In Defense of Barack Obama

Barack Obama has been bombarded with a list of complaints in regards to the way he has been conducting his campaign. These criticisms have been mounting for some time, and seem to be growing more and more as we near the primary elections.

Robert Guttman, the director of the Center on Politics & Foreign Relations (CPFR) at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C. wrote in a blog titled, "Is He Tough Enough to Be President":

What has happened to the "rock star" Obama that shot out of the gate so gracefully when he announced for president? It is good to be the candidate of hope but when your opponent is ahead of you by more than 20 points in national polls you have to be more forceful discussing your differences with her.

Obama, take off the gloves and really show you want to win this nomination and that you would be a much better general election candidate than Hillary.

Obama's supporters and fundraisers are looking for some fireworks. Hillary is too composed and her campaign too programmed to make a serious mistake so the only other way to cut her lead is for the other Democratic candidates to show some spark, some new ideas, and to attack her for some of her less popular positions.

Barack Obama's criticism of Clinton's efforts to overhaul health care as first lady, was a direct sign of disapproval with what Clinton has held so dear to her throughout this campaign. Her past work towards universal health care has been her badge of honor. Obama criticized her for not reaching out enough, and blamed that stubbornness as the reason her efforts failed saying, "The problem was that she closed the doors. She just worked with her own people. She locked out potential allies.'' This is a direct and clear cut attack on one of the main banners that she has been waiving throughout this election process.

During Tuesday's debate, Obama made a clear distinction between himself and Hilary Clinton. He voiced his disapproval with her policies, accused her of changing her position on issues and having an overall resemblance to the Bush/Cheney politics that we have suffered through for these past two terms. In his words:

It does not mean, I think, changing positions whenever it's politically convenient. And Senator Clinton, in her campaign, I think has been for NAFTA previously. Now she's against it. She has taken one position on torture several months ago, and then most recently has taken a different position.

She voted for a war, to authorize sending troops into Iraq, and then later said this was a war for diplomacy.

That may be politically savvy, but I don't think that it offers the clear contrast that we need. I think what we need right now is honesty with the American people about where we would take the country. That's how I'm trying to run my campaign. That's how I will be as president.

After the most secretive administration in memory, an administration that consistently misled the American people, we need a president who is going to be open and forthright I think last night's debate really exposed this fault line. Senator Clinton left us wondering where she stood on every single hard question from Iran to Social Security to drivers' licenses for undocumented workers.

I don't see how much more direct Obama can get. Even after the debate, the headline in the L.A. Times read "Obama failed to rattle Hilary Clinton". However, it appeared to me, that after every attack, Clinton simply refused to respond, ignoring the accusations by Obama and Edwards, and resorted to re-emphasizing her support and record for renovating the health care system and fighting "special interest" in Washington.

Chris Mathews on MSNBC's post-debate show declared, "Hillary Clinton would not answer the questions straight."

Then there are many who share the sentiments of Ariana Huffington in her blog post titled "Welcome to The Campaign Senator Obama":

And while Obama absolutely deserves recognition for his early opposition to the war, voters want him to do more than pat himself on the back for being right in 2002. They want to know what he is doing to end the war in 2007.

The last time funding for Iraq was on the table, Obama played it very close to the vest, refusing to say how he was going to vote ahead of time, and waiting until the measure already had enough votes to pass before voting against it. To his credit, he's already vowed to vote against any future funding requests that don't include a specific withdrawal date. But that's not enough. He needs to show leadership on the issue -- and leadership is all about demonstrating the ability to create a new consensus around what you believe.

There is another great opportunity that Obama has so far missed: to challenge Clinton's judgment on Iran. Of course, the reason he has missed it, is that his own position on designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization is more than a little muddled.

I couldn't disagree more. Barack Obama made his position on Iran crystal clear in Iowa over the summer during a speech on the future of the 4 year old war in Iraq, which he stressed has simply bolstered Iranian influence. Not only did Obama warn the Bush administration against expanding the war in Iraq to neighboring Iran, but he made the connection of the same exact "eerie echoes" of rhetoric that led to the catastrophe which is the Iraq invasion. In his words:

George Bush and Dick Cheney must hear loud and clear from the American people and the Congress: You do not have our support, and you do not have our authorization, to launch another war.

