Hands Off Obama

Lately, Barack Obama has become everybody's favorite punching bag.

What's left of the Left are going after him for abandoning gun control in support of dubious Second Amendment rights, as well as his revised stance on FISA, newly-nuanced views on troop withdrawal in Iraq, and his desire to extend, and expand, George W. Bush's faith-based initiative programs, to name but a few. Then, of course, there's Obama's recent contention that a woman's mental state should not exempt her from the Supreme Court ban on late-term abortion.

These are all full-throated assertions, and no one is suggesting, for a moment, that these recent seismic shifts to the center aren't letting the air out of the Obama balloon. But, they are also showing that Houdini isn't running for president, and even Houdini would be hard-pressed to run a campaign without interference from party elders.

The Democrats, and so-called progressives, are doing such a good job of attacking Obama that McCain is struggling to come up with a campaign strategy. If the barbs against the Illinois senator keep up at a steady rate, McCain won't even need a strategy -- all he'll need to do is keep his mouth shut.

Clearly, the single most precarious issue, for Obama, is the war. While the economy may be the ultimate concern for working Americans, nobody takes John McCain's economic plan as anything but a continuation of that of his predecessor's, but those who oppose the ongoing occupation of Iraq will account for a greater presence at their polls than voters who support Nader or Barr.

For some, it is too bad the world comes in three dimensions. How much easier it would be if one could merely say "let's roll up our tent and go home." Yes, there are serious questions about whether a President Obama will allow for the continued occupation of Iraq long after the military leaves. But, Obama's mistake might not be that he said he intends to revisit the idea of troop withdrawal in the first 16 months he's in office, or that his decisions, as a commander-in-chief, will depend on the situation in Iraq at the time.

Curiously, like President Kennedy before him, Obama's biggest mistake might be that he recognizes, and acknowledges, that his decisions are nuanced, not obdurate, and subject to change. Doubtless, JFK kicked up a lot of dust, behind the scenes, from those whose interests were better served by maintaining, and expanding, troop presence in Vietnam, and Obama is kicking up a lot of dust by saying he is thoughtful, willing to move into the gray zone and out of the binary field of black and white, right and wrong, progressive and conservative. This scares the wits out of people.

Nothing bothers this country by the Puritans, of the Puritans, and for the Puritans more than a thinking president. Look at all the crap thrown at Jimmy Carter for not blowing up Iran when he had the chance

But, hey, simply yelling out "stop the war, I want to get off" won't do it either nor will voting for Ralph Nader (read: John McCain). The solution is to work with the problem, not abandon it, and hold Obama to task for his pledge to have better judgment.

More importantly, we need leadership that will move us from a wartime to a peacetime economy, and one whose vision is to de-escalate, not look for more parts of the globe to preempt or provoke.

Those who argue that Senator Obama doesn't have a "plan" to get us out of Iraq are naive if they think that a Kucinich, Nader, or any other "plan" would not meet with fatal resistance from the military industrial complex. Didn't we just come out of eight years of pathological lying? Do we want to elect another president who will lie to us?

The infrastructure for war, and wartime profiteering, are deeply embedded in our country's ethos. Patriotism is inseparable from militarism. If you have any questions about that, just listen to what conservative talk show pundits, like Bill Bennett, say about guys like Wes Clark---that he's a four-star general makes him perfect presidential material. Okay, so why did we ask Pakistan's Musharraf to take off his uniform if generals are so ideally-suited for governance?

We need leadership that will address the need to continue affirmative action programs at a time when we have more youngsters of color in our nation's prisons than in our nation's universities.

Those who suggest that Obama represents a movement are right, and he must account to that movement, and it is up to the talking heads, pundits, progressives, and Congress to hold him accountable once he takes the oath of office. In the meantime, efforts to sabotage him by pointing out his flip-flops will only result in a president, McCain, who has the opportunity to appoint another neanderthal to the Supreme Court, and provoke greater global hostility in the name of homeland security.

