Selling Out Sometimes? Okay. Selling Out All The Time? Not.
$500 million for Faith-Based Initiatives? Wow. Got to say, even after the last week, I didn't see that one coming. Too many Sister Souljah moments to count. What I want to see now are some more Sister Souljah moments -- ones moving back to the left.
Barack Obama dealt a bit in platitudes during the primaries -- the "just a speech" rap -- so that he'd have less to disassociate himself from once he had the nomination in hand. Very well done. He held back on a few whoppers, too. $500 million of 'em. The other half of that strategy was to hope the centrist voter he's been tacking to lately would be basically tabula zippo -- no clear view on Obama's positions, unaware of the #1 liberal ranking in the Senate and all that falderal.
Only thing is, shock and awe having faded some, the press is now determined to bring any voter not clear on Obama, up to speed. It's "Tack-to-the-Center-Gate." Yesterday's press conference: "What positions did you have and when did you change 'em?'
Let's say I'm that centrist voter. I support faith-based initiatives. Think they are great. And, I love FISA. Love it. I've got a "I♥FISA" bumper sticker on my car. There's this candidate -- let's say his name is Barack Obama. Don't know zip about him. Now I find out, he's up for $500 million in faith-based programs. He kinda' likes FISA, too. Great. So what I've got on my hands is a guy who I might vote for. One day I pick up the paper and find out, the guy used to hate FISA. Now, what I've got on my hands is a guy I know is a weasel. And if he's a weasel, I don't even know if I can really count on him about the damn initiatives.
Why not play it another way? Why back off everything? I'll give Obama gun control. Sell out on that. Fine. I want John McCain so far from the White House in January of '09, that I am not in the mood to walk into windmills. But on the war, don't ever get mild. No matter "conditions on the ground." Just say, "just like I've been telling you all along -- we're leaving. 16 months." And, if memory serves, most of the country supports getting out of Iraq no matter what, anyway. So, find some stuff to champion that might completely turn off some folks you are hoping to get. If newly attentive evangelical Christians want you to fudge on funding for abortion, say "no. Not going to happen."
Because -- speaking of evangelicals -- Mike Huckabee had it right. Here was a guy who proved that standing by unpopular positions gives a candidate bona fides he can apply elsewhere. Huckabee spoke of his concern for the little guy and you -- speaking for myself -- believed him because he was so sincere about his appalling lack of concern for women, non-theists or the gay guy.
For an inspiring example of what Obama could say, let's go to one of the all-time campaign sinkers -- Walter Mondale at the 1984 Democratic Convention "Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did." Shut out the lights.
But, hold on ... Mondale was attempting to unseat the massively popular Ronald Reagan and had the monkey on his back of Jimmy Carter's massively unpopular four years in the White House. Obama, conversely, is running against a guy who is trying to distance himself from a massively unpopular guy's eight years in the White House, and his strategy is to adopt all the guy's positions. So, on taxes, on choice, on a bunch of things -- admit to being a "Massachusetts Liberal" in advance of being called one from now until November. It's a possibly counter-intuitive plan of leading with your chin to pre-empt the Swift Boating to come. Sister-Souljah moments in reverse.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Hey, maybe we could start a religion - it could be called Democracy. It could have something called "amendments" instead of comandments. One of its basic tenets would be equality and respect for the individual.
It would provide for healthcare for believers and make sure every man, woman and child has a home food and shelter , even if some bigwigs have to have a few millions less to spend on vacations and birthday parties.They would be rewarded here on earth by living a safer , less guilty existence..
Do you think Obama would fund something way out like this? I know its radically different than his religion, but maybe he could support it - to get elected.
There are millions of us who are mad as hell. After suffering thru 6 years of Bush & Co, we elected democrats who vowed to change the path. But every single bill, every single stance of the republicans went virtually unchallenged. It all passed. I don't care what Obama's position was, I care what it is now and based on what we are learning, we've got ourselves another Nancy Pelosi.
I don't believe he has a grasp on the state of the economy and the state of the government and the state of the world.
If he does not stand up like a man, he will not get my vote. I will not vote for another imposter. We need a leader and he certainly hasn't shown any leadership skills so far.
As for FISA: the bill has changed. The protections it grants are minimal, arguably already in place via existing law, and probably politically impossible to take advantage of, since doing so would admit criminal guilt.
Don't take my word for it. Read the bill. Ask the 100% rated ACLU Representatives that voted for it what they think. The wiretap program goes on unmonitored until a bill is passed. Is this one effectively inaccessible concession worth the hubbub?
