Clay Feet

I'm not surprised to discover Senator Barack Obama has clay feet. I would be more surprised to discover that he was the second-coming of the political messiah that many of his supporters seem to believe. That he is hedging on his pledge to only use public funds for the general election should he be the nominee, or that he copied Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick's prose are chinks in a wall of supposed perfection that always sat on shaky ground.

For months the press has ignored or given short shrift to questions about Obama voting "present" 129 times (by pushing the literally and symbolically yellow button on each legislator's desk) in the Illinois legislature; his watered-down legislation aimed at nuclear energy plants and the coincident large donations of the offending company, Exelon; his 'spiritual adviser' and minister who formally honored the anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, a move Obama said he disagreed with, but that would be tantamount to my staying at a synagogue that honored David Duke; his Whitewater-esque ties to Tony Rezko which included lavish fundraising, land deals and tainted campaign money; and his present politics-as-usual attempts to distort Senator Hillary Clinton's record while rewriting the history of his own.

I'm not disputing that the Clinton camp is engaging in some of the same throw-mud-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks tactics as Obama. And I'm certainly not arguing that Clinton is the Mother Theresa of the political day. Early on, she should have used the word "mistake" and "Iraq vote" in the same sentence. Today, she should release her tax returns.

But what has worried me all along is the way the press has thrown roses at Obama's feet rather than taking shovels to the hallowed ground they've placed him on. Voters have been invited to be political Pollyannas, blindly optimistic because they've only been shown one side of the man.

In more than 15 years on Capitol Hill I met many fine legislators. But working for the labor movement I often heard our members voice a cynical view of Congress. They're all a bunch of crooks and liars, I was told time and again. But they are not. I was consistently impressed with the intelligence, work ethic and conviction of the men, and far fewer women at that time, that I got to know. The scoundrels were far outnumbered by those who came to politics with a fervor for democracy. They were the kind of people I proudly introduced to my kids as a lesson in what's great about America.

And, without naming names, there's not a one of them that didn't have clay feet in one way or another. There are no perfect politicians, or people either.

Obama supporters need to stop pretending that he can cast the first stone. They need to admit he's become a Rohrschach test of their longing for an ideal candidate. It's fine to be guided by political ideals; not so fine to be blinded by them.

Obama's done some things that are dumb, politically expedient and less than forthright, and he will again. So has Clinton. What's important is how well we believe they can do the next right thing to solve the problems we face. And we can't make an honest assessment about that without a full and realistic picture of the candidates. By standing with uplifted faces denying Obama's weaknesses and faults, his supporters are only exposing their own feet of clay.

Comments

[memoryleak]

So are we trying to be clever referencing Shelley or Horace Smith?.

In any event, ol' "B.O." doesn't have the cred to be remembered in any future classical literature. He's the sizzle in search of a steak and heaven help us all if he makes it to 1600 Pennsylvania.

[gcg737]

Well, I agree wholeheartedly with your comment there are no perfect politicians nor perfect people. Where we disagree is your seeming belief that idealists are, of necessity, blind.

When will you acknowledge that someone who started this race as a KNOWN commodity around the world, hundreds of millions of dollars in her campaign chest, a former President to trot out on her campaign trail to whom she's married, truckloads of support from party gurus, and a formidable ability to debate the issues has run a disastrous campaign?

Do you seriously believe someone with the plethora of advantages Clinton has managed to evaporate in less than 2 months is capable of putting together the kind of government required to get America out of the mess Bush 2 created? If, with all her built-in advantages she has managed to effectively crash and burn, what exactly would she offer as POTUS? If it's more of the worst of the same, then better a blind idealist pick someone who at least knows how to surround himself with folks who can manage an excellent campaign. He'll likely do an equivalently excellent job picking folks to staff the Executive Branch.

[thegaygardener]

"For months the press has ignored or given short shrift to questions about Obama voting "present" 129 times (by pushing the literally and symbolically yellow button on each legislator's desk) in the Illinois legislature;"

HELLLOOOO?? This voting procedure was exactly what he was ASKED to do by NARAL & NOW in Illinois. Are you Hillary people going to keep up with this "PRESENT" vote smear?? Robin, there is a wonderful internet thing called YOUTUBE (where you Clintonistas have posted all those Obama/Patrick speech videos) Search for a fabulous woman named LORNA BRETT HOWARD. She posted a video detailing her disgust at the way the Clinton campaign has mischaracterized Obama's "present" votes. Her dismay at Hillary's lies & deceptions is so thorough that she posted this video to explain the thinking & process behind Obama's votes & why she was compelled to switch her support to Sen. Obama.
I know that the Clinton's think if you tell the same lie often enough, enough people will believe it but it is irresponsible of you to promote this canard.

[S1m0n]

Psst: the "supporters" you're attacking are the voters. If Hillary Clinton can't capture their attention, the fault is hers, not theirs.

Yelling at them or calling them fools won't help.

Most of the democrats who are down on her now, were up on her for a long time. Hillary Clinton got the benefit of a great deal of doubt, and her record has not rewarded the faith she was shown.

[jimmytripps]

As an Obama supporter, I'm getting a little tired of the condescension. This post, while well-written and fairly gentle, still drips with it between the lines. The responses by Clinton supporters, in many cases, bring the condescension front and center. I don't believe Obama's perfect. No one is. I don't even necessarily see him as my ideal candidate. Of the two, though, I see him as the better one. He is able to inspire people, that is what a leader does. That is, primarily, what the president is supposed to do. The nuts and bolts of governance falls to the congress, despite what our current president may believe.

