Progressives Must Guard Against Helping to Promote Republican Narrative That Alleges Obama "Flip Flops"
The Republican spin machine is locked and loaded to promote the notion that Barack Obama is a "flip flopper." Four years ago it was their principal line of attack against Kerry and it worked like a charm.
In 2004, the goal of this narrative was to convince swing voters that Kerry had no core values -- that his positions and commitments were blown by the winds of public opinion just as he was blown right and left in the notorious campaign ad of Kerry wind-surfing.
Not long after the 2004 election, I was in a New Jersey taxicab. The driver was a typical male New Jersey cabbie. "So what do you think of Corzine?" I asked. "Oh, Corzine, tough guy. Like him," he replied about the then-Senator.
"What do you think of Bush?" I asked. "Like him too. Tough guy. Stands up for what he believes," came the answer.
"What about Kerry?" I asked. "Kerry? Can't stand him. Flip-flopper."
People want leaders who are firmly committed to their values. The key thing that affected the New Jersey cabbie's view wasn't the positions or views of the candidates. It was whether they stood up for what they believed. There are many independent voters just like him.
I believe that John Kerry has very clear values, but he left himself open to be defined to swing voters as if he didn't.
Barack Obama is firmly committed to progressive values that contrast sharply with the values implicit in necon foreign policy and dog-eat-dog, survival-of-the-fittest Bush-McCain economic policies.
Obama is much less likely than Kerry was to allow himself to be characterized as a flip-flopper without core values, because his entire campaign is rooted in the discussion of values. It has drawn very sharp distinctions with Republicans on the critical symbolic questions of Iraq, the economy and health care. But that won't keep Republicans from doing everything they can to try to make Obama look like he is a "typical politician" without a moral core the same way they did with Kerry.
Last week's near-frenzy in the media over Obama's alleged "move to the center" on Iraq had no substance whatsoever. It was fed, virtually entirely, by the Republican National Committee and the McCain campaign that simply asserted that his statements on Iraq represented a "change " from earlier positions. That narrative was picked up and parroted by various media pundits as if it were true.
Unfortunately, some Progressives fell prey to the media wave and actually gave credence to this non-story, when the fact is that Obama has consistently supported ending the war in Iraq and withdrawing all combat troops within 16 months, at a pace that is responsive to the situation on the ground.
Progressives have to remember that the Republicans don't care about the nuances of these issues. Their goal is simple: make Obama look like he is changing his position.
All Progressives don't agree with every position Barack Obama has taken, but the fact is that very few of his positions have changed since the campaign began.
Progressives who disagree with Barack Obama but at the same time don't want to help Republicans usher in a third Bush term need to remember three things:
1). Go right ahead and disagree with an Obama position or statement -- but disagree on the substance. Don't impute some venal motive. Remember that even when you disagree with him on an issue or policy, Obama shares our progressive values.
2). Don't reinforce the Republican narrative that Obama is a "flip flopper." Disagreeing with an Obama position is very different from arguing that he agreed with you once, but now has changed positions just to win favor with the voters. First, that is generally wrong. Second, if Obama emphasizes one aspect of a position instead of another in order to attract a particular group of voters, that does not mean he "changed" his position. Third, remember that the Republicans are desperate to get Progressives to confirm their narrative and convince guys like my New Jersey taxi driver to elect John McCain.
3). Remember that there is a huge gulf between the values of Obama and McCain. Obama stands clearly in the progressive tradition of giving every human being equal opportunity to fulfill their potential. McCain stands squarely on the side of ultra-conservative values that protect the power and prerogatives of the wealthiest among us.
Obama stands firmly against the neocon foreign policies of preemptive war and unilateral action that lay at the root of the worst American foreign policy disaster in a generation. McCain stands just as firmly for the neocon vision and the Bush approach to the rest of the world.
Obama believes that economic growth happens from the bottom up and doesn't trickle down on the rest of us. He supports the rights of workers to organize to defend their standard of living, and a world where we're all in this together, not all in this alone. McCain intends to continue Bush's economic policies that have assured that all of the economic growth in the last seven years has gone to the wealthiest 1% of Americans.
