Obama, Stay the Course!

Read this New York Times Op-Ed piece! It clearly and concisely tells you what's up.

If you can't open it, I've added it below. The DNC's 'Terry McAuliffe mind-set' ruined the campaigns of Gore, Kerry and Senator Clinton and now the legions of McAuliffites who have surrounded Barack Obama are doing their damndest to undermine the possibility of his Presidency. They've turned this man we thought was a lion into a little lamb and they're leading him to slaughter. There's a well sourced rumor of Machiavellian proportions running around that what's going to happen is that his base support will be so demoralized they won't have the vital conviction they'll need this August to withstand a McAuliffite push to persuade disenchanted delegates on the floor of the convention to make a resurgent Hillary Clinton the Party's nominee! Obama's the 'presumptive' nominee, remember. The operative word is 'presumptive'. The tortoise is still running. If you're someone close to Barack Obama print out a bunch of copies of this New York Times Op-Ed piece and paste it on his fridge, on the door of his plane, on his kids' foreheads! Make him memorize it. His heart and soul is being gutted and ours with it.

From the Times' July the Fourth op-ed page:

New and Not Improved

Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President Bush's abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics.

Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings. First, he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. His team explained that, saying he had a grass-roots-based model and that while he was forgoing public money, he also was eschewing gold-plated fund-raisers. These days he's on a high-roller hunt.

Even his own chief money collector, Penny Pritzker, suggests that the magic of $20 donations from the Web was less a matter of principle than of scheduling. "We have not been able to have much of the senator's time during the primaries, so we have had to rely more on the Internet," she explained as she and her team busily scheduled more than a dozen big-ticket events over the next few weeks at which the target price for quality time with the candidate is more than $30,000 per person.

The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush's unlawful eavesdropping after 9/11.

In January, when he was battling for Super Tuesday votes, Mr. Obama said that the 1978 law requiring warrants for wiretapping, and the special court it created, worked. "We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend," he declared.

Now, he supports the immunity clause as part of what he calls a compromise but actually is a classic, cynical Washington deal that erodes the power of the special court, virtually eliminates "vigorous oversight" and allows more warrantless eavesdropping than ever.

The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush's policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations -- a policy that violates the separation of church and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation.

He says he would not allow those groups to discriminate in employment, as Mr. Bush did, which is nice. But the Constitution exists to protect democracy, no matter who is president and how good his intentions may be.

On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obama on two other issues: the death penalty and gun control.

Mr. Obama endorsed the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the District of Columbia's gun-control law. We knew he ascribed to the anti-gun-control groups' misreading of the Constitution as implying an individual right to bear arms. But it was distressing to see him declare that the court provided a guide to "reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe."

What could be more reasonable than a city restricting handguns, or requiring that firearms be stored in ways that do not present a mortal threat to children?

We were equally distressed by Mr. Obama's criticism of the Supreme Court's barring the death penalty for crimes that do not involve murder.

We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama's shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.

There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don't want any "redefining" on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in.

This morning's news in the Washington Post is that he's revised his positions on abortion and troop withdrawal! His supporters are being sent to hell in a handbasket and it has to be stopped!

Comments

[soithoni]

Slimey Rushbo has a link to this article, and of course to the comments, on his website.

Operation Chaos Part II ? Rushbo is lickin' his chops... how to mess the Obama base up royal...? Let me see... how best to do it...?

[JonathanDS2U]

When you're in the crowd at a football game and your team's quarterback is running down the field with the football, he is doing EXACTLY what you want, and should you at that moment shout an expression of your perfect alignment with his actions, there are no complex gray areas holding you back, and he will never run down the field in the wrong direction (usually). Political rallies falsely imply the same opportunity to shout in the same spirit. And then you find yourself at a political rally, shouting support for your candidate because he just hit the nail on the head again. All of a sudden he says something you aren't crazy about (e.g., it's his role to tell parents to tell kids to turn off the television until they finish their homework), and it hits you: you do not have to love everything about this candidate.

If you plan to stay home on election day until you're offered the candidate of your dreams, maybe you have this situation confused with something else. When the NYT and others play with fire by suggesting holding back support for Obama, it has more to do with them always needing something to talk about, that's their job. My answer to them and everyone else is, Go Obama! (and once he's in the White House, I may just have a few things to add to my Go Obama).

[goldnchyl]

"and it hits you: you do not have to love everything about this candidate."

