A Different Take on Mark McKinnon and Barack Obama

Good Lord! I just read Jim Moore's post on Mark McKinnon saying he will resign from the McCain campaign if Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination.

Now, I've been behind closed doors on political campaigns when Ann Richards and Bob Bullock both chewed staff butt, and I have never witnessed or read the type of scalding Moore gave McKinnon -- ever.

This is tough to write, honestly, because I've always felt a little closer to McKinnon than he probably has to me. I've known both these guys for more than a decade, and Moore has passionately and eloquently penned what I'm afraid a lot of people are privately thinking.

This week, at the end of an email to a friend, I wrote: "P.S. You know McKinnon is working for McCain now (along with Phil Gramm)...ugh...Not to judge, but Lord, life really has its surprises, doesn't it?"

(For non-Texans, the reference to Gramm and life's surprises refers to McKinnon's job in 1984 as press secretary for the liberal Democrat Gramm beat in his first senate race.)

My friend, a former reporter for the Austin American-Statesman, knows my history with the Bushies. (I was the only press spokesman to work against Bush in both his gubernatorial races.) This guy, whose soul is as gentle and whose heart is as big as anyone I know, replied: "Judge McKinnon. Go ahead. Judge him. He has done great harm to the world."

I just can't. Here's why.

I met McKinnon during that 1984 campaign, when he was working against Gramm. I was still in my first job, a B-market political reporter for the Wichita Falls Record News. He was a rising star among Austin Democrats, working for a liberal state senator in the year of the Reagan landslide.

That whole campaign, McKinnon treated me like I was capitol bureau chief for the Associated Press. I don't mean he schmoozed and flattered my ego. I mean he treated me professionally and kept a dignified distance that showed the type of respect reporters at smaller papers seldom get from Austin insiders during a statewide campaign. I never forgot it.

Eight years later, when I was statehouse reporter for the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, the third largest paper in Texas at the time, I took on the insane task of organizing the Texas chapter of the National Lesbian-Gay Journalists Association.

It was tough in those days to convince gay reporters even to be seen coming to a meeting, much less joining the group. So when our board met in Austin, I asked some high profile, HETEROSEXUAL friends of mine to be part of a panel discussion on Texas media and politics, hoping it would draw a crowd.

I was shocked at the excuses I got, but two people stepped-up immediately: my dear friend Molly Ivins and Mark McKinnon.

They came and spoke from their hearts to a paltry audience of about a dozen nervous gay reporters and reassured us that decent people -- regardless of sexual-orientation -- would welcome the type of journalism our group was promoting: fair and accurate and portrayals of lesbian and gay people and the roles they play in their communities.

I never forgot that either.

There are plenty of other examples, but that is the Mark McKinnon I know. It's been a decade since I last saw him, but I remember that day -- unfortunately for the awkwardness and the sadness I felt afterward.

It was 1998, and I was communications director for the Quixotic campaign of the democratic gubernatorial candidate trying to unseat Bush in his re-election bid. There was a lot of talk even then that McKinnon might work for Bush if he ran for president. Of course, that was a little tough for me, since my job every day was to convince a Texas press corps eager to ravel with Bush on a presidential campaign plane that his re-election as governor wasn't a forgone conclusion.

It was mid-day at a Home Depot in North Austin. I was walking to my car and I looked up and there he was. As always, it was great to see him. We both smiled and said hello. Then, there was a silence. Neither of us knew what to say or how soon to move along.

Texas politics is full of tough people. Lloyd Bentsen was tough. So were Ann Richards, Henry B. Gonzalez and Barbara Jordan -- but they were all honorable.

It's also full of mean people, partisans on both sides who live every day to hurt others out of some sense that their side is right and anyone who disagrees with them is fair game for as much as they can dish out. I know, because in my time some of them came after me.

A lot of good people -- in and out of Texas -- have been rolled by the Bush political machine and its Democratic Party collaborators over the years -- beginning with the despicable and utterly false whisper campaign it ran in 1994 about Ann Richards' sexual orientation.

How can I not take it personal when my president announces he wants to amend the Constitution to keep me from ever marrying the person I love? What should I feel when that fails and he launches a cynical series of similar ballot initiatives to state constitutions designed solely to gin up turnout in swing states so he can win re-election?

There is anger out there among Democrats, especially in Texas, about what Bush has done to us and to this country. It's deep and it's real. Moore's post reads like a soulful essay drawn start-to-finish without a break. He's a man of deep conviction, and I respect him.