Obama understands that our world faces the greatest environmental crisis in history as we seek to prevent human beings from altering our climate. First and foremost, John McCain's loyalties lie with the oil industry.
We need to remember that John McCain's campaign is managed by lobbyists from the biggest special interests in America, while Barack Obama understands the need to mobilize tens of millions of Americans to change Washington from the ground up.
Progressives should go right ahead and question Obama's positions on issues -- and they should continue to hold him accountable when he is elected president. But remember that the Republicans are desperate to convince independent voters that Obama is "just another politician" whose values flow from the latest poll instead of his own commitment to principle. Don't help them. If you do you will be wrong, and you will also help the Republicans fulfill their unthinkable fantasy of a third Bush term.
Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist, and author of the recent book "Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win," available on Amazon.com.
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
I will vote for Obama this Fall, but I will be Damned, Mr. Creamer to have you, or Ari Fleischer, or any other pointy headed pundit tell me, or anyone else to "Be careful what you say!".
It is entirely up to McCain and Obama if they will stay with a position, or change. That said, if they give flimsy arguments on substantive concerns, ... then the consequence is on them. I can think of no greater concerns than the protections of the Constitution.
What the hell has happened to America that we believe silence to be the best strategy?!!!
Did you even read this post? Nobody is saying that silence is the "best strategy". The poster merely said that if you disagree with Obama's position on an issue, say so, but don't go around parroting GOP talking points designed to tear Obama down. I find few things more ironic than a so-called progressive criticizing Obama with the dittohead talking point du jour.
To paraphrase Stephen Colbert:
"President Bush is consistent. He doesn't flip-flop ever. He believes the same thing on Wednesday that he did on Monday--no matter what happened on Tuesday."
Enjoy your "consistency" of the last 7 years? Good, because with McSame you'll get another 8 years of the exact same thing--dogmatism, isolation, stupidity, and stubborn adherence to policies that are Just. Plain. Bad.
Ask Bush. He knows all about it.
Yes... and no.
It's true that we (progressives who disagree vehemently with Obama's change of stance on FISA and Iraq) need to be careful to avoid adding fuel to the fire, there's also a moral point here.
I consider the Constitution -- and FISA is a safeguard, albeit imperfect -- *more important than Obama*. I will try to couch my rhetoric carefully, and I will try to use whatever little pressure I can exert to get Obama (and the DLC) to change his position back to his original, progressive values.
I found his Iraq comments to be less troubling than his FISA comments, because I personally saw the Iraq statements as just nuance (of COURSE, he's going to listen to the commanders on the ground, he HAS to) whereas his FISA stance was a direct contradiction. In fact, there's no other real word for it: it was a flip-flop.
So I find this article troubling; I don't want McCain to be elected (despite what some of the less mature posters on HuffPo might claim). But I also am not 100% sure I want Obama elected if he won't stand up for core American values like the rule of law and defense of the Constitutional mode of government.
Where does "don't help the Republicans" end and "don't criticize Obama, ever, no matter what he does" begin?
This is a very intelligent, rational post. Thank you.
I agree with you in part! However, that amended FISA act assures that the FISA court has the responsibility to protect civil liberties!
That does protect the "rule of law" !
MSM's hands are pretty dirty in twisting and spinning O's stated support of this amendment! How is it that most MSM has twisted O's words in most everything and anyone supporting O would/could believe their (MSM's) sensational departure from O's position here!?
I support Obama and have no problem with his position on FISA - or a major disagreement with him on any issue, for that matter. He is refining his positions and showing himself to be the deliberative, independent thinker that I had hoped he would be. I think we must accept that having brains and balls are not mutually exclusive, despite the stark example set by Mr. Bush.
Obama has conveniently taken the easy way out on difficult issues by voting present 129 times. So it's no wonder he is having touble now. If he didn't want to be labled weak he should have stood by his original convictions. Maybe having a backbone and integrity aren't as important as those independent votes.