While McCain may be limping, he's not wounded, just a bit dazed. Who'd have thought that he'd be up against this kind of opponent -- clearly not the designated heir-apparent. But, make no mistake, while he may need to refresh his settings, or regain his balance, McCain is far from down for the punch, and this recent effort to expose, and attack Obama can only help McCain in November.

If nothing else, we've learned from American History 101 that nobody shoots themselves in the foot better than Democrats. In the next four months, those who want to see a Democrat in the White House must get behind Barack, and not pander to Republican talking points about flip-flopping. There will be plenty of time to pontificate on his weaknesses once he's in office, and call him to task on his pledge to work with Chris Dodd on the retroactive immunity clause in FISA reform. After all, like the others before him, Barack Obama's first task, on becoming president, will be brainstorming about how best to win another term.

So, leave the swift-booting of Obama to the Repugs. Let the McCainites call him Sergeant Flip Flop. Hell, they'd call JFK a flip-flopper, too, for talking about making changes in his Vietnam policy, as well as thinking about lifting the trade embargo against Cuba not, as he said for moral reasons, but because, unlike those who followed, Kennedy had the wisdom, and foresight, to work toward a global economy.

Higher order thinking is lost on a unitary executive, as well as a country caught up in dichotomies of "good guys" and "bad guys," so what happens to a presidential candidate who is more comfortable playing Hamlet, and entering the gray zone, in a country without Hamlets that is overrun by Macbeths, Macdonalds and, unless we're careful, McCains.

Comments

[mjc]

Everyone with any brains and commitment to this country, even Democrats who think Obama is some answer to every prayer, should have their hands all over Obama's pivot to the right. First there was public financing, then his talk of being in favor of the FISA compromise, more recently his stance on gun control. He has taken a view on abortion rights that could bring down Roe vs. Wade. NAFTA no longer is talked of as fixable. He has said that there should no negotiations with HAMAS, which is even to the right of Israel. He once spoke of talking to world leaders, even our enemies. Now he won't talk to Raul Castro unless the exiles are present. Faith based legislation is now advocated, to be expanded. Are we going to have to be Christian to hold office or vote? Patriotism is NOT the same thing as militarism, but it may become that under Obama. If you think these ideological moves will only tick off the left, think again. There are many who would like to a Democrat in the White House but it doesn't have to Obama. Most egregiously, he is no longer talking about bring the troops home in 16 months. Vote for Obama? No way.

[Suthngal]

First pull your head out of your @#$. If you took the time to learn about Obama, you would've known that his so called move to the center is not that. He has always had these ideas prior to the Senate and presidential candidacy. Learn about McCain and see what you get. Someone who is so confused that he should be on some form of medication for it. He has changed his mind on so many issues that he can't even keep it straight. Please!

Vote for McCain? No way. I love my country to much to continue to see my countrymen suffer.

Unselfish Republican for Obama!

[Sheridan1]

AMEN!

And please people, go back and read The Audacity of Hope. Obama has been consistant. We take in so much MSM, we start taking the press as fact rather than the candidates own words. His position on Iraq has not changed; he always tempered his position on public funding, and I don't know how he could have forseen FISA. It sems to me he has a built in no-fault issue there in that the bill keeps telecoms from being changed in a civil court, but they can still be chaged in a criminal court. As can Bush and Cheney, by the way.

BUT SERIOUSLY FOLKS - those of us who have supported his campaign from day one need to trust the man himself a little bit. Let the Republicans do this dirty work. If anyone would like to point out McCain's "flip-flops" over and over again - that would be time better spent.

[PublicAdvocate]

Obama is turning into a Jeckyl/Hyde candidate with his flip flops, moving to the Right and courting the Religious Right at the expense of Liberal Progressives. Why more people can't see that is either a tribute the Liberal media, or willful blindness on the part of his supporters.

[lolola]

I wish that Stahl's sane and strategic approach was understood and adopted by all so-called 'Democrats'. The stakes are too high for the Democrats to lose this one. Obama's not perfect, but my god, look at the extreme right-wing cancer that you've been living with for the past eight years. Obama is not that far ahead in the polls, and is very vulnerable for many reasons, race being only one. The only strategy right now, even if you don't agree with some of his policies, is to work to get him and other progressives elected. Then people can organize to get the changes they want.