The thing is, even the craziest Obama supporter, and yes they are out there, is at least attacking Clinton- her record, her demeanor, her character. Some of it is absolutely unfair, some of it does have merit. Some of it is even exactly on the mark. But whatever the case, they are arguing the merits of the candidate. You Clinton supporters spend the vast majority of your time telling us that we are a bunch of simple-minded sheep. If you really want to win the elction, it might not be a great idea to alienate a pretty big voting block by telling them what idiots they are.

[krisellyn]

Bravo. This article was refreshing. Funny, though, it has a very depressed (almost fatalistic) tone, as if you thought your words would be thrown at closed minds. Fear not, reasoned minds are reading. We're just not as apt to comment.

[patrice37]

One reason the press has "given short shrift" to the "present" votes in the Illinois Legislature is that reporters (unlike you, apparently) have to check out facts before they write. This was part of a strategy worked out with Illinois Planned Parenthood and the Chicago chapter of NOW. The intricacies of our legislature's rules are not self-evident, but they did not escape the responsible members of the press who looked into it. Did you? Do you read newspapers?

[FogCityJohn]

Retired Judge Abner Mikva, who served in the Illinois legislature, in Congress, and later as Bill Clinton's own White House counsel, debunked this supposed issue about Obama's "present" votes in a recent op-ed in the New York Times. Ms. Gerber would do well to read it before attacking the press for giving the matter "short shrift." As Judge Mikva explains, voting "present" is the equivalent of a no vote.

And it would be nice to see one of these pieces that didn't treat Obama supporters as if they were a bunch of misguided, gullible children. Attacking a fellow Democrat's supporters as dumb is not only condescending, it's really bad political strategy.

Best line of the whole article, though, goes to "his Whitewater-esque ties to Tony Rezko." The Clintons have spent the better part of 20 years proving (correctly) that there was nothing suspicious about their role in Whitewater? But here we see a Clinton supporter using the term as synonymous with sleaze. Very, very interesting.

[JakeEasy]

No, No. We need a god-man to deliver us from our evils. Don't go making our diety into a mere mortal. We'll let the media do that after he's nominated.

[DeanOR]

Doesn't "something different" make you swoon? Don't you want "change"? Why are you so picky?
You must be old or something.

[ICUP]

Totally, dude. Didn't WJBC run vague promises of a "bridge to the 21st Century" and "taking back America" and some Fleetwood Mac pablum?

[LeeScho]

Robin, Obama never made the pledge, and your integrity and competence are on the line here. Obama clearly said at the time (not revisitionally) that he would negotiate with his Republican opponent the conditions under which they would both accept public financing and he stated some issues that would be a part of that negotiation.

[itmaybetoolate]

Indeed he did. Google it. You can find a record of it. It was February, 2007.

[avava]

An interesting and insightful piece, but unfortunately it reads as condescending. By casting a blanket characterization what you believe the typical Obama supporter to be, you do a disservice to an otherwise reasonable argument. The bit on the present votes also leads me to discount your piece. I found the recent opinion piece from an advisor to the Obama campaign in the New York Times about those votes quite reasonable. I would suggest you read it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/opinion/16mikva.html?ex=1360904400&en=ade1b3cc167882e9&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

[Phoenix]

I love this rising "attack the supporters" strategy. It's really endearing.
The people most concerned about Obama's words and rhetoric, the ones listening to the press obviously playing it easy on him and reacting more potently to their apparent lack of in-depth analysis, are Hillary supporters. People genuinely like the guy, therefore they must be living in a fantasy world. In fact, Hillary supporters insist over and over that Obama supporters are cult-minded and living in a dream world.
From what I have seen, it is mostly Hillary supporters that morphed press words like "superstar" into words like "messiah," in order show their disdain the enthusiasm about a politician. God forbid.
Yes, both sides attack each other...in comment sections particularly. I know Hillary supporters have been grouped together frequently into unfair smears like "woman only voting for her because she's a woman" (an equally ridiculous claim even if true for a small minority). But there is a vast chasm of difference between how frequently and vocally advocates of the two sides have leaped into this.
I know exactly why I support Obama. It is for a specific reason and it has been important to me personally for a long time, and it is one which Hillary falls far short of acheiving when compared to her opponent. Maybe he'll fail at it in the long run too, but he shows much more promise at making gains in the area I am most concerned with for this country. Hence I've thrown my lot in with him.
That said, I will vote for whoever gets the Democratic nod, but that's just me. Sometimes I feel like that will ONLY be just me. Point being, we "Obamaniacs" (the cutesy just don't stop) are not the mindless disasters-­in-waiting posts like these like to imply. And if Hillary wins, good luck reaping that in November.

[DoninJoisey]

You are right. He isn't perfect - But he doesn't have to spin Iraq because he's on record as against it from the start. He isn't claiming his spouse's achievements as his. He isn't grasping for petty things to spin into attacks....

[reedmaker]

Thank you for this thoughtful piece, Robin. It has been obvious at leasts since Obama's Reagan comments in Nevada, if not far earlier, that he is a politician like any other. If Clinton is treated as a politician, and he is treated as a savior, he gets the nomination on that basis, and then is revealed, as he certainly will be, as mortal and falible and corruptible, I fear his starry-eyed followers will drift away, and McCain will win.

[LeeScho]

So go ahead, then, and vote your fear. I will vote my hope. Your greatest fear appears to be not that supporters will be wrong about Obama, but that they will be right. We can get a McCain or a Hillary in any election year. I had an Obama in an election year only once in my adulthood, and that was forty years ago.

[libran38]

So, according to you, Obama is the second coming of RFK?