"Obama's Test" or Ours?

One of the more enduring myths in Washington is that Americans live their lives on a left-right ideological spectrum. We are all little liberals or little conservatives. Thus, the New York Times ponders how the "liberal" Barack Obama can fashion a governing coalition when conventional wisdom continues to convince us that the political center of gravity in America is right of center and only Clintonian "centrism" offers the Democrats a shot at governing. And, if you spend your adult life in Washington (which some of us choose not to do), you fall into the static mindset.

But what if most Americans, unlike perpetual Washington insiders, are neither liberal nor conservative? What if, instead, we live our lives on a future-past continuum? Students of Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., and others know that those who deal only in ideology can still make this work: the Democratic party (at its best) is the progressive party, the party of the future, and the Republican party is the party that wishes to hold onto the past. When the Democratic party is truly the party of the future, for change, for experimentation, for adaptation, we win. When we "triangulate," we may create enough confusion to get ourselves elected, but we have no mandate to govern and we sacrifice our identity.

The best Democratic leaders, those who succeed as national leaders, are those who define the future and show us how to get there. It shouldn't surprise anyone that those rare leaders, like Barack Obama, also have a "liberal" voting record, especially when, as Senator Obama accurately points out, right-wing ideologues make sure the voting deck is stacked to reflect the old divisive agenda they've perfected. But, as he also points out, "as president, I would be setting the agenda."

Contrary to the New York Times story, this election is not a left-right election. This is a future-past election and that is why I, a veteran of such politics, strongly believe the candidate of the future, who understands the dramatic changes now at work in the world and who is bold enough to propose innovative ways of dealing with them in the nation's interest, is Barack Obama. Besides, when he is elected, perhaps we will have journalism that understands the difference.

Comments

[gtt]

Progressive vs regressive. Those regressives are seeking to keep the same power bases in place. The same balance of power in the House and in the Senate that give leverage to those resisting change. War profittering. Tax and economic policy. Can one really see a difference, other than court nominees, between the McCain and Clinton administrations ?

[truthseeker111]

So in what sense is Obama different ? He is also a Senator like the other two, and if he is elected he will not pick members of the House or the Senate, they will essentially be the same as the ones the other tow have.
Please elaborate so we can all see why you are convinced Obama is different. May be you can convince me with solid arguments.

[SciVo]

Speaking narrowly to the issue of whether the President makes a difference in the composition of Congress, I point out that Obama already has "coattails" and he isn't even President yet. In a recent special election, Sen. Obama's endorsement helped elect an uncharismatic (Democratic) physicist to represent the House district once held by former (Republican) Speaker Dennis Hastert. The way I heard it, Bill Foster was solidly pummeled by RNC attack ads and came back unbruised and swinging, using the exact same issue against them (warrantless wiretaps and the specter of unrestrained State power). With a phenomenally popular Constitutional scholar in his corner, Rep. Foster effectively riposted their fear-mongering. Sen. Clinton's absence was notable, and I do not believe that she could've helped him.

[Binea]

Part 1 -Tuesday, October 23, 2007
By Amanda Kathryn Hydro and Jason Mercier
Everyone has heard of Rep. Don Young’s (R-Alaska) infamous bridge to nowhere— the congressional earmark that secured $231 million to build a bridge to an island inhabited by roughly 50 people.
But the bridge to nowhere isn’t the only egregious waste of taxpayer money. Citizens Against Government Waste found Congress allocated $2.4 billion to 24 pork projects this year alone.
Taxpayers usually have no way of finding out where their money actually goes or how it is truly spent. Government reform groups are trying to change that by pushing efforts at the federal, state and local level that would shine the light on government spending.
Enter Sen. Barack Obama, Rep. Ron Paul, Sen. Sam Brownback, Sen. Mike Gravel, Rep. Dennis Kucinch and Mr. John Cox. These presidential candidates have all embraced the concept of "Google government" by signing the Oath of Presidential Transparency— which is sponsored by a non-partisan coalition led by the Reason Foundation.
By signing the oath they are promising, should they win the presidency in 2008, that they will issue an executive order during their first month in office instructing the entire executive branch to put into practice the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, a Google-like search tool that will allow taxpayers to hop online and see exactly how their tax dollars are being spent on federal contracts, grants and earmarks.