Not a troll--just a Hillary supporter now for McCain (I do not believe or trust Obama).
Please educate yourself first before you post commenst like these. Let me help you. Under the rules of the Illinois legislature, a present vote effectively functions as a no vote because only yes votes count toward passage of a bill. Legislators vote "present" rather than "no" for a variety of tactical reasons, including making it more difficult for their political opponents to use their votes against them in campaign advertisements.
Let me educate you on Illinois politics..
The problem I have with Obama is that in those "present" votes he refused to take a stand on the issues in questions. I think it was mostly so, like you wrote, not to give his opponents ammunition, but also to leave himself some wiggle room. If that's the case, and those are a lot of present vote, I can't see how someone can really say he's positions are clear. Ad to that the fact that he seems to be shifting to the center. Call it what you want, but if you said something yesterday, and today you are saying the opposite , you are flip-flipping, or lying to someone yesterday or today.
Why were you a HRC supporter? Was it because of where she stands on the issues? If not, then your support for McCain possibly makes logical sense. If so, how could you consider voting for McCain? HRC and Senator Obama are pretty much in lockstep on the issues. HRC and McCain are miles apart. Still, it is your vote. Have a great day.
BEHusseinM777
Unfortunately, you don't actually understand what the 'present' vote means. It means that something about the bill was changed at the last minute or they support the cause up for legislation, but not the actual bill. And, even though I am pro-choice, I am not a politician. I understand why Obama and others would take a stand in the middle while also ensuring that attempts to restrict choice did not succeed.
Not to mention that he cast nearly 4,000 ballots while in the IL state legislature, so I'm not fretting about 3%, and you shouldn't be either.
"Present" isn't a waiver or a waffle, it's a political strategy. It is available to all IL state legislators and it is frequently used.
Please take a moment to read about his "present" votes: http://www
That's debatable. Some of his "present" votes may have been a strategic move, others were a dodge. As were the occasions when he "accidentally" hit the wrong button and asked that the record reflect that.
I know the truth bothers HRC supporters but here goes.
"THE SPIN: Obama portrays himself as someone voters can trust to tell the truth and skip the usual political games. Clinton and John Edwards are using his "present" votes to offer a different picture -- one of Obama ducking tough issues or refusing to support common-sense legislation.
THE FACTS: Obama acknowledges that over nearly eight years in the Illinois Senate, he voted "present" 129 times. That was out of roughly 4,000 votes he cast, so those "presents" amounted to about one of every 31 votes in his legislative career.
Illinois legislators often vote "present" and for a wide variety of reasons. Sometimes blocs of lawmakers do it as a protest in some dispute over rules and procedures. Obama was often joined in his "present" votes by 10 or 20 other senators.
In other cases, lawmakers do it to signal objections to the details of a measure that they support in principle. They also use "present" votes as strategic moves to defeat legislation or, of course, simply to avoid taking a firm position."
A flip flop by any other name is still a flip flop:
1. FISA
2. faith-based initiatives
3. mental distress of the mother not grounds for abortion
4. Obama's statement that impeachment is "off the table", that it should be reserved for offenses that are more "grave" than what the Bush administration has committed
3. mental distress of the mother not grounds for abortion
really? not specifically late term abortions which are rarely used and pretty damn gross? i guess including that small piece of info might weaken your argument. ;)
I hope the real progressives on this post are able to detect when republicans are writing in hoping to promote disunity so they can push their flip-flopper label. Folks, this is how they did in Kerry and if we are suckered into playing along we'll help bring down the best candidate, who has a realistic chance of winning, since JFK. THe media is picking up this riff - the supposed flip-flop on Iraq was ridiculous and should be tranparent enough for us so that we wake up to what's going down. This is a Rovian trap that we're falling into. We need to recognize the full breath of whats at stake before we do ourselves in.
How can you really tell if a republican is writing a post? Oh, I get it, he is saying something negative about Obama. I'm no republican but I find it really annoying that after he gets the nomination, he is basically changing a lot of the positions that got him where he is today. You don't have to be a republican to see a flip-flopper when one is standing right in front of you.