A lot can happen in nine months, but at least for now, Democrats seem to be poised to win this election. Obama's calls for change and an end to the bitter partisanship of recent years is part of the reason.

I've worried that many Obama supporters don't realize that when he says he wants to bring "everyone to the table" to find "a common solution" for our problems, that means giving a voice to the insurance companies, religious fundamentalists, the NRA and others who silenced us at every opportunity these last eight years -- and who likely won't return the favor if they win again.

I want my country back, and I'm honestly trying to figure out my part in all this -- whether our nominee is Obama or Hillary Clinton. What I can do to help that change happen? What does it take to end this partisan national nightmare?

Hey McKinnon, call me.

Comments

[enygma8]

thanks for this piece. as someone who knows and respects mark personally, i often find myself listening to people go off on how he's the political devil. i usually just let them say their piece and think "that's not the mark i know."

[swkidder]

Nice piece. The tough problems that face us in this nation don't have easy or obvious solutions. In healthcare, where I work, the idea of simply agreeing to invite 3rd party payers to the table doesn't mean you give their inputs more weight than those of others, much less the last word. Nor does it mean agreeing to hold your discussion around their table ... as all discussions are now being held.
We must return to a space and time in which we listen courteously to those who also listen courteously to us. We must begin again to debate solutions to difficult and complex issues under "Oxford Rules," i.e. debate on the merits of ideas and not on disdain for those proposing them.
Those of us who can get back to this place will be the ones that finally lift this country out of the incredibly unpleasant place in which we now stand on opposite sides of the room and shout obscenities at one another. ENOUGHY ALREADY. We wouldn't tolerate this behavior in a toddler, let alone in those we invest with special knowledge or credence.
Thank you for this piece, and thank you for reminding us to reserve judgment on a single act perpetrated by a person of historical good will ... unless and until we might understand why he chose to do so.

[MickeyG]

They think about Jesus and abortion, and there is not much room left for any kind of rational thinking.

[user168]

"There are three classes of men; lovers of wisdom, lovers of honor, and lovers of gain." Obama, McCain, and Clinton represent them respectively.

Obama appears to have greater appeal to the highly educated who has acquired imparting of knowledge, positive judgment and well-developed WISDOM - consisting of ideals and principles that govern all actions and decisions to maximize the LONG-TERM COMMON GOOD.

It is for LONG-TERM COMMON GOOD we EDUCATE our YOUTH, and so be it that the highly educated seek PURPOSE in LONG-TERM COMMON GOOD.

If you are A PARENT, AN EDUCATOR, OR A COMMUNITY LEADER, and if you seek not such LONG-TERM COMMON GOOD, what then, do you seek?

How can we let our CHILDREN follow such self-gratifying, calculating Clintons??

To Hillary: Why must others die so you should live?

"How could man rejoice in victory and delight in the slaughter of men, women, and children?"

"There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands."

"Only once in a very long time... on rare occasion, old arrangements and conventional wisdom come unstuck. This happens in periods of rapid if not revolutionary change. We find ourselves now in one of those periods..."

"Therefore, the good of man must be the end of the science of politics."

The TRUTH is, we must teach our children to BE TRUE.

"Love each other or perish."

"Kindness in thinking creates profoundness."

“LIVE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD.”

[Kirby]

Say all you want to run Obama down. Anyone with common sense will recgnize it for what it's really worth, and that is manure in stagnant urine in an old out-house.

Yes, forces are being unleashed to guarantee the election of John McCain, for he has been resurected on behalf of the Israeli Fascists who want a continued free hand to manipulate us all on behalf of an enlarged Israel. And to continue this insane thrust of Israel's that the Palestinians' cause is part of so-called Islamo-fascism. Islamo-fascism is the "in" word to describe Palestinians' rights.

Will Israel win their extreme bid to continue state terrorism toward the Palestinians, and to deny them their own government in all of the West Bank and East Jerusalem? Only if we Americans continue to hypocritically forget our values of justice and fairness to all. And electing the candidate of Israel to the presidency of our country is not the answer to our needs.

[accountability]

WOW!
Spoken like a true progressive who wants to return decency and respect to the American people. You really elevated the conversation and created room to disagree without being disagreeable.
Yes sir, You have learned so much from Barack Obama.