[mikey683]

By your own statements no one should be listening to you because your old and represent the past! Oh and aren't you a Washington insider?

[truthseeker111]

This comment exposes the paradox for these Obama supporters!
Pelosi, Hart, Matthews, Olbermann ... they have been around for years and are also a part of the Washington crowd! How can we expect these politicians and pundits to support anything but their own interests? Why would these interests be any different in their underlying motivations than they have ever been?
The sermon's by Wright are the same old hate speeches with the same old underlying emotions feeding them! If Obama were different he would have left that church and Illinois would be a shining example as a State! If he did not make these drastic changes in his own state that proves the Obama paradox. Let's call it the Obamadox!
Does Illinois have less racial problems than the USA on average? Has Obama talked about race in his own state or is he waiting to become president to do so? Rezko ? Typical poilitician to me!
Let's vote on issues not on claiming the Obama change principle!!! If Obama's great on the issues he does not need to attack Clinton by saying she is a part of the old guard. We can go for change that is based on principles and values or change that is simply attacking the others in a circular logic way, stating we should not vote for them because they have experience. Doesn't Obama have experience but just less. Obamadox!!! Obamadox !!!

[midknightryder13]

Why do people keep saying that Obama has "less experience"? When it comes to 'experience' as an ELECTED OFFICIAL -- HE has more. 12 yrs vs. 8 yrs. When it comes to getting bills passed in the Senate, they've both passed the same number of bills that they authored. And he did it in LESS time.
And PLEASE stop referring to Rev. Wright's sermons as the "same old hate speeches". First, as has been posted here and elsewhere COUNTLESS times, when you listen to the soundbites in context -- they are not "hate speech". Second, the problems still exist -- in large degrees, so why SHOULDN"T he express his frustration?

[Binea]

part 2-Making the government more accountable to taxpayers, and more transparent, is a non-partisan issue, which is why a diverse, wide array of three dozen organizations from across the nation has joined the effort.
"Every American has the right to know how the government spends their tax dollars, but for too long that information has been largely hidden from public view," notes Sen. Obama.
Rep. Paul explains, "When government spends the people’s money, it must be done with utmost possible transparen­cy."
Since these comments reflect such a basic principle of accountability, one is left wondering what Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John McCain, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani have against providing taxpayers with details on how well their money is spent.
Along with demanding fiscal transparency from the federal government, taxpayers have the expectation that state and local governments will also embrace new technologies to make details about spending decisions and performance readily available at a click of the mouse.
This is why the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the nation’s largest nonpartisan, individual membership organization of state legislators, recently adopted model legislation to implement state versions of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. ALEC also adopted a model bill to require that the public have at least 72 hours to review tax and spending bills before they are voted on.
Several states have already moved forward with some form of transparency reforms, including Missouri, Texas, Kansas, Virginia, Minnesota, Hawaii, South Carolina, Nebraska and Oklahoma

[Gibbons]

I guess Gary is too old to chase the chicks and had to find a new hobby posing as a political pundit.

[union79]

Gary ~ Would that we could have journalists who not only understand but wrote based on that understanding of past/future politics. Then they might fulfill their role as envisioned by the grand old men who put together the framework of our checks and balances system. At the moment their thinking and writing and spewing seems to be to make news where there is none; keep the story sexy rather than helping "we the people" better understand what our government is doing and how it effects the quality of our lives ~ not just short term but in the long term.

Yes, Obama is the single, currently standing candidate who can and will lead us into a new era of finding to the knot of problems we face ~ problems that, whether willfully or blindly have been created by people who have no integrity, intellectual honesty or the courage to risk their futures by seeking perhaps risky but potentially effective solutions not only for this election cycle but for the more distant future.

Thanks, as always for your take and for your support of Sen Obama!