Considering that no one here knows ANYONE whom they love everything about, its only reasonable. 0bama is clearly the best candidate for POTUS. Get caught up in hype if you like and you'll find yourself four years from now, trying to recognize your country, scratching your head and wondering "wha' happened??"

[BarryChamplain]

Okay, here is what has taken place, from a purely strategic point of view (meaning, no ideological bias in this eval):

Karl Rove, working with the McCain campaign, does what he always does. He creates "issues" that aren't issues; he misdirects the conversation and uses not only known positions but a candidate's strengths against him.

In Obama's case, it was quite clear that he had built on his candidacy from a youthful, progressive center. It successfully spread beyond the base. He is dominating (so was Dukakis, bear in mind!).

You're Karl Rove. So, you implode the BASE. How??

Well, you already understand that Democratic consultants ultimately make their candidates "run to the middle" or "the right". So you wait patiently for that to happen, and when it does, you plant the narrative that THERE is your "flip-flop" (the most negative-testing and artificial quality, tried and true, that can smear a candidiate). Only this time, it's not impacting "the middle"... it impacts THE BASE.

No base = Obama's finished.

it is to the Dems' eternal shame that they've let the Shrums et.al of the world become so predictable to Karl and co. as to be a weakness themselves.

[AliAli]

Calm down Mr. Sutherland, there's nothing to see here. Stop fanning the flames of the suppose notion that he is a "new man". Name one position that he’s changed his mind on, and don't use the GOP and MSM talking points. he opposes immunity in the FISA bill and says he will work to remove it, he is a man of deep faith, he has always been pro 2nd amendment but he also supports individual state gun laws, he has always been for removing troops out of Iraq but he'll do so base on conditions on the ground. So before you start crying foul, you should evaluate yourself to see if you're staying the course on common sense.

[ignrnthllblly]

I'm just like most of your folks here. I know that Barack Obama's candidacy exists for the sole purpose of my personal validatiion and that if he strays from that goal, I will publicly renounce him.

The difference is that I will wait until the votes are counted before I do--inasmuch as the biggest way he can fail to validate me is by losing to John McCain.

What part of "keep your eye on the ball" are some of you failing to comprehend?

[Sportswoman]

Sounds like the Clintonians are writing this blog's responses. First of all, if you have been LISTENING Obama has said the exact same things about Iraq all along. Those of you thatbelieve somehow he's changed are falling for the trap door politics of McCain. Don't be so gullible. He modified his stand on FISA even though he has said he does not like all facets of it. I disagree with him, but this is only one topic. Barrack has not changed; the media is chasing fires, both real and imaginary.
As for the Supreme Court rulings, while I believe that jobs not guns are the answer to our Inner City Blues, I understand the sentiments of those who feel they should be allowed protection. I disagree with them, but this is about legal rights, not ideology. I don't live in DC--how many of you do?
Finally, I must disagree with your take on child rapists going to jail instead of death. There is no rehabbing a pedophile. Rape is a form of death--one's soul, their innocence,as well as a sense of safety and well-being, are never the same; something of intrinsic essence to one's soul has died. For the state to provide food clothing and shelter to this form of vermin is repulsive to me. If we can't stand up for our children then what do we stand for?

[princessofnowt]

I was going to vote for Obama because he was the most electable version of change. It was not as much change as I would have liked- but better than the alternative two party candidates.
I hoped he would show that he was more progressive and aggressive, especially on our civil rights and the recent abuse (theft?) of power.

This is more than just a little uh-oh. This is enough to wake me up to what Gravel, Nader, and the other third party candidates have been saying. The two party system is nothing more than controlled opposition,much like "professional wrestling".

We need to look to who might truly advocate for us. We, the people.

There are numerous great videos on youtube about third party candidates, and how they are marginalized, as well as good reasons to look again at what they have to offer.

WE need to really wake up. We're in the matrix. As good as, anyway.

[lawchic]

it sounds like some of Obama's supporters did exactly what critics accused them of doing, hearing what they wanted to hear from Obama. Other than Obama's 180 on filibustering the FISA bill, his positions have remained consistent, which is why none of the new turn of events surprised me. I did my research throughout the campaign, and I read his books. I listened to interviews, and I watched the debates. I even watched that silly Spirituality forum a couple of weeks ago. So again, none of this is surprising. I think that the faith baith initiatives can be sustained if they don't violate the law, I have mixed feelings about late term abortion, but I am not about to quibble over a procedure that is performed less than 1% of the time, and I guess I am adult enough to realize and understand that when Obama says he has a timetable for withdrawal, but would make adjustments as needed, he means just that.