[lady49]

Part 4: PLEASE DON"T FORGET THE WARNINGS FROM SCOTT MCCLELLAN in his book "WHAT HAPPENED"
AND PLEASE hold the people who spread this non-sense to task. DON'T BECOME IMPLICIT ENABLERS!!!!
Having said that, I agree... folks should "LAY OFF OBAMA"
Recognize that it is NOT his core supporters that question him.. It is the Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity imposters who have invaded Obama's website.
We support Senator Obama whole heartedly and we are unwavering in our commitment to his candicacy.
Thanks for your comments. I love your discussions of the issues we face as democrats.

[Terriac]

I hope you're right about it being Limbaugh and Hannity imposters that are posting here for the most part. I shudder to think of what might happen if McCain is elected. Nothing is ever black or white, but shades of gray. If you read Obama's policies, read his books, acquaint yourself with his stands on issues, you will find that there is nothing flip flop about him. It's easy for us, who are not reading the bills, etc., to sit and criticise Obama -- or anyone else, for that matter. I wonder how many people would last a day in this political climate. We have to make our choices on the bigger picture. Obama does that,

[DasBoot]

I agree but for one thing: moving to accept telecom immunity and potentially prolonging the U.S. occupation of Iraq are not moves "to the center." The center does not support either policy.

Let's liberate ourselves from the right-wing rhetoric that always puts progressives under pressure to prove that they belong to this country too. We don't need to prove that. We are just as much 'the center" as the right. Often more.

[lady49]

Part3: Another Source for the Truth
You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?
A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions.

Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008 .

[djkrlsn]

My lady- if your interest in taking illegal guns off the street is aimed squarely and narrowly at criminils and those with serious mental illness--you have the support of this gunowner. If your interest is disarming law abiding citizens in violation of the Second Amendment protection of an INDIVIDUAL right to own firearms, we have a problem.

[mgray34]

Thank you for your commentary. If Obama is going to be president, he is going to be the president of the united states, not the president of the left, liberal, or progressives only. There is going to be compromise. If he can start pulling our troops out of Iraq, and get a good and meaningful start towards his healthcare reform policy, it will be a good choice. Let's keep it simple people, he is only ONE man. He needs the other side if he is going to get anything done.

[lady49]

Part 2:
My expectation is that you should research these FALSE ALLEGATIONS FUELED BY FOX NEWS AND THE NRA after Fowler's comments.

Senator Obama CLEARLY has ALWAYS supported the 2nd amendment. And even more so supports the states rights to mandate gun laws as it relates to the level of street violence in their state and local municipalities.
One resource:
http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

Also, the issue of his comittment to end the war on Iraq...
"Refine his policy" does not equate to "change my position". That is a FOX news intentional distortion that you are repeating here.
If the war is going so well-according to Fox pundits, when Senator Obama visits Iraq, instead of bringing home 1-2 brigades per month. HE MAY BE ABLE TO BRING HOME MORE.
Senator Obama Never Said that he would leave our troops in Iraq after he becomes president.
Why doesn't someone challenge this nonsense from FOX and the extremist "right wing" and just simply say "HOW SO"?
Make them EXPLAIN what they are talking about and PROVE THAT IS TRUE, BEFORE YOU REPEAT IT!!!

[djkrlsn]

Obama very clearly stated his support for the gun BANS in both Chicago and Washington DC. A conservative like me should not have to remind the "progressives" here that the ENTIRE BOR should be defended.

[lady49]

Part 1: I buzz this story up only because it points out a fundamental flaw in our Democratic Party-
we allow the right wingers to define us!
Howver, I wish someone who is allowed to blog on this site would ACTUALLY research Senator Obama's policy position's BEFORE repeating the false claims/rumors started by FOX NEWS!!
EESH.............!!

Senator Obama has always supported the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. It was Huffo's Mayhill Fowler that GOT IT WRONG..Quickly picked up by FOX and widely spread by cable media WITHOUT getting the views of another TRUE supporter who was there. Then NRA of course took everything out of proportion and tries to set the agenda.