[Binea]

yesterday many of my post never made it,I hope these will,I think it explains what Kind of change Obama is talking about-part 3 -We all know government is plagued by red tape, isn’t efficient and doesn’t work as it should. Increasing transparency and accountability is a huge first step. But that is only half the equation. We also need policymakers to make significant changes after we all get to see the horror and reckless spending that will be revealed by shining the light on government spending and earmarks.
This means we’ll need leaders willing to cut under- or non-performing programs or activities in some cases. Initiatives at any level of government that pair transparency with accountability will set us on the road to performance-based government rather then our current system which is plagued by secrecy, wasteful spending and pork projects.
After losing the House and Senate in 2006, Republicans pledged to return to their fiscally conservative roots. Yet, with Sen. Brownback leaving the race, more Democratic presidential candidates have signed the oath than Republicans. Accountability and transparency should be embraced by both major parties.
Taxpayers are demanding that elected officials at all levels of government respect us enough to show us what they’re doing on our behalf. It’s our money after all.
Amanda Kathryn Hydro is Director of Policy Development for the Reason Foundation. Jason Mercier is Director of the Center for Government Reform for the Seattle-based Washington Policy Center.

[mhopgood123]

Gary Hart is right on target. This democratic race is about past-future. McCain and Hillary are the past and Obama represents the future

[mikekev58]

Ummm... Hart is talking about a future-past continuum, not an either/or situation. It's about taking what have been traditional Democratic party values and applying them today with an eye towards longer term consequence. The past can be a great teacher and we ignore it at our peril: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it", cf. George Santayana

[ntmessage]

Gary, you were my choice for President until you screwed up and no one could vote for you at all. Your so-called analysis falsely rationalizes and reinforces the blind spot regarding politics and leadership that you seem to have had your entire career. Lately you have been actively campaigning for Obama, incredibly attempting to subjectively reframe blatant Obama electability weaknesses to the Nation. For example, Obamas weaknesses are immense compared to Clinton, a more centered candidate especially glaring in states like FL, MI, PA, NJ, TN,. AK and even CT (113 Electoral Votes out of 270 needed). Obama responds with CO, WA and OR (27 Electoral Votes out of 27 needed). You nonchalantly say Obama wins in the states that Clinton carries without any data to back up your speculation. This is not simply left or right. Obamas voting record is to the left of the Socialist in the Senate. You seem to be simply saying anything to get Obama in without empirical analysis of what the Democrats risks are with an Obama candidate over a Clinton one. Indeed, it is not a left right election; it is in fact Left (Clearly Obama) and Center (Clinton and McCain).

[KenTao]

Yet another Republican for Clinton. Using the word "Socialist" is a dead giveaway. Folks on the right (who generally seem to claim that they are "centrists", whatever that means ) aways see left of center as extreme left. Get a clue.

Oh, well, I guess we'll always have people living in the past and grumping about progress.

Earthlings Unite!

[ntmessage]

Those are the facts. Look up Liberation Theology if you want real socialist or Marxist rhetoric.

[vnetuolsbm]

You know, I get the feeling you're just a rightist in disquise buddy. "Gary, you were my choice for President until you screwed up and no one could vote for you at all. " Sounds a little too bitter for my taste buds buddy. Where do you get your numbers from by the way? All you pansy pencil pushing rebulican rhetoric guys always come out with some number that doesn't add up to the real numbers. Makes me wonder if you even pay attention to what you read or watch. Listen, I personally am voting for the green party candidate this time around if it all keeps heading in this direction, but if I wasn't, Obama would have my vote in a heartbeat. I don't care if he screwed a flight attendant in front of a planeload of passengers, he's still much better than the Clinton//McCain situation we have right now. They both flip-flop on too many issues and don't really represent what their voters ask of them to. That's the difference with Obama, he at least mimicks the kind of politician you vote for and not just some schmuck out for their own personal political gain.

[ntmessage]

Sorry, about the perception but it is true. I loved this guy. Please check your facts, btw since no one could vote for him due to the scandal. I was going to vote for him regardless as long as he made it to the ballot. However, he challenged the media to follow him and made a political blunder there. I also feel that the Lewinsky stuff was BS. . Maybe I am a little older now, but I am still more centrist than Obama, more like Gore.

[truthseeker111]

Typical Obama supporter article!

