What Obama Needs to Learn from Sarah Palin
Are we having fun yet? Birthers, Limbaugh's diatribe equating Obama to Hitler, fistfights at town halls, an enormous increase in death threats against the president. And now our diva moment, with Sarah Palin -- in full victimhood throttle -- charging on Friday that an "Obama death panel" could deny health care and pass a death sentence on her Down syndrome child. Welcome to the lunatic asylum. Oh, I'm sorry...that's being unfair to lunatics.
Joking aside, I have this fervent belief that Obama has somewhere, deep down in his pockets, the keys to escape. And I don't say this out of a Pollyanna-ish view that we can all be bipartisan if we just try hard enough. I don't have any illusions about a future in which the left and right stroll arm in arm into the setting sun.
As I see it, the reality is that, in America, the lunatics will always be with us -- or at least for a long time. Our uniquely noxious blend of racism, right wing politics, and moneyed interests exploiting racial fears and economic insecurity have hollowed out the core of moderation in American politics. In an unbroken line from Goldwater to Limbaugh and Palin, the Republican party has committed itself to scorched-earth tactics that have shredded the economic, political, and moral fabric of this country.
Watching the drama unfold over health care reform, one can't help but have one's heart go out to Obama -- a fundamentally decent man, with good intentions, faced with an implacable foe. It appears that Obama is slowly overcoming the blind faith in bipartisanship that sabotaged his stimulus package, and today's attack on Republicans' "outlandish rumors" is a hopeful sign.
But it's nowhere near enough. That's made clear by Obama's statement that his opponents are "exploit[ing] differences or concerns for political gain. That's to be expected. That's Washington." No, this is not politics as usual. There's no "as usual" with a foe bent on utter destruction. In contrast, Palin understands the nature of the battle, when she states that adopting Obama's health care reform amounts to "a point of no return" for America. Underestimating this challenge means losing the battle.
So what does Obama need to learn from Palin? First, he needs to really hear her. This is no longer a question of getting the facts straight. Granted, getting the facts straight about health care reform is necessary, and those who provided those facts performed an absolutely vital service. But we've moved beyond that point now. As Palin has said, the place we're at now is about good and evil.
And for an intensely cerebral Obama, it's clear to me that this is not a place he wants to go to. Going there for him, I think, means giving in to the angry rhetoric, the unreasonableness, the muck. But sometimes we must dive down in order to come up and break through. We must meet people in their place of fear instead of insisting that they meet us in our comfort zone -- the place of reason. What Obama needs to learn from Palin is that the fight over health care reform is indeed a moral battle. No longer an issue of statistics and parliamentary maneuvers, it's moved to a higher level.
So how does Obama prevail in such a battle? First, he must see things as they really are, not as how he wishes them to be. He must understand that he will face an implacable and destructive Republican opposition for the rest of his presidency. Second, he needs to take on board the insights of Eric Kleefeld and Larry Sabato in this post. As Sabato states in the article, "...something about the negativity motive that seems to result in action. People are willing to spend some time and some effort to oppose something. But rarely are they willing to put out the same effort to support something." As a result, Democrats are losing the intensity battle with Republicans. Health care reform, as well as two extremely valuable governorships in New Jersey and Virginia, hang in the balance.
Third, in order to close the intensity gap Obama needs to re-discover the moral fervor that imbued his campaign during the Democratic primaries. Then, he successfully equated voting for him to transforming America into a better, finer place. With an assured moral authority, he addressed voters' fears and conflicts over race, meeting them in their place of discomfort. Now, Obama seems to have lost that certainty in himself, unable to carry his moral energy beyond his own political dreams. Rather than continuing to appeal on the basis of reasonableness and logic, Obama needs to have a frank, heartfelt discussion with Americans about their fears over health care reform -- over things like rationing, affordability, and loss of control. As in the Jeremiah Wright incident, Obama needs to show that he can empathize with people's fears on a gut level and lead them to a better place. And he needs to be clear about the malign intentions of those who are trying to thwart reform.
In the end, for better or for worse, whether he likes it or not, Obama is joined in a battle against the forces of anger, hate and grievance. A choice not to engage them on a moral level is an abdication. They will not go away, and they will stalk him the rest of his presidency unless he faces them and conquers them. President Obama, you need to go down into your soul and find those keys.