Do you realize how many people you and the other wonderful paragons of virtue are driving away from the Obama campaign.
How can we believe he will bring back respect and civility when those who claim to love what he stands for, to "believe in" him write these things. It shows not only a lack of respect for Mr. Cutbirth but a profound disrespect for yourself. Not to mention the harm you are doing to Mr. Obama.
Why would a decent person want to vote for anyone when this is an example of who his supporters are?

You and yours have driven me from the Obama camp. Anyone that can inspire so much hatred against another human being cannot be very good for the country.
I am happy to see that by and large the Hillary supporters are behaving with much more civility.

[KarenZipdrive]

Joe, you had me at the butt chewings launched by Bob Bullock and Ann Richards back in the day. I knew and loved both of them.
As a fellow Texas journalist (Zipdrive is a pseudonym) who happens to be gay, I have to salute you for working your way up through the likes of Wichita Falls and Ft. Worth.
I got my start at the now-defunct San Antonio Light, where gay reporters were "well tolerated" because that newspaper sought to serve every citizen in town, not just old, rich, white guys.
I was offered a job at the San Antonio Express News when The Hearst Corporation bought them out and retired The Light, but I said no thanks.
Mark McKinnon is like so many Texas political operatives we've seen. He wets his finger, puts it in the wind and reacts accordingly.
Guys like him are like poisonous reptiles. We may admire their crude beauty, but we don't want them as household pets.

[detriangulation]

Obama finding a "'common solution' for our problems...means giving a voice to...religious fundamentalists."

As for the religious right, there may be more common ground between its rank-and-file and the economic left than you realize. The fact that many of them hold prejudiced, judgemental views of homosexuals, non-believers, and sometimes even interracial couples should in no way preclude seeking their support along populist lines, e.g., a more equitable tax code, universally affordable health care, improving schools, ending the war, etc. This agenda is more constistent with Christian principles than right-wing militarism and corporatism, and Obama is the one to make that case. Howard Dean sturred controversy in 2004 when he said that those Southern white males driving pick-ups with Confederate flags on the window should be "voting with us", meaning that they should be voting for Dems out of economic interest but instead they're distracted by social wedge issues into supporting Repubs. How was this even controversial? Some in the Dem Party couldn't possibly imagine associating with such people even if it means bringing them into a working coalition? As if by winning their votes we'd be validating their racism, homophobia, zealotry or militarism? That's rediculous. If we win them on economic issues and deliver on those issues, and as long as it's done without triangulating or appeasing them by pandering to their socially conservative sensabilities, then of course we want them! Only Nixon could go to China. Maybe only Obama can go to Dixie and re-align the Solid South.

[editrix66]

Yesterday at church, our pastor talked about abortion, poverty, the problem in the rates of the uninsured, war. (We are not a political church, and politics or candidates never came up.) I know that for many in my church, especially the older people, abortion will continue to be a litmus test for their vote because they really believe they would be going against God's will if they voted for someone pro-choice, but in most other issues, they agree with the Democrats. As I have gotten older, I have learned that people are more complicated, not less. I know from just talking to individuals that some people don't know who they will vote for, or if they will vote at all. Republicans seem to think that Christians are all neocons, but I think that many just vote for the Republicans as a default, even though the party does not address most of their concerns.

[detriangulation]

Finding a "'common solution' for our problems...means giving a voice to the insurance companies, religious fundamentalists, the NRA..."
Like it or not, this is a representative democracy and these groups already have a voice. Ignoring and shunning insurance companies (like Hillary did in 1993) will only harden opposition to progress and further polarize government. Obama can offer carrots to these groups, incentives to mitigate what they see to be deleterious effects of his reforms. His plan to forbid insurance companies from discriminating on the basis of preexisting conditions is obviously bad for profits. Neither Democrat running advocates an insurance-free single-payer system, so if insurance companies are still going to play a role, then Obama's the one who can be trusted to negotiate in good faith. Maybe he can offer targeted tax breaks to offset some of the cost they'll incur by insuring "high risks"?
The problem is that these groups exert an undue influence through their lobbying power. That's why we need more ethics reforms along the lines of the ones Obama has already championed both in Springfield and Washington. But both Hillary and Barack factor insurance companies into their reforms so how can either possibly deny them a seat at the table and expect a solution?
As for the NRA, negotiating with them is far-fetched. I saw stats once that revealed they are one of the most well-financed PACS in Washington---with one of the smallest memberships. If they can't be convinced to broaden their mainstream appeal by supporting reasonable measures such as background checks and regulations on gun shows, then we need a president who can use the pulpit to go directly to the American people and galvanize them into applying pressure to their representatives that will outweigh the NRA's influence on Capital Hill.