Obama explained that while in his opinion, he feels the Islamic Republic poses a "grave challenge" to U.S. interests in the Middle east. Their refusal of international demands to discontinue its nuclear fuel program and assisting and reinforcing Shiite Muslim militant groups. He still remains skeptical of the intentions of the Bush administration saying:

We hear eerie echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq in the way the president and vice president talk about Iran.

They conflate Iran and al Qaeda, ignoring the violent schism that exists between Shia and Sunni militants. They issue veiled threats. They suggest the time for diplomacy and public pressure is running out, when we haven't even tried direct diplomacy.

There is absolutely nothing muddled on this position.

In addition, during Tuesday's debate, Obama made his objection known in no uncertain terms in saying:

I don't think we should be talking about attacking Iran at this point...

Look, we have been seeing, during the Republican debates, the drum beat of war. The president has been talking about World War III.That is a continuation of the kinds of foreign policy that rejects diplomacy and sees military action as the only tool available to us to influence the region.

What we should be doing is reaching out aggressively to our allies, but also talking to our enemies and focusing on those areas where we do not accept their actions, whether it be terrorism or developing nuclear weapons, but also talking to Iran directly about the potential carrots that we can provide in terms of them being involved in the World Trade Organization, or beginning to look at the possibilities of diplomatic relations being normalized.

We have not made those serious attempts. This kind of resolution does not send the right signal to the region. It doesn't send the right signal to our allies or our enemies.

And, as a consequence, I think over the long term, it weakens our capacity to influence Iran.
Now, there may come a point where those measures have been exhausted and Iran is on the verge of obtaining a nuclear weapon, where we have to consider other options. But we shouldn't talk about those options now, when we haven't even tried what would be a much more effective approach.

More from Ms. Huffington's post:

According to the Times, Obama's "aides said that they had been struggling for weeks for a balance between offering a contrast with Mrs. Clinton and avoiding the anger that they said had marked Mr. Edwards's candidacy." Why? Given the current state of affairs in America -- and in Iraq -- what's wrong with expressing a little anger?

Why is it so absurd for people to understand that Obama says he does have these differences with Hillary Clinton, he does disagree with her on various points, but he's going to show that objection in his own way? He's not going to allow himself to be portrayed as the angry black man, which is exactly how the republicans would like to characterize him. Everyone saw what they did to Howard Dean after his outburst. After he showed some fire and anger, and where did that get him? No, Barack Obama does not need to go down that road; it will not be advantageous to him or his campaign. He is, in Tim Russert's words, "an extension of his law professor personality. His style is a little more low keyed, a little more laid back". That doesn't mean that he's not willing to fight for the good of this country, it simply means that he is going to allow his precise, articulate, calculated, objections, criticisms, ideas and thoughts to speak for themselves. Obama doesn't want to get into the mud slinging, slanderous, pointless, and quite juvenile side of politics that has absolutely nothing to do with his actual abilities to perform as president of the United States, and I respect him for that. He can make his objections clear without becoming what everyone seemingly wants him to become. He recently criticized Clinton for continuing Bush's secretive approach to executive power. In addition, the Obama campaign also circulated a stream of press releases criticizing Clinton for taking conflicting positions on Iraq, NAFTA and torture.

The Obama campaign just put out a memo that said:

Her campaign strategy is to tell the American People as little as possible, avoid the difficult issues, and try to blur as many differences as possible

While Clinton is holding impressive leads in most national polls, the most recent University of Iowa Hawkeye Poll, released last week, indicates that Clinton and Obama are in a statistical dead heat, at 29 percent to 27 percent. This tells me that this fight is far from over.

Comments

[Qbear]

NOT a single mention in your piece of the HUGE gaffe of hiring Donnie McClurkin to SPIT ON every gay. lesbian, and People Living With AIDS, to garner the support of a dozen ex-gay ministers.

SERIOUS MISTAKE thinking Obama could pander to homobigots in South Carolina, and the rest of the LGBT community wouldn't find out. I suggest you check out the t-shirts on AmericaBlog (which reaches 100 times more queers ,than the highest number of 20 gay posters at Obama's website's LGBT section which is NOW EMPTY)

OBAMA CURED ME

(of wanting to vote for him)

or

BIGOTS FOR OBAMA.