Obama is calling on us to rise above are faults and vote for him!!
Obama is calling for change , no more negative politics!
Obama is telling us we are all bad people (probably likely typical white people) if we do not vote for him!!
Now it is up to us to vote for Obama or we are stuck in the past!!
Are we all going to be brave enough and make Obama our president!!!
If we don't we will only have ourselves to balem and will have to go to confession for our sin!!

What self fulfilling non sense!

Gary, do you at least realise the type of argument you are giving is self serving for Obama and circular logic!

You must vote for Obama for change and to elevate yourself above it all. How do you elevate yourself and obtain change: by voting for Obama!!!

or

If you do not vote for Obama you will only have yourself to blame. Why will you only have yourself to blame: because you did not vote for Obama.

Wow!

[speakingout]

truthseeker;
Wow , are you off base!! Gary is only opening the door to the fact that the press/media are as old fashioned in their thinking as the old diehards in Washington. Most Americans are sick of the divisive rhetoric that goes on and on and is perpetuated by none other than the #1 divider-Clinton. She continues the attacks and tries to engage Obama in the same dirty tactics. We are sooo tired of this worn out old time politics. That's why people are embracing Obama! He REPRESENTS change as the only other choices are the same old - Clinton & McCain. We WANT different. We WANT the government to change- that's why thousands of people are fleeing the Republican party and voting Democrat. (I'm an ex-Republican) My preference would be to have NO parties. As our leaders should be for the PEOPLE not the party. But our whole society is based on division - Parties; sports teams; race; class; etc, etc. We hear it all the time from the media, trying to divide us for the "fight". Enough already, Why can't we just be the UNITED States of America like our founding fathers intended? I say get back to basics and vote for a candidate that can bring us together and keep us out of war. Obama has vision and good judgement, which is more important than a false declaration of experience professed by Clinton,. I'm a white woman that's voting for Obama.

[rucognizant]

AMEN! speakingout!

[truthseeker111]

You are applying the same circular logic!!!
Most of the media is actually for Obama!!!
Obama supporters in the media and here are the most negative attackers there are, and then they hide behind the change fallacy!
Obama and his supporters are hateful against Clinton and are attacking Clinton. If you say Clinton is the same old politics then that is an attack and negative campaigning in itself. So it becomes a paradox. You are against negative campaigning but you can do it yourself because you want change through your own negative campaigning!!! That is the SAME OLD SAME OLD!!!!
Is Wright's sermon about the UNITED States of America, because it didn't sound like that to me!!! But of course yuo do not care because you hate Clinton and can't stand her as a human being! Yet isn't she also a part of the UNITED States of America! If Obama and his supporters were not so negative on Clinton then i might believe him , bu they aren't !!! Look last week they were asking WHO breached the passport, turns out one of these guys was directly linked to a high level Obama campaing staffer!!!

[Ahyoka]

CHANGE!
HOPE!
WE CAN DO IT!
RAH RAH RAH !

LOL These people are SO ridiculous and clueless. McCain will make mincemeat out this guy. It's sad too...we could have our first QUALIFIED INTELLIGENT WOMAN but nooo...we have to fight the race war (Rev Wright crazy-ass screaming preacher)and trash our greatest Dem leaders (Clintons)like Karl Rove so Obama can get on a fast track in his political carreer. Once the MSM gets done trashing the Clintons so Obama can get nominated (which is what they want) they will start tearing him down and make it close and they will steal it again.

[jeg]

We could have had our first "qualified, intelligent woman", but whoever she is, she didn't run for President. *rimshot*

While you're praising your greatest Democratic leaders, let's not forget some of their accomplishments-- Like, losing the House and the Senate to the Republicans.

Oh, sorry, I forgot-- You're not looking for actual facts, you want made up accounts of sniper fire, and retroactive non-support for NAFTA.

Curiously, the GOP plans to attack Sen. Obama using the same tactics as the Clinton campaign-- I wonder if they'll have more luck than she has?

[union79]

For a truthseeker, you sound pretty close minded!

[truthseeker111]

Can you elaborate on that !