[jazzman]

Obama is running on process and common wisdom says that process cannot trump individual positions in people's minds. However, our deepest problems have arisen through the corruption of the processes of government and we must change the way that we do business or we are going to implode in our partisan divide. Yes, everyone at the table means including those have treated us badly, have mis-behaved and subverted our democracy in a thousand ways. It's a little like South Africa's truth and reconciliation commission. Those who had been badly treated had to swallow hard, forgive, and move on but they did. It can happen. Our nation needs an adult in the room to mediate the arguments between the men and women children who have been in control and constantly bickering ever since Newt Gingrich brought his arrogant partisanship to town in the early 90's and Rush Limbaugh sent political discourse into the toilet. Right now Barack Obama seems to be the only adult that is available.

[jvaljon1]

Except that there's a timebomb scheduled to go off that will sink Obama's candidacy--and with it, all Democratic hopes for '08--and it is this:
Obama cannot bring "Change" because he's a machine Chicago politician with the closest possible ties to Tony Rezko, as a personal friend of his. Rezko's a Chicago machine crook who's scheduled to go on trial for corruption and bribery in Chicago--on the DAY AFTER the TX primary: and the close personal friendship he has with the Obamas resulted in his--Rezko--GIVING Obama his Chicago home. Wait until THAT comes out! Here's how it's set to go down:
Rezko's trial for bribery and corruption, originally scheduled for Feb. 25--has been put off until AFTER the all-important Texas primary vote, which is March 4--Rezko's trial will be just beginning, on March 3. Not enough time for the word to get out--even if the MSM would allow it--of Obama's close personal ties with this crook. Rezko's the one who, among other things, got Michelle and Barak Obama their Chicago home.
Once THAT comes out--well. The Republicans are just licking their chops, pretending to fear Obama over Hillary--waiting until the Obama Coronation when they will THEN unleash the Obama/Rezko association. Result:
Another Democratic election, torpedoed. And the day after Election Day '08, we'll all be saying "Mr. President" to John McCain.
For God's sake--google Rezko/Obama--if enough of you do, if enough voters understand that Obama is ROVE'S DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE--we may still win the White House. Otherwise the Dems--and the US--are sunk again once Rove unleashes the Rezko-Obama bomb he's sitting on --until it's Candidate Obama.

[jvaljon1]

Excuse me: I may have been confusing. Para 3 should read:
Rezko's trial (originally scheduled to begin on February 25) has been re-scheduled to BEGIN instead, on March 3--not enough time for the word to get out, even if the msm would allow it, to influence Texas voters to vote for Hillary instead, on TX Primary Day, March 4. This is important--there's 146 delegates up for grabs here in TX, and Hillary's been effectively cut down by the Conservative Dems, not allowing those early Fla/Mich votes to count.
This is the death-by-a-thousand-cuts for Hillary--and the coronation of an unelectable candidate with close ties to the Chicago political machine, (not to mention Obama's religious fundamentalism which I only now found out about) will only bring the death knell to any Dem hopes for '08--once Rove unleashes the Rezko/Obama connection, which he is waiting to do, once Obama wins the Dem nomination to become our Presidential candidate.

[DaveinNorthridge]

Alkamm,

So the Republicans don't -- and haven't compromised, and you think that's bad. We now have a Democratic party that compromises on telecom immunity and on the impeachment of the (arguably) war criminals in the White House for any of the high crimes and misdemeanors they committed. Which, pray, is worse for the country?

[live by the golden rule]

The way to end the partisan gridlock in Washington is to elect a Democratic President, as well as a Democratic Senator and House by huge margins.
The Republicans have no choice but to use bitter personal attacks to destroy reputations, to create obstructionist parliamentary manipulations and dead-of-night earmarks. After all, current Republican policies, when seen in the light of day, go counter to the interest of the vast majority of voters [they lower taxes for the wealthiest 1% while imposing a huge debt to be paid by everyone's grandchildren, block universal healthcare, veterans benefits, give rich no-bid contracts to their incompetent cronies, etc. etc.]
With a united Democratic party that has enough votes to pass its agenda, the Republicans can gripe and attack in their corner, but they will not be able to block a fairer tax code, universal access to health care, college loan programs where the banks do not skim a significant chunk of the money, etc. etc. Then the reasonable people, who have been driven out of the Republican party [e.g. people in the tradition of Jeffords] may begin to emerge again.