Still unconvinced? Then ask Keith Olbermann; he's the standard bearer of the hyperventilating radical left these days, isn't he?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JprVASSlqQo
To the lonely voices who have known for some time that the bill is an overwhelming victory for the good guys: try not to choke as Keith phrases his special comment like he's pointing out something Obama didn’t already know.
To the rest of you, I urge you to look at the bill again with as much objectivity as you can. We're kneecapping our excellent candidate, and for what? I suspect most people saw the word 'immunity' and ran screaming for the hills before getting the context, but hey, maybe you really think it's just too important to bend at all. But do we want more rigid ideology in the White House? Or do we want the unifying candidate that'll compromise and bring us together? Like it or not, that's the candidate we asked for, and now we have him. Deal.
A bill that gives the Feds a right to obtain RETROACTIVE warrants is a licencse to spy on every person in the U.S like they did on terrorist Vegans, members of PETA, and protesters to the Repug convention in NYC.
How come there's no retroactive war crimes for American Indian genocide, occupation of Havaii ,slavery and japanese internment?
You know why - its a one way bill , Thats why!
The Feds already can get retroactive warrants via the courts and have been able to for some 30+ years now, dude. The problem with Bush's program is that he's not getting warrants at all. Since the FISA court grants broad latitude for such things, Bush bypassing it is inexcusable.
FISA is a good thing. It's the court that makes sure wiretapping is koesher. We need to force the admin to use them once again. And until a bill like the one now under consideration is passed, Bush will continue to bypass the proper channels for wiretapping citing the unitary theory of the executive branch. This is why it's stupid to hold up the bill for such an insignificant flaw.
I say again - read the bill, watch the clip, try to keep an open mind. Have a nice day.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. Are you upset with Barack for selling out? Or are you admiring his political savvy to pre-sell out? I swear to you I'm not being glib.
Whatever the case, nothing has changed on Obama’s part here. Did you read his books? Listen to the many speeches he's given on the subject, like the one Mr. Dobson recently freaked out about? He's never hidden this aspect of his political view.
Now, you may disagree with him and that's cool - we're all entitled to our opinion. Personally it makes my skin crawl, but I don't feel I've been lied to. You shouldn't either. So stop perpetuating this harmful meme that he's betraying his base. If anyone in his base is surprised, they only have themselves to blame.
Furthermore, if you're going to get up in arms about the FISA bill encouraging infringement on civil liberties via immunity, then your concern in here should be for the religious organizations. The party doling out the cash is the one in power. Government money + religion = bad for religion, good for government. Republicans have been claiming a monopoly on religious values for the past 40 years, y'all, and it ain't because they're just that devout. Obama better have some airtight, detailed and completely public accountability and transparency in mind for this program, or our founding fathers will be spinning in their graves.
He said he would NOT support FISA and would filibuster against .it. What part of WON"T support did you understand?
What the heck does this have to do with my comment about how granting retroactive civil immunity for telecoms (and the civil liberty issues associated with that) as it relates to the civil liberty issues associated with mixing religion and government money?
You haven't read the bill or my comment, so my faith is no doubt misplaced. But I'll try one more time:
What part of 'revised bill' did you not understand? The bill changed, radically even. So his opinion of it changed. Do you want an intelligent leader or an ideologue? What are we, 4? He says he won't support one bill and now he can never revise that opinion no matter what because... uh... it hurts your feelings? Unwind your brain. You've got it knotted up tight.
If I wanted a "centrist" Democrat, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton.
All these "moves to the center". Bah! I am not to be triangulated against nor is my vote to be taken for granted. I have options. I can vote for Cynthia McKinney if Obama keeps this up.
Let's start a pool about when Obama's great Iraq flip-flop is coming.
I pick July 23, 2:45 p.m. Bets anyone?
Lets see - knowing what a great compromiser he's lauded as being, I bet he'll split the difference wth McCain and only keep us there 50 years instead of 100..
I wonder if he really gets the idea of how extremely much he is pi$$ing us off, exactly, with his latest actions, speches and, decisions.
Perhaps it's time to organize a rally to Chicago, to let him now once and for all, what his progressive base thinks of him, actually - before his campaign gets flushed down the gutter, uttering: "We just didn't know you were THAT pi$$ed!" - in November...?
The last three sentences of the article author's fourth paragraph are a wonderfully-succinct statement
of the problem in Obama's behavior. He says things, makes promises, to particular groups and he gets as far with them as their deciding they could consider voting for him. This year's huge primary 'event' and the uncharacteristic coverage/interest it generated covers the reality that a lot of voters who aren't Party hardliners, and most particularly Independents ,are not going to make a 'final' decision on who they'll vote for until close to the general election.