"As president, I intend to make it happen. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You've got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you've got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets."

Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008

.

[LAJonathan]

GREAT POST. The most disturbing part of these attacks is the same people bought into the ONE America concept he put out and when he tries to do it, everyone freaks out. Last time I checked, everyone in America isn't far left. Question, for those of you who like to make trouble, do you want to win or was this some sort of game for you?

[itmaybetoolate]

I just want to know what policies Obama will not nuance? What is his bottom line? What violation of the Constitution is too much for him to tolerate?

[nomobull]

do you actually know if and how he violates the constitution or are you repeating talking heads who probably haven't even read the law or the constitution

[LAJonathan]

Why don't you ask him? Until then, you are spinning your wheels and impeding progress because having an opinion and actually knowing something are two different things. I don't pretend to be an expert on the constitution, I do think that someone who is a constitutional lawyer has a better understanding of what the vote means more than me, you or anyone else on this board. That's my point, everyone is trying to be an expert.

[murphysgirl]

Was I surprised on Obama's decision to vote for the FISA bill? Yes. Was I surprised that Obama supported the Supreme Court ruling on guns? Yes. But that doesn't change my overall opinion of him.

I think the problem is that many Democrats have tagged him as a LIberal on all issues. Instead of really knowing what position Obama held on various issues, Democrats just assumed that he would have a 100 percent Liberal outlook on things.

He never flip-flopped on his decision to consult with generals on the ground concerning the pace of troop withdrawl. If violence picks up, they would slow the troop brigade reduction. If violence continues to decline then they would maintain the original strategy. He's been saying this since Nov 2007, it's just that people weren't paying that much attention. Now that Obama has reiterated his stance on troop withdrawl, people are all up in arms as the media irresponsibly labels him a flip-flopper!!!

No candidate is perfect. As great as a man Obama may be, he won't be able to satisfy each individual Democrat. But, we must continue to throw our support behind him in order to ensure that he'll win the election this fall.

There's too much at stake to mess this up.

[tkondaks]

The solution, Jayne, isn't to keep our hands off Obama.
The solution is to go back to Hillary...and it's not too late. Even the rules of the DNC allow pledged delegates to change their votes at the convention; indeed, they allow it:
http://www.PledgedNotBound.com
What the Left giveth, the Left can taketh away.

[nomobull]

she lost and tjhe differences are slight give it a rest please.

[donnal]

NO she did not lose...BO is not the candidate yet...he has lied so many times I do wonder how you all can keep up with him. Just where does he stand on the war, equal pay for women, fundraising, his associates, associations, birth certificate, Larry, off shore drilling, tax increases for those making less than 32K, Iran, DNC headquarters, Nancy and Howard, healthcare, and change...

He is starting to sound like he is a third term Bush....

[LeeScho]

Yours is a measured and welcome response to the attack on Obama from the left.

It is the absence of measure and proportion that is missing from the left critics. That absence allows for misreadings and misrepresentation to creep in and prevail. Indeed, hold him accountable, question him and criticize him and even harass him if you must. But when he is threatened with switching votes to Nader or McCain or not voting at all, that is not the position of a supporter, it is the rage of a tyrant - impotent though it be given GW ruled over them with impugnity for eight years. Little good that rage did against the seemingly invincible right wing wave. Maybe instead of rage, some proportion and accommodation - not of compromise, but gradualism - might get us all to where we want and need to be.

[rationalthought1]

Watching all the Republican strategists on tv the last couple of days, its obvious what their talking points are. They're trying to undermine peoples trust in Obama - to make him scary. The Iraq flap is ridiculous and totally manufactured by Schmidt and his troops - but that doesn't stop the mindless media beating its "flip-flop" drum so the Republicans can try to poison peoples minds.
Too many of we progressives are naive and defeatest and we're getting suckered in.

[methepeople]

great post. i concur. let the man get elected, then gripe. to all the bubble-bursters, ask yourself this: who else are you going to vote for that might actually LISTEN to your contrary position, UNDERSTAND it and perhaps have the want - not to mention the political capital- to change course?