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

[Mscharizmaa]

I think a lot of us have gotten caught up in the possibility of an Obama presidency and forgot that we don't expect to agree with him all the time, just most of the time.

I haven't been as discouraged in the last few weeks because I was always looking to November, but if things get rocky in the coming months I will come back and read your post.

Some may not agree with me, but I think you did an excellent job of articulating this crazy merry-go-round that is poltiics.

[BeltwayBette]

I agree that no mere man - - or woman -- is perfect. However, I, who was a precinct captain and taught caucus Texas Two step to folks for Obama, who called outlying states and donated, did so because I was sure Sen.Obama would honor our Constitution. After all, he is a constitutional lawyer.

If he wins the nomination,and he is obviously the only game in town, will he suddenly switch back to the Obama I campaigned for? I hope so but his willingness to donate our separation of church and state to evangelicals so easily is not a good sign.

A yellow dog FDR Democrat.

[phipho]

I agree,

Its not where a candidate stands on the issues. Its how he dresses, or maybe the fist bump. Asking a candidate to follow through on promises he made just a few months ago seems like such a harsh standard. Why dwell on negatives like principals and promises. Lets all go to a rally.

Barack Obama
Change you can believe in if he could just remember what it was

[IndependentMeans]

Totally lifted my spirits, thanks for such a great read!!

[jeanrenoir]

I ate dinner last night with a couple of typical, completely secular, Jewish New Yorkers who were sorry to hear Obama saying anything sympathetic about Evangelical Christianity. I'm an agnostic, but the truth is that Democratic secular leftists are just as fanatical, just as narrowly intolerant, and, above all, just as puritanical as any of the far-right Evangelical Christians they detest, yet who are their mirror images. Those "progressives" throwing up their hands in dismay about Obama's "horrid" move to the center should have listened a little more closely to the central premise of his message of "change." What he was centrally proposing was to do his best to change the screwed-up political culture of DC and the country created by the culture wars of the Sixties and after, in which each side became absurdly self-righteous and intolerant in its demonization of the other. In contrast, Obama's politics descends from the mature, tolerant intelligence of our greatest leaders, who were all realists, compromisers, and, yes, centrists: leaders like Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and even, gasp, Reagan. Obama's not an amoral politician simply on the make, like Bill Clinton. He clearly HAS strong political values beyond poll results and the next election. That said, Obama knows that his central task truly is to do exactly what he said he wanted to do: UNITE the country, in order to have the compromising political consensus necessary to face together our incredibly daunting national challenges at home and abroad.

[scahlet]

jeanrenior­.........I hate to break it to you but Obama is ripping a page right from the Clinton notebook. What dont you remember about Bill Clinton's presidential run? He ran right in the middle to reach the majority of the population. If you think this is a great idea for Obama then why didnt you just go ahead and vote for Hillary? We all knew she would do this......­.......now everyone is torn by Obama tacking to the right. All you people deified him.......­.tsk, tsk. Nothing changes if nothing changes!!!!!!!!

[okieindie]

He didn't win the majority of the population. Maybe you forgot that a little fellow by the name of Ross Perot took nearly 20 percent. He had strong progressive beliefs in things like outsourcing and building a better smarter EPA. But he was down right conservative with his anti gun control stance and desire to expand the war on drugs. I think that you should put should information behind that informed voter tag I bet you so proudly wear. Hillary Clinton's negagttives were far too many for people to truly embrace the idea of four or five months of nastiness that would have spewed from both sides. Nothing changes because some people decide they don't have to do anything to change. Just blame politicians and people who didn't vote for your clearly weaker candidate.

[AmeriGus]

O's campaign is delving into key red districts, looking at what it will take to win. The Faith-Based shtick is window dressing for winning with moderate evangelicals (a new term in itself). Trust O as a Constitutional law professor that he wouldn't cross boundaries separating church and state. He's got to pick up some of those all-religi­on-all-the­-time voters - did you have any better plan? O's plan is solid - take the OFBI, which Rove created right after Bush's inauguration to pay pastors in exchange for securing votes. Pivot from this blatant graft to a vehicle for battling poverty, funding legal, socially uplifting aims. There is no need for monitoring with the free scrutiny the press and public will be applying. Without any religious test for recieving services, the groups being paid will get in touch with the locals for real.

The office should not exist at all, but practically speaking, it's cheaper to transition OFBI recipients off "free" money to requiring they provide community services. It's unifying and encourages social responsibility, accountable to a new administration. Obama knows from his community-organizer days how to harness pre-existing church networks. This also forces McCain farther into religious endeavors where he makes a fool of himself.