What they say they 'might 'do is worthless for anyone but pollsters. So he can pander to his heart's content now, but all its going to take for those "maybe I will, maybe I won't" voter-types to bolt before pulling the lever for him is some hard-hitting ads about his flip-flops on key issues - his RECENT flip-flops - the 'weasel alert' alarm goes off and the McCain lever is pulled.
I was persuaded to vote for Obama -- and now I am persuaded NOT to vote for Obama. I'll write in a name. Obama is more of the same, more of the same.
I turned OFF the financial tap to Obama's campaign 2 days ago.....WANNA KNOW SUMPIN'?....I fell better about it with each passing day...3 times within 2 weeks Obama has shown he HAS NOTHING that can be called special:..1)..CHanged his mind about accepting public money for the fall campaign...2).LIkes to vote FOR FISA...major cave-in #1....3).Disrespected General Clark's true and principled statement regarding qualifications for the Presidency of these USA.. and -in the works-...continuing G.W.Bush's faith-based initiatives to give public money to religious nutcakes.What more evidence is needed to see that Mr.O is beginning to show his "other" face....??....Oh Yeah,.......i.e....some future press release, maybe,. like....."Withdrawing from Iraq will take many, many more years than I initially thought, folks",.....sorry.....!!!!....
No new FISA or I'll just read Ron Paul's book come November and dream about the Constitution. Thanks Barack! Thanks for nothing.
Maybe the writer just didn't know as much about Obama as he thought he did. He's a Christian who belonged to a church for over 20 years that helped the community in visible ways. Like he said he thinks funding should go to faith baith groups and "secular" ones. He's made clear he's AGAINST hiring and firing based on faith.
So I'm certain this isn't selling out. Sometimes you can go so much to the left that you've fallen off of a cliff and cracked your skull or had temporary amnesia. All Liberals/Dems aren't anti-religion. Especially when it comes to community organizing and contribution.
Agreed. Some liberals are so deathly afraid of anything connected with religion, that they don't see the forest for the trees.
There's a good reason for that:
80 percent of all the trouble, all the wars, all the misery in the world are based on, caused by, influenced by, justified by or associated with religion.
Religion is opium for the masses - and a loaded gun in the hands of the powerfull.
If a fairy promised me one wish in my life, I would ask her to eradicate religion - any faith, any God, any belief - totally and completely from the face of Earth.
This planet would be a MUCH, MUCH better place without religion.
Jonathan, have you bothered reading "The Audacity of Hope"?
Why all these accusations of flip-flopping or selling out when Obama repeats stances that he OUTLINED IN A BOOK!
Going against people's misconceptions and incorrect assumptions about Obama is not selling out or flip-flopping.
I am in complete agreement with this article. I have been watching Democratic candidates do this tack to the middle strategy for 40 years and other than Clinton - who I don't think ran as too much of a progressive in the primary to begin with -- it hasn't worked. Studies of the electorate from 2004 found that many voted for Bush even though they didn't like a LOT of what he had done or how he had done it, because they perceived him to have clear cut positions and then stood behind them. I wasn't a supporter of Sen. Obama's during the primary because I thought he was a lot of hot air. Going to his website as I was so often instructed to do just didn't give him any more substance for me. So, what he's been doing doesn't surprise me much. What does surprise me is that his campaign, which was so attuned to the electorate they were appealing to during the primary, seems to have developed such a tin ear so quickly. Even though there is still a lot of ignorance about Sen. McCain and what he really stands for today or might tomorrow or has in the past (can we say flip-flopper?), I think there is a zeitgeist across the land that is desperate for "Change (they) can Believe in!" that they would probably listen to what Sen. O had to say IF he were authentic in his positions.
Let's take a closer look, shall we?
The last 2 Democratic candidates for president, Gore and Kerry, ran to the middle. Gore won the popular vote, but lost the electoral college. Kerry lost both, but not by much, really. Bill Clinton ran to the middle, and won twice.
Now let's look at some Democratic candidates who ran to the left. McGovern in 72. Mondale in 84. Dukakis in 88. They all got CREAMED.
What is it that's not working again?
Obama is being authentic. You're just projecting your own view onto him.
OK, tell me which position is the REAL Obama - the position he took on NAFTA during the primary or the one he's been putting forth recently? the position regarding FISA during the primary or the one he's taken recently? the position he took on public financing of his campaign he espoused during the primary or the one he adopted after he got the nomination? This is like the guy on the stand testifying that he lied to the police but is telling the truth now and the prosecutor says well, were you lying then or are you lying now? And, how we can we tell?
Very well said, Tex. Especially that last sentence, hope O's listening.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