Sorry zero flip flops. Flip Flops are:
immigration, bush tax cuts and anything that has to do w/ the economy and are all brought you by McCain.
FISA was a flip flop the other were just expressing details about know positions. Try again.
wow, if romney had thought of that 'expressing details about known positions' line, he could have given mccain a run for his money! that's the kind of thing that should be engraved on the door to a 'con man's hall of fame'
Do the repubs really want to talk about Obama being a flip flopper when McCain changes his positions every day? The Democrats should run a commercial with John McCain of 2000 and 2008 and show who is a flip flopper.
Very good idea!
Obama flip-flopped on FISA. No doubt about it. It has cost me a lot of enthusiasm for him.
Still, he is better than McCain, both on those issues where his stance is firm, and as being less of a flip-flopper than McCain. WHy is it that the right is even allowed to utter the words "flip-flopper" when their candidate McCain has shown time and again that his position on any issue is entirely dependent on what will appeal to the Republican base.
I do not consider Mr. Obama a flip-flopper. Quite to the contrary, I feel that his current positions are actually revealing the true man. A Constitutional scholar has suddenly decided that the Constitution is not worth defending? Highly unlikely. The man's position is that everything can be compromised upon, including civil liberties. Do you really think that he will work to repeal the damage that has been wrought upon this country by the Bush administration? I don't.
I will still vote for Obama, because he is the lesser of two evils, but don't continue to try to portray him as a man of honor!
Thank you for trying to subtly craft a subliminal message of "taking civil liberties" and "lesser of two evils" for those who are not as astute in seeing your attempt to "backstab" Sen. Obama. Give me a break all you who claim to be so righteous about "civil liberties". I'm not for FISA, but I'm also a realist. I've pointed out before your cry over this matter is so superficial, if you truly cared about "civil liberties" then why be concerned with only wiretapping when there is technology out there more sophisticated than this in tracking you and knowing what you do and say. Googles have satellites to hone in on an address doesn't it seem reasonable that the government can do so also and far more. Don't you know that there is technology that can pick up conversations beyond telephones just by standing on street corners. Go ahead and focus on wire-tapping and e-mails while other technologies pass you by. And good luck if you think those satellites will be removed. Also on your point of "lesser of two evils" is this another label you are trying out just in case another fail? You should not use "lesser" or "evil" in the same sentence with Sen. Obama. He stands far above in standards and credence than Sen. Mcc. on issues;and the term "evil" is by definition the reps. with many of their pictures beside it as a reminder. You canconstructively disagree without labels.
As an Independent, I find it terribly frustrating to see how Dem’s are literally trying their best to shoot themselves in the foot by calling attention to Sen. Obama’s so-called flip-flops. This will only help to get McSame in the White House where he will clearly end up destroying what is left of the Supreme Court and is clearly gun-ho on promoting greater global hostility all under the guise of homeland security.
We don’t have to fully agree with Senator Obama and all of his views. However, those of us who want to see a Dem in the WH must get behind Sen. Obama 150% and stop pandering to the Republican talking points on flip-flopping, or anything else for that matter.
Great read: http://www
I agree, independent. I think it is one thing to go to Obama's website and offer him up a good dose of 'you need to get it together' and yet another to go out in the public arena and join republicans in bashing your own candidate. If this continues, I smell another republican presidency.
It's Obama that's doing the pandering. Strange for a so-called independent to be so hell-bent on a Dem getting elected. Most independents are smart enough to know what a failure this two-party system is and see right through Obama's triangulations and capitulations.
What is absolutely essential is that we the public hold the media responsible for their BS.
The simple fact of the matter is that it's McStain not O that is the flip flopper. He was against torture before he was for it. He was against tax cuts for the uber rich before he was for them. He was against hate mongers like Fallwell, Dobson, et al before he decided they were kewl in his book. He was for a reasoned approach to Immigration before he decided it was better for his "base" to be fascist. He snuggled up to the same people that smeared him and his family in 2000 for political expedency. THAT is a flip flopper. Changing ones opinion is NOT flip flopping..