The FISA vote was a mistake, but Obama has mitigated the damage by writing Arianna another love note. He states plainly he'll take his deserved lumps for that. His responsiveness is a plus and he'll work for that filibuster now.

[KidsGoneNow]

I think you're on to something here. Obama is no dummy when it comes to working things gradually to the place where he wants them.
I recall reading-a few months ago-an interview with someone he worked with during his days as a community organizer in Chicago. The person specifically mentioned that Obama would often agree to a "compromise" position - which was not really what he wanted - just to get the ball moving in the right direction. The people on the "other side" felt "listened to" and were not nearly so entrenched in their positions when the time came to move another step forward.
I think we need to remember that the "change" Obama is offering is not just in policy itself, but in ways to get to that policy without creating partisan gridlock. By being willing to listen to all sides and by encouraging dialog, as well as being open to positive actions on the part of others, Obama truly will change the way things work in Washington.

[syryn22]

I agree Kids. I thought everyone was ready for a bipartisan leader...h­ow are we going to get there if our President-to-be does not try to reach out to everyone? Please, anyone, please explain to me what is he supposed to do? Hold steadfast to what one group of people wants, while ignoring another? It doesn't work like that and he will not win like that either. Come on people, put your thinking caps on and stop listening to those stupid talking heads that just likes to stir up sh*t.

[Marlyn]

"Trust O as a Constitutional law professor that he wouldn't cross boundaries separating church and state." ???

This is what is so disappointing about Obama. He was a Constitutional law professor so I expected him to repair the damage that Bush has done to the Constitution.

Instead he proposes to EXPAND Bush's unconstitutional programs? WTF???

[Marlyn]

"The FISA vote was a mistake" ???

Actually, it hasn't happened yet. So MAYBE it is not too late to convince Obama to stand up against Bush after all. That's my hope.

[mossy1]

Thanks, Bob, for putting it all into perspective. I've been reading with growing consternation as too many of the liberal blogs have spanked our candidate for not being all they want. They obviously believed the rt. wing's meme of Obama as "the most liberal member of congress", without noting every single democratic presidential candidate has always been considered "the most liberal member of congress". Obama has said from the beginning he won't be all things to all people, yet he still possesses that interesting characteristic that allows us all to assume he's an extension of ourselves.
We all need to have faith (!) and just hang on until Fall. The reward is a bright, shiney new America that will once again make us proud.

[gusvidal]

SINCE OBAMA IS IS DOING VERY WELL IN THE POLLS,THE QUESTION IS; WTF IS GOING ON WITH HIM? WHY HE IS EMBRACING BUSH WAY OF THINKING NOW? HE NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THAT HE WILL NEVER UNITE THE COUNTRY, NO BODY CAN EVEN JESUS ,WHEN HE WAS ON EARTH, COULD MAKE HAPPY EVERYBODY AND YOU ARE NO JESUS WHATSOEVER. WAKE UP SILLY!

[kellygrrrl]

he's not adopting the Bush way of thinking
that is absurd
you are talking about night and day

[Marlyn]

"adopting the Bush way of thinking" ???

the Bush faith-based initiatives? YES, not only adopting, but promising to expand them.

[oscartucker]

Stop using all capital letters, please.

[davesideas]

thanks for moving the momentum away from special interest whining about Obama to the reality that the only alternative is McCain...

[kellygrrrl]

there is no alternative

[Marlyn]

"special interest whining" ???

What "special interest" are you referring to?

[jbcowan]

Thank you for your insightful article Bob. You're right. Obama may not be as "LIBERAL" as you or I ( or many other Democrats for that matter), but maybe that's a GOOD thing.

Haven't we had enuf of a President who insists its "My way or the Highway"? And "You're either with us or against us"?

Thank GOD we have a nominee who is willing to compromise; to listen to thoughtful argument; and who has the intelligence to chose the best path. Obama proved he is a leader by opposing the immoral invasion of Iraq...esp­ecially given the pressure by this administra­tion...att­acking their opponents patroitism and love of country ( see Joe Wilson).

No doubt, a President Obama will disappoint us from time to time. But given the past eight years...
that's a disappointment we gladly welcome !

[hawkseye]

Agree!

[JudeWaves]

Thanks, I really appreciate hearing a voice that isn't pitched in hysteria. After years at this resistance game, we're hooked on dissent ... forgetting that as many as FOUR Supreme Court nominations rest on our ability to come to peace with this Democratic candidate.