[Stellaa]

Bravo

[EZKY]

Yep. Let's not forget Bill Clinton ran on a very liberal platform for his time. Voters care more about convictions and someone who makes a case for their beliefs, not someone who transparently tries to make themselves look more conservative for politics. Reality check, Hillary: voters who want a conservative will vote for a real one.

[ResidentChimp]

If the majority vote for Hillary, then we've passed the test. I'm sure Obama will always treasure Hart's endorsement.

[NoFactsJustTruth]

HuffPost's Pick

While I think it's a stretch that 'journalism' will realize ANY change until it quits being, as it's become, largely about money, I DO believe the voters are way ahead of the 'insider' establishment and would LOVE to embrace change in the current criminal foreign policy, change in energy sources, change in environmental stewardship and REAL change in the leadership we've experienced the last 20 years. Voters are ALSO seeking change in the corporate control of OUR lawmakers, changes in the messages being heard by the people and even just a change in OUR 'hope' for change. But, in that very hope lies perhaps OUR answer, Senator, that where one leads ...others may indeed follow. Fine TRUE words you write here, and at least there's also a hope that many calling themselves journalists will cease being governed by their fear. It's a visible fear of and from the current political 'establishment' - that REFUSES their mandate, shreds OUR Constitution and sells out 'The People' for their corporate masters. Most politicians seeking re-election of ANY kind, unfortunately, rarely allow themselves the luxury example insight provided by your logically sound analysis. Criticisms by those close-minded to any REAL change proves just how deep the 'status quo' conditioning goes. Then in a typical and hypocritical 180-speak, seekers of change are somehow labeled as the kool-aid drinkers, epitomizing the denial of reality.

[smktr1]

HuffPost's Pick

We could keep on doing the same old thing and expecting a different result, but lets just think for a minute here. What if we start thinking logically. How 'bout for a change we try being richer by giving to our brother, I know I have heard this concept somewhere before, it might have been Pastor Wright whom I heard express these ideas or maybe it was my Pastor on some Sunday when he was preaching about what Jesus did. Anyway if I do something for someone else, buy from someone who hires people that live in the same country as I do or maybe even my nieghborhood. What if I didn't think someone took my job as much as there is something else I am supposed to be doing and maybe that person who got the job will support me in that thing I am supposed to be doing. I know you are thinking what is this guy talking about this is a capitalistic society where it is dog eat dog, the strong survive, pre-emptive strike logic. But I don't like it I would much prefer something more akin to what the Bible teaches. But the key here is to seek first the Kingdom of God, stop thinking about youself.
The next time you see the Pastor Wright 10 sec. spot don't think about how it a offends you, but how offensive it must have been to the victims of racism.

[sebocd]

Beautiful! Beautiful! And if we have more faith that Divine Providence will give us our daily bread instead of grabbing everything iinsight and what little our neighbor has, we might just begin our heaven while we are still on earth no longer terrorized by our real enemy, fear of death.

[union79]

Good post ~ Good advice:

As to Rev Wright' s 10 sec spot, I am sure it was very offensive to any victim of racism and that is a double cruelty. Unfortunately, the spot was a very clever condensation of his sermons. The condensation gave a very distorted view of Dr Wright's message. I say this because on the first day it was played, I decided to research the context of those remarks. I immediately found a google link to the complete version of his comments after 9/11. The message was a thoughtful answer to the question he put to God while sitting in New Jersey watching the horror unfold on an airport TV screen. That question was "God, how should we respond". He took his congregation through the answer he came up with which included "It is time to look in our own hearts" and "hate begets hate"

It is sad for Rev Wright and for all people who were manipulated by Fox News and the other Media. It could have been a much better conversation if they had the professionalism to seek out and discuss context ....

[Suprshrink]

This is such a convenient argument when you are an Obama supporter. You, Mr. Hart, want to re-define the political structure of America to promote the candidate. We are, in fact, a polarized nation and have been for at least 25 years. Obama is a part of this structure. When he entered the senate he could have stepped forward, demanded new politics, and voted his conscience (i.e., de-funding the war). He didn't do this. He has only provided lip service. He has never taken a courageous stand. Even his race speech was for the purpose of political expediency.

