any time soon insofar as they have been banned from production there as being against their religious law. It is the Mullahs who make the laws in Iran, not Achmadinejad.
Israel, itself, has said that they are in no danger of being attacked by Iran; just as they said that they were in no danger from Saddam Hussein prior to our invasion of Iraq.
Again, Iran has no nukes to place anywhere, even if they had the capability of building one and they were not against their law to produce.
Obama has said that higher energy prices are good insofar as it will encourage private industry to work on alternative sources of supply. Context is everything.
Your level of fail has been calculated and is not complimentary.
Well,now we liberals have initiated the fear tactics of the right. McCain the Clone will be delighted.
Dear, Mr. Cesca. I believe you got conned into supporting an image. A "pretty face". If this isn't about issues, what the hell is it about?
"Simultaneously confounded and disappointed by some of his recent remarks on trade, FISA and faith-based initiatives."
You want to support someone because he will look good in the white house, and claim to be a Democrat while he's doing it?
Kucinich voted against NAFTA, the Iraq War, the Reauth of the Patriot Act, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, H.R. 1955 (The Violent Radicalized Homegrown Terrorist Prevention Act), and this FISA bill. If something was a bad bill, he probably voted against it. He has the best voting record for any Democrat that ran. All of this can be verified on http://govtrack.us
If people like you would have endorsed Dennis Kucinich instead of the man you thought presented a pretty image, we would have a candidate worth voting for.
Many Ron Paul supporters would have crossed over and voted for him because he has such a good voting record.
I'm going to vote for Ralph Nader or Bob Barr. I will not vote for this guy. The next step is to weed out everyone from Congress who supported this FISA bill.
We have 15 people with guts. Fourteen (14) Democrats, and one (1) independent--my hero Bernie Sanders
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/votes/?votenum=158&chamber=S&congress=1102&tally=1
Fine bring us four more years of Bush. Its never enough, either there corrupted by being politicians or they don't stick squarely to their message. OBAMA IS A POLITICIAN NOT A PREACHER OR A SAINT. Politics is about compromise and winning elections. If you fail to see that you are no better than the partisans who blindly followed Bush and the GOP
I was reading along, nodding my head, until you mentioned voting for Bob Barr and came to an immediate, screeching halt. WTF! Have you ever seen his voting record whilst he was in Congress? Just because he has been running from his record as fast as he can is no reason to believe what he has to say now. Take it from a former constituent of his, that man is poison. Believe nothing he says; watch what he does.
well Mr. X why are you here, your mind is made up already, good for you, you are using your freedom to vote for whom ever your heart desire, I just don't understand why you are here telling us this.
Agreed, agreed, and agreed. Thanks Bob!
Fantastic read! Thanks!!!!!
Bob, thanks for a great read and pointing out to the upset progressives that, in the face of what are largely unexceptional decisions that just happen to fall on the right side of the ultraliberal line, Obama showed some guts in coming out against the anti-gay marriage initiative in California. Everyone needs to get the knot out of their collective panties and ride with the guy, and accept that "change" and post-partisanship require some compromises. We've all got to keep our eyes on big picture.
And I'm going to go back and watch the Tide is Turning again to keep my spirits up!
The problem for Obama is that this is not really about those issues listed above - it is about undermining his core message. He ran on a platform of a different kind of politics - that was his core message. And now it looks like he is doing what any other Democratic nominee would have done at this point. The problem for Obama is that many of us who were "fired up" didn't think of him as any old Dem nominee back in the primaries. Because he never lowered himself to Clinton's tactics and he stayed on message, we actually thought we were looking at a different kind of politics. Now...he is losing the uniqueness fast and the enthusiasm and activism that went with that.
Oh well. I will still vote for him in Nov but don't feel like donating or doing any volunteer work. Far cry from the primaries...I was an Obama precinct captain.
Completely feel same. Pandering to those on the fence is not helping.
Those on the fence are needed to win. If they aren't contacted than they will vote for opposition or worse not vote at all. We cannot afford disunity.
for God's sake - if this imbecile is gonna flip flop and move to the center on EVERYTHING - why didn't we just nominate Hillary? At least SHE has experience and is ELECTABLE.
Enough "experience" to not get "elected" over that imbecile. Act like an adult, provide substantive comments or go away.
Fear NOT. Barack will choose Hillary as his VP. I'd bet $100 on that.
Don't think so. She's just what the Republicans want.
I don't think so, and here is why.....Hillary is brighter, better informed and has a grasp of both the problems and ideas for the solutions. I don't think she would try, but she would end up making 0 look bad just by her contributions. I'm quite certain the political machine behind 0 knows that and understands how it would make their prodigy look.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