We progressives must guard against gutless centrists making excuses for Obama's endless flip-flops and capitulations.
Electing another Clinton-like neoliberal Dem who will simply carry on with Reaganomics as usual is not change.
True. If I had wanted a "centrist" DLC Democrat I would have voted for Clinton.
and if i wanted to live under socialism i'd have taken a boat and emigrated to cuba
Yes, vote for Nader again, and let the Republicans finish the job of destroying this nation. "We progressives?" We reasonable human beings know that the exact same thing was said eight years ago, i.e. "No difference between Bush and Gore." Do you really think Gore would have acted like Bush as far as 9-11, Iraq, New Orleans, energy, etc? Are you delusional? If McCain is elected and we "bomb bomb bomb Iran", these self-righteous, Nader-esque narcissists will again smirk and say "not our faults." Enough!
"We progressiv
Yes, it would be terrible for "we progressives" to elect a centrist like Obama instead of an ignorant, stubborn, neocon like McCain!!!
Bashing Obama will clearly help. Then if we all just write in "Bernie Sanders" on our ballots we will have a genuinely socialist America at last!!!
What a brilliant political strategy that will be!!! Just like we elected President Nader in 2000!!!
Well said. I am an Obama supporter, who has been critical of his FISA stance. My solution: , respectfully disagree with Obama, lobby the other 99 senators, support Obama's election.
When he said he'd "bring us together", why are we surprised and shocked to find that we're meeting in the middle?
Well said.
This article should be bookmarked, printed out, and carried with or kept in front of any Obama volunteer who is canvassing or phonebanking. If the pitch Mr. Creamer gave in this article does not work on an undecided voter they probably won't ever switch.
As a side note, how depressing is it that the mainstream media is picking up and pushing as fact that a "typical politician" is defined as someone with no moral compass, no allegiance or loyalty, is out for money, and could care less about the will of the public, let alone the fate of the country? What a sad day in America!
Thank you , it's a message I've posted time and time again, but unfortunatelly you are only speaking to the choir. After reading comments I still see that your message along with others who have posted on articles in the past and today are still falling on dead ears. Although, I must admit that there are the usual posers and haters, I just hope that the sensible don't fall prey to the distraction and become senseless.
This whole recent cycle of events has become so unfair to Sen. Obama, and to my surprise from those who call themselves his "netroot". This erroneous labelling of Sen. Obama is wrong, please tell me where he's had a reversal of his point of view. A flip-flop to me would be taking the complete opposite stance that one held. Like Sen. Mcc stance for and against torture. I can't understand why this voice of his "netroot" don't use their energy to point out Sen. Mcc stance on these issues, for example his stance on FISA and what it mean? No!!! This voice of the "netroot' would prefer that Sen. Obama stop campaigning and go stand on the Senate floor and help fillibuster this issue, that clearly has the backing of the majority for it already. Yet they like to continually say he's a centrist or moving to the center as if it's a bad word and only those with ideals of the far left can be progressive or stand for anything of meaning.
Is there any surprise that the same media who trumpeted (and in some cases benefited from) the Iraq war is attacking the candidate who says he wants end the occupation as soon as possible/feasible? I must admit, i'm a little taken aback by the ferocity of the MSM attack though too.
You shouldn't be amazed... remember the MSM is CORPORATE media. Owned by Repubics. They will do anything to protect thier monopoly on the airwaves. By monopoly that is the control of the media by Corporate interests. That means making money above country, litterally above ALL else. Corporatists LOVE the repubes... therefore the MSM IS REPUBE. Just accept it. Deal with it. Work to nullify it.
Excellent article, Mr. Creamer!
Thank you Creamer for putting some sanity back into the disscussion. I don't expect Obama to be perfect or that I will agree with him on all issues. What I do clearly see/know is the vast differences between what a John McCain/McSame presidency would be like compared to an Obama presidency.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