I agree with David Corn who has said that Obama may be the first post-60s leader. Obama seems enigmatic because he's speaking a language we haven't heard in forty years, since the nation split over the Vietnam war. He wants conciliation and collaboration. Those of us left-of-the-base say it can't be done -- or maybe it's just that WE don't have the capacity for that, and can't imagine that anyone else can pull it off.

The Edwards-ite's want the pendulum to swing far Left for a balancing of the Republican coup, a kick-start to restoration and accountability; no give, not an inch. I confess that's where my heart is, as well. But Obama has presented us with an option for a new political view -- it's not going to look like some of us want it to.

When we voted for Kerry, all we wanted was an honest broker for progressive ideals and an end to Righty mayhem. We've already got that in Obama. Maybe he's the one who can finally move us past the culture wars of the 60s -- and if you don't think that's still going on, listen to ANY speech by John McCain.

[MrXfromplanetX]

You could have got most of the Ron Paul supporters to switch over and support Kucinich. Do you think a McCain type neocon would swing over and support Obama?

[flyfysher]

Flip flop on Iraq. 'Change we can believe in!'

WE LOVE WAFFLES! Obama supporter 2008!

[SarahZim]

Obama is behaving no differently then any other candidate post primary. McCain says his flipflops represent principals, while obama calls it 'refining his position'. This is just a political reality.
Liberals need to swallow this and stop providing fodder for the MSM. Despite what they think of republicans they always stand behind their candidate and take what is said in the general election with a grain of salt.

[nippersdad]

"Liberals need to swallow this and stop providing fodder for the MSM."

Screw that! We have been listening to that trash for years and we always end up voting for some mealy mouthed, stay the course candidate. The 2006 Congressional races were eye openers for me. If Obama does not fiibuster this bill, this is the year that I go independent. It will be nice to finally vote for change I, personally, could believe in. And if Obama loses this one because of a mass revolt of similar opinions, perhaps it will finally teach the Democratic Party that Republicanism is not their best route to the White House.

[CAPTAINSKIPPY]

Yes, we need a Democrat in the WH, one just like gWb.

[EgbertSouse]

We need a big tent. Galvanizing the liberal/progressive base is not enough. If we are to change health care, stop the war, make education a right for everyone and get right with nature we need help. Big corporations represented by the republicans will want to divide us, keep us in the dark and make us enemies by preying on our differences. We can't let it happen. Our children depend on us to find common ground.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

"We need a big tent. ... Our children depend on us to find common ground."

Hasn't our common ground already been established?

We have certain principles expressed in our Constitution.

There is no constituency outside of the neocons and their supporters who want immunity for the telecoms who have allowed Bush, et al. to violate our Constitutionally protected rights under the Fourth Amendement.

These people are not going to vote for a bona fide candidate from the Democratic Party even if Obama votes in the way that they want. They are not going to vote for him.

Why, for any reason, would you equate a desire for Constitutional rights and accountability to be an issue that only appeals to the "liberal/p­rogressive base?" On what grounds do you base your belief that Independents do not want Constitutional rights or are somehow indifferent as to whether those who want Constitutional rights should have their day in court? On what grounds do you base your belief, if you have it, that farmers and ranchers in Republican states don't want Constitutional rights and accountability?

Why do you think that this is a centrist issue? Is it because this is what Obama has said? Or, this is what he has said most recently?

If you are an Obama supporter, what is wrong with what he said earlier? No one wants him to change except the neocons.

[EgbertSouse]

We have more in common with evangelicals and gun rights advocates than you think.

Have faith.

Keep your eyes on the prize!

[Marlyn]

Well said, AnotherMcIntosh.

[MrXfromplanetX]

So why does it make sense to vote for a Democrat who isn't going to do what you have listed. He voted for the Reauth of the Patriot Act, just like he's supporting this FISA bill.

Yes he has a pretty face, and is a smooth talker, so I guess that's just great if that's all you want.

[luvobama]

i think we already know what sticking to your position, no matter what, looks like. It isn't pretty or very smart. 8 year of this behavior has been plenty. I kinda like people who change their mind when what they're doing isn't working.

[hawkseye]

The only thing we can count on is Change.
Change equals Evolution, and let us hope we will all keep on evolving.

[IowaKid]

Isn't that funny they jump on the bandwagon against Obama but yet while McCain is in Columbia they are smuggling drugs into the US via submarines. Where is that in the news??????? Also has anything been done with with opium being grown in Afghanistan?????

[mimsnpips]

"Where is that in the news???????" Don't know.

"Also has anything been done with with opium being grown in Afghanistan?????" Yes. It is being shipped all over the world.

[Marlyn]

I saw an email about drug smugglers in the Caribbean using submarines.