[thepeoplechoose]

Against the backdrop of eight of the most politically contentious years in our history there is good reason to want to try and do things differently.

Having said that, where would that get us if the intent is to attempt a reversal of the ill-conceived direction of the Bush presidency? Assuming a dem in the WH and possibly modest gains in the house and senate I am unconvinced that empowering those very persons who have so misguided the nation is prudent.

This WH and the republicans when they controlled congress gave no quarter and I don't expect they'll do so no matter what their circumstance come 1 January 2009. If I thought they had even the slightest intent of honestly seeking some middle ground on issues then perhaps I could be swayed. However they haven't demonstrated even the slightest hint of reconciliation on any issue. They may speak of that but have never delivered on the rhetoric. All the social, political, ethical and moral shift we have been subjected to that has inarguably served us very poorly has been at the behest of republicans.

I see no reason, if the levers of power are solidly in the hands of democrats, to give a republican minority the time of day. I very much dislike the inequality of representation this yields but that is the standard that has been set. Republicans achieved a lot, even though it was mostly bad, through rigid control of the WH and congress. Democrats should do the same and hopefully they'll have the integrity to provide a different outcome.

[isis]

If he doesn't bring them to the table they will stab him in the back.

[lisakaz]

Indeed. I hear what the blogger is saying and I don't disagree but Obama will never accomplish anything w/o that gesture, at the very least. This nation is far too polarized thanks to Bu$hco; they would manufacture anything to take him down if he didn't try.

[gcswift2]

"I've worried that many Obama supporters don't realize that when he says he wants to bring "everyone to the table" to find "a common solution" for our problems, that means giving a voice to the insurance companies, religious fundamentalists, the NRA and others who silenced us at every opportunity these last eight years -- and who likely won't return the favor if they win again.

I want my country back, and I'm honestly trying to figure out my part in all this -- whether our nominee is Obama or Hillary Clinton. What I can do to help that change happen? What does it take to end this partisan national nightmare?"

You forget that this country ran really well when everyone had to defend their position in the open. I don't mind opposing ideas, I actually encourage them, There is a chance I overlooked something.

[Roses]

I think that "everyone to the table" has to do with Obama's background as a community organizer. It is important to get all concerned parties to negotiate or "to the table". It does not mean that they will get what they want. It does mean that they will be privy to negotations. To deny them a voice is essentially like negotatiating only with those that agree with your thoughts and policies.
Our present administration has the policy of only negotiating with our friends, and we have seen how well that works!

[jvaljon1]

Obama's background as a community organizer is far better known, than are his ties to the Chicago political machine and, in particular, his close friendship with Tony Rezko, a man scheduled to go on trial for bribery and corruption the day before the Dem primary.--whose trial was moved up to March 3 from Feb 25, precisely so that the Obama/Rezko association would not become as widely known, the day before the TX primary.
I was going to vote for Obama, before I found all this out!
I google'd Obama/Rezko, is how I did find out...oh God, I hope everyone else does...
I'm back to Hillary, but now I really do fear for my country, because it's plain to me that Obama is Rove's candidate for the White House, and he's got all our kids going to try to vote Obama in and THEN the Republicans will lower the boom on Obama's ties to this crook Rezko, rendering McCain President by default.
I hope to God enough Dems--kids or not--vote for Hillary instead. I will pray for that, because only God now can derail this (doubtless) Rove-inspired Obama-Yes-We-Can train-wreck for the Democratic Party, which is now all but a foregone conclusion.
Yes We Can is Rove's slogan. I bet after McCain's elected, he laughs at us with--"Yes you could have--but you went with my guy rather than with Hillary..."

[jefegeoffe]

Funny, what I see is Rove smacking his lips at the thought of Billary again in his sights! Hey, he doesn't even have to work at it; all the material he needs has already been written, and Bill's out on the campaign trai, getting enough TV face-time to fill a hundred new attack ads. If Hill gets the nod, otherwise dispirited and disaffected Republican voters will stampede to the polls - they may not vote FOR McCain, but I can guarantee they'll vote AGAINST Hillary Clinton!I'm sorry, I'm not so big an idealist that I believe everything Obama says, or that he's so squeaky clean the smear-meisters will throw up their hands in defeat, but the name "Clinton" on the ballot is like poking a swarm of killer bees.