You would think that the left would have learned its lesson after the past two elections, but no. We play to lose. So instead of doing our own research and countering illegitimate articles/statements from the press and the right, we eat our own during the primary season and stamp our feet when our candidate doesn't get elected. Maybe this time will be different, but maybe not.

[naluca]

Good piece. But remember, millions saw through Barack Obama a long time ago, and were ridiculed.
The Democrats walked into this situation with their eyes wide open: what should be a cakewalk
election is now going to be a real struggle.

[svaz11]

Senator Obama is not a fool. I think there is too much overreaction swirling around what seems to me to be a landslide strategy in the making. You can't bring about change if you can't get elected. You want to vote for McCain because Obama's not "pure"? Give me a break.

[sharonh]

"They've turned this man we thought was a lion into a lamb." I guess you just thought wrong, and lambs are easily led. Admit it, you endorsed the wrong person to beat McCain, and I don't want him (McCain) for prez anymore than you do.

[JJK]

(Quibble on the facts: it wasn't an "Op Ed," it was an Editorial)

I have made several posts out here in the past few days saying that I think Sen. Obama is making a big mistake in abandoning the Message that got him the nomination, but I also find it hard to believe that he is listening seriously to (let alone following) any counsel of McAuliffe and/or his ilk, other than on fundraising.

I think there are two more likely possibilities:

One, people around him (i.e., Axelrod, Daley? ) are getting nervous and trying to innoculate Obama against an expected barrage of attacks portraying him as too liberal and too "out of the mainstream." Axelrod and Daley are both pragmatists, not idealogues. If their internal polling shows that he's got a problem, they might be acting now. I still think it's a mistake.

Two, this is how Obama himself really thinks and now he is tacking back to his true beliefs after using Progressives to get the nomination, painting HRC as too moderate.

[andreja]

thank you mr. sutherland...well put, and exactly as i have (always) thought...
nice to see that someone else is thinking what i am thinking...it comes in handy when my husbands favorite actor says the same things that he says i am "reaching" on...

[soundfury]

This worries me. I wouldn't call him stupid, I think H's surrogates are sharks and instead of deferring to their political savvy and clout he should be more wary of it. That being said, I think O's doing it for the greater good (trying to tip purple states), but are they taking advantage of his political naivite instead? Maybe to their dismay, he'll pull this off, but should he get swift-boated and started free-falling, I could just see them lining up behind H before the convention. Is this what they're hoping for? Are they setting the stage for O's supporters to line up behind her on the basis that he's betraying their values with FISA and the rest of it? So by the time the convention rolls around she'll have his supporters in the bag.

To those of you who think this could never happen: If the Repubs are thinking of doing a switcheroo with their candidate at the last minute, what makes you think these Dems wouldn't pull the same thing?

Maybe he might pick her as his VP to foil this strategy? What a fatal mistake that would be. That would really be the nail in his political coffin.

If this is what's going on, it's the dirtiest trick I've ever seen, and if O's supporters fall for it, then they deserve what's coming. I definitely won't. He has my unconditional support. Just don't pick H as your VP, or I'm gone.

[sharonh]

Guess what? H doesn't want VP--she wants the slot she deserves, the top one.

[soundfury]

This worries me. I wouldn't call him stupid, I think H's surrogates are sharks and instead of deferring to their political savvy and clout he should be more wary of it. That being said, I think he's doing it for the greater good (trying to tip purple states), but are they taking advantage of his political naivite instead? Maybe to their dismay, he'll pull this off, but should he get swift-boated and started free-falling, I could just see them lining up behind H before the convention. Is this what they're hoping for? Are they setting the stage for O's supporters to line up behind her on the basis that he's betraying their values with FISA and the rest of it? So by the time the convention rolls around she'll have his supporters in the bag.

To those of you who think this could never happen: If the Repubs are thinking of doing a switcheroo with their candidate at the last minute, what makes you think these Dems wouldn't pull the same thing?

Maybe he might pick her as his VP to foil this strategy? What a fatal mistake that would be. That would really be the nail in his political coffin.

If this is what's going on, it's the dirtiest trick I've ever seen, and if O's supporters fall for it, then they deserve what's coming. I definitely won't. He has my unconditional support. Just don't pick H as your VP, or I'm gone.