[cuthbertallgood]

No to Obama like no to all who stand with dividers and chalatans.
A man who falls for a cheap trick from a known Republican operative who profits from divisive rhetoric at the expense of a minority is not a man I can find much respect for in my thinking mind. If it was any other group than gays in the headlights, no one would stand with Obama or McClurkin.
This week, many masks came off and much truth was seen. Helped me make my mind up. Obama supporters filled in the gaps in his rather vauge rhetoric more than enough for me to see I would not be welcome at an Obama event, so that about settled that. The most vicious things were written in Obama's name this week, call to violence against gays even. A disgrace. He has taken no effort to mitigate that disgrace either.
Some things are just indefensable. So Obama supporters act as if they never happend.
I understand that this is not an issue for you and your straight life, but this will not be the company I choose to keep. Can you blame me?

[lovetheworld]

You always hit it out of the park Etan!!!

[gcee]

This post is spot on!!!

I never could understand why we say we want substantive political debate but then, every cycle, devour the red meat thrown to us like a pack of starving wild animals. Senator Obama is leading exactly the type of campaign he promised and it seems that even a number of early his supporters did not understand what that meant (which is somewhat understandable, since it has been more than red state blue state politics for at least 30 years).

[zull2]

Thank you, Etan. I've been so tired of people grading Obama out of it purely because he isn't playing the game of political appearance well enough. That game is more popularly called "playing politics". It's the sort of thing for attack dogs, NOT for legitimate leaders. The candidates that went on to win the presidency generally didn't need to get dirty by mudslinging in the primaries.­..if they did, they let their supporters do it for them (as was in the case of the swift boating of John McCain by Bush supporters and probably secretly by Rove).

Basically, you don't need to be an insult slinging loudmouth to be a good president! FDR wasn't. Bill Clinton wasn't. John Kennedy wasn't. Jimmy Carter wasn't. Even on the Republican side, Ronald Reagan let others sling insults for him.

Being loud and throwing insults doesn't mean you're a fighter or a leader. All this stuff is politically calculated anyway. It's all just carefully crafted by media consultants. They worry about a perception of seeming weak just because you're a woman? So they make Hillary talk louder and more forcefully. They worry about a perception of appearing too laid back? They tell John Edwards to assert himself more often. At least with Obama, what you see is pretty much what you get. I'm sure he's got loads of media consultants trying to get him to get aggressive, and he knows that's not who he is.

[dobberdoss]

What a defeatist attitude to say that making an honest opinion in public( which you call an `outburst`) is the last thing Barack should do!

The Media only rule the world if we let them, last time i checked there was no gun in my back at the polling booth!

[DC]

Thank you Mr. Thomas! Clear intelligent. You state the case without making assumptions, without playing the shrill blood lust game of the usual cheap US political journalism.

Obama is running a different campaign and the media as not figured it out yet. Many voters, however, have.

[chouwalker]

Right on Etan!
Your comment "Obama doesn't want to get into the mud slinging, slanderous, pointless, and quite juvenile side of politics that has absolutely nothing to do with his actual abilities to perform as president of the United States, and I respect him for that" hits the nail on the head. That is one of the many reasons why I like Obama and why he will get my vote in the primary.
People say they are fed up with the current state of political discourse. Yet, when a candidate appears who expresses meaningful and nuanced thought on important issues and refuses to engage in political games, people complain that he doesn't have what it takes to win.
Be careful what you look for in a candidate, you might get it. If you want a candidate who can play political games, then go vote for Hillary. I don't think that's what America needs (more of) right now.

[lovethesinner]

Please forgive me. In my earlier comments, I meant to say "If nothing else, a vote for Obama is a vote to END to shallowness of campaign politics"

[lovethesinner]

Loved this post. Really well argued. Especially bringing up the stigma of being seen as the "angry black man" that Obama has to continually fight. But, much like the fight Hillary has with being seen as being "a weak woman" his attemps to appear reasonable have left him in a compromising position. He sometimes comes off as being sort of... above it all.

Everybody likes a smart guy until he starts to "lord" it over everyone.

That's what Richardson was trying to channel in his "holier than thou" comments: the perception that Obama is just showing off for his own pleasure, not for the good of the people.