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
What is happening is that the Republicans are using the same strategy against Obama that they successfully used against Clinton during his first two years.
During Clinton's first two years they opposed, obstructed, and defeated his agenda. The defeat of his universal health care plan was the final and most important stroke. As a result, by the time of the next election, Clinton was discredited and the Republicans gained control of Congress and retained it for the rest of his term.
Since this strategy was highly successful, no one should be surprised that the Republicans are using it against Obama. And unless Obama finally wises up to what is happening, they will succeed again.
The bottom line is that you cannot work for bipartisan solutions with people whose objective is to destroy you politically. Obama has to finally wake up to the fact that the Republicans are not honorable opponents you can work with, but an enemy that must be defeated. That is the way its going to be for the rest of Obama's terms. If Obama recognizes this and acts accordingly, he can be a very successful president.
This is a war! That is how the Republicans see it. In war, you lie, cheat, steal, and murder. That is why the conservatives hate the internet so much. With a traditional media so completely owned by Republicans, they rightly believe they can get away with telling any lie. Often, they do get away with it. Some media outlets are more subtle then others. They tell the Republican side in the first part of the article and then casually mention that it's false in the last paragraph. Others just tell the Republican side even though it is not worth telling something that is so obviously false. Like Palin's comment, how long did it take to find out it was false by searching on the internet? One minute? Two? Or the comment in Investor's Business Daily about Steven Hawking? The lies are deliberate and only possible with a hopelessly conservative traditional media. This battle makes the case for reform more then any other pertinent fact. So many politicians have been bought by the "health insurance" companies that it is clear that they have way too much cash on hand.
Where do I begin to respond to your uninformed post; Rachel Maddow, Kieth Oberman, CNN (yes everyone there), MSNBC, NBC CBS the list goes on and on these are all liberal biased media sources I think its time you tasted your own medicine and wake up to whats really going on. By the way all the ratings of the previous mentioned networks/pograms are all going down. Why do you think that is happening? Guess who really has been lying to you the whole time? Try and read the bill and do some research instead of regurgitating liberal talking points.
Wow, liberal biased media, huh? Let's go down that list of "liberal" biased media sources. Rachel Maddow - smart, lesbian, female. Liberal, check.
Keith Olbermann - the antithesis of Bill O'Reilly. Liberal, check.
CNN - Lou Dobbs. John King. Jon Klein (CNN's president, a big Lou Dobbs supporter). Wolf Blitzer. Yeah, not a big bevy of ultra-radical left wing going on there.
MSNBC - we've already covered Maddow and Olbermann. But let's see what we have to counter that. David Gregory. Joe Scarborough (how many hours does he bloviate in the morning?) Mika Brzezinski (although she doesn't really count, she rarely expresses an opinion or original though of any kind unless Joe's okay with it). Uncle Pat Robertson, probably the most frequent guest on that network. We've got lots more, but lets move on.
NBC - Who? Brian Williams? That hack that calls into Limbaugh? The conservatives can have him.
CBS - Dan Rather? Oh wait, he got fired. Hmmm, Bob Schieffer, yeah, CBS is sooooo liberal.
While I think some of the news commentors may be liberal leaning, they certainly don't report what they personally feel. I've watched discourse on TV turn so far to the right, that PBS (what used to be the Boring Channel), is now all that's left of the "radical left". PBS! PBS is as close to neutral as you can get, and it's considered the "left". No, this whole BS about the media being "liberal" is yet another con that's been perpetuated and accepted
You need a hug.....................Jerry.......
I do not like your title (God, can we just stop giving her any credibility once and for all?), however I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph. This ugly tide is rising and it will not go away. Obama CAN deal with it if he chooses. Taking the higher road is a noble thought, but it is not always effective or necessary. I've seen too many intelligent people think they're above responding to ridiculous claims from ridiculous people. In my opinion that very silence is precisely what gives them the permission to go on. We need to respond and quite virgorously so.
I'm sure Palin is quite pleased by this affirmation of her skills that even Pres. Obama should sit at her feet and learn how it's really done.
Millions of voices should be roundly and soundly repudiating Palin's lies ..... not