I don't care if you personally want to vote for Obama but I resent your trying to shape my views and influence my beliefs.

[SifSkade]

I happen to agree very much with Mr. Hart about Sen. Obama and what he personifies/offers, but what I'm trying to figure out is what you're doing on a website like this if you're not interested in people trying to advocate different viewpoints and argue their views? Why log on to a site dedicated to the expression of opinions? Better to sit at home, write letters to yourself, and then read them if all you're interested in is what you think.

[slithymonster]

Suprshrink, your post is self-contradictory. First you make a case against Obama, and then you denounce Gary Hart for trying to influence your beliefs.

The exchange of ideas by nature influences other ideas. If you learn to think for yourself, then perhaps you won't be so afraid that other people will do it for you.

[rucognizant]

Suprshrink,
SO let me see if I get this straight. We must stay as we are? We are not allowed to grow, change, learn?
If we did something 25 years ago we MUST NOT change our approach now?
Are you saying that Obama, should have sprung full blown from the head of Athena, ( right mythical person?) and stayed STATIC , from the time of his entry into the Senate? He is not supposed to have learned from this experience?
Same goes for Clinton: I'll concede her the point that, if she did support NAFTA THEN, she is ALLOWED to change her opinion of it after witnessing the way it has worked over the years, and call for changes to be made in the way it works.
We have been a polarized nation for 25 years because those who gain from it have CREATED the polarization!
Back in 1956 my high school graduating class named our Senior Program " Diversity". Since then I have witnessed the ebb & flow of trends...l­iberal to conservative. This is LIFE. The natural order of things. We are in a swing to liberalism again, whether YOU like it or not! This current lack of recognition of the capacity of the human being to GROW & LEARN, is part of dissing & shutting out the elders, & focusing on the greenhorns ( young people). Hey there is natural compensation for wrinkles & body aches....i­t CALLED WISDOM!
I really, really, hope you are NOT A SHRINK by

[NoFactsJustTruth]

How is it you see NOT the 'plank' of hypocrisy in the 'eye' of YOUR OWN last sentence?

[jeg]

If Sen. Obama had voted against sending supplies to our troops in Iraq, I would not be supporting him.

It's true Congress could vote against funding, but that doesn't mean the Pentagon will withdraw troops. Further, even if it did, a vote to remove troops precipitously due to lack of funding is a vote against any hope of a stable Iraq-- Which, to quote Colin Powell, we broke it, it's our problem now.

The vote that mattered was the one that passed 77-23 in the US Senate, commonly known as the "Iraq Resolution" or "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002".

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

Very astute and insightful observations. I would like to add that the MSM keeps touting his record as a Liberal Senator as some kind of stumbling block to his chances in a general election. I don't believe this to be true. His message of unity and his ability to bring people together, is not dependent on a centrist stance or policies. The right kind of Liberal agenda is beneficial to all Americans. The proof that Senator Obama is able to bring opposing sides together is in his legislation while in the State Senate of Illinois. Judge him by his laws: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html

[patriotscholar]

Good job, and very astute. The only critique I might have is that it might go over some people's heads.

[couch2000]

I dont know who you are for here but i am voting for Obama now because he is the only one that will do away with those viles of the Aids Virus down there that the goverment has stored away for black people, go Obama

[NoFactsJustTruth]

Perhaps he can have Hillary use them on the NEXT snipers shooting at her...

[Jer1957]

Gary Hart used to have some principle. I worked on the McGovern campaign , too.

Who is paying his freight nowadays is anybody's guess.

Hart's 'presidential choice' is Emil Jones' Chicago protege Obama, the Chicago Board of Trade's candidate for presidential loser--an articulate nonentity who would not dream of denying the financial community any bailout demanded--even f it destroyed the US--as it surely would.

But Sen. Obama's Chicago baggage makes his election extremely unlikely--even if Hillary vanished yesterday.

[SoulSistah]

"Sen. Obama's Chicago baggage makes his election extremely unlikely. . . "

Shhhhh, let's not mention the word baggage because it will remind everyone just how unelectable HRC is.

..........­..........­..........­..........­..........­..........­.....
RIP - HRC Presidential Aspirations