People want to vote for a real person.

And at the same time, the MSM (which I like to call Goebbles' Sock Puppet) has the power to spin that "realness" into a negitive, if it wants to.

And yes, the sock puppet isn't on our hand.

So, these are the challenges for Barack: to appear down to earth, but yet able to see it all and think clearly.

Meanwhile, because there's only one girl on stage, the perception of gang rape is always present. And Hillary's using it to good advantage.

She knows theres a lot of "knights" out there. (and I don't mean "knights in shining armor")

If for no better reason, a vote for Obama is a vote to the shallowness of campaign politics. Hopefully we can stop having these stupid debates and start having lengthy personal interviews where a candidate can really display his or her ideas without having to worry about the hand.

Obama in '08

[TommyMcCarthy]

Can't say how pleased I was to see Etan Thomas' work here on Huffpo. I really enjoy his very personal and honest narratives whether I agree point-by point or not.

On this one I'm with Mr. Thomas 100%. I think what Obama has to offer more than anything else is a calm, reasoned approach to the many thorny issues that will face the next president.

Those calling for him to "take off the gloves" miss the point that to date Mr. Obama has shown a remarkable ability to be strong and forceful without being shrill, and to draw distictions between his views and those of his opponents without engaging in personal attacks and the "Gotcha!" game we are all so tired of.

I often think those calling for a more antagonistic stance from Mr. Obama are primarily interested in the "horserace" aspect of the campaign and are looking for a better "show". This ain't a soap opera or a WWF match folks....t­his is about the deadly serious business of choosing who will lead us out of the horrible morass left by the current administration. The election is a year away and I'm still undecided but I know I could vote in good conscience for any one of the Democratic candidates, most definitely including Barack Obama.

As an aside: these days, when it can sometimes be hard to find things to take pride in, I'm pretty pleased so far that we haven't let Barack's candidacy be all about race, or Sen. Clinton's be all about gender. Maybe we're growing up a little.

Many thanks to Etan Thomas for this and all his compelling work......­.....tm

[MSB]

Mr. Thomas - as an NBA fan, get better soon!

That out of the way, it is nice to note that as a black man you don't make race an element of your defense (not that that is a real surprise but is, unfortunately often inappropriately played.) Just for the record, I am a white man, and my biggest complaint about Obama is that he doesn't seem nearly angry enough. I WISH we had an an "angry black man," or, for that matter, an angry anyone. It is really my complaint about most all Democrats and is why I am considering leaving the party. After all, if a citizen can't be infuriated about the destruction of The Constitution that has occurred under this corrupt administration, what can a citizen be furious about? It seems to me that Obama is too measured by a long, long shot. If the guy wanted my vote he'd have to go after the money, money to which, I'm afraid, he's much too addicted.

I'm not voting for Hillary either just so you know. Obama may find more anger in his voice before the primaries but I kind of doubt it. If we don't need some of Dean's righteous enthusiasm right now I don't know when we have. There should be a deafening chorus of outrage against, what I see as, a criminal enterprise.

As of now I am at least interested in Edwards (at least he is talking about poverty) and Dodd. I am certainly open to having my mind changed and would be very happy for a Gore candidacy.

[akhinaten]

obama need to use the boyish Edwards to do the dirty deed. while he can hover over the battle looking for a > are you for it of against it> moment.

[ProfessorDuh]

Reaching out to fascists is not what I want to see in a presidential candidate, thanks. I want to see principle, and all I see is pander. Obama might as well campaign with a flat earther. The "ex-gay theory" is equally discredited, but much more cruel.

[CitizenE]

My problem with Obama, whom I wish I liked more, is in the Senate right now. Of the Senators running, Chris Dodd is the only one that seems to be getting his hands dirty and leading.
I like that he is putting forth serious foreign policy ideas, better ones than Mrs. Clinton, though broadly brushed, finally, but on the domestic front he's a step behind Edwards, who let's face it will not get the nomination, and in foreign policy both Dodd and Biden have him outpaced.
What Mrs. Clinton has going for her is really the ability to stand up and take it a strong skilled support staff.
Against everyone else, Obama's weakness is that appears like a rookie with potential rather than a seasoned vet. It's hard at this time and place to want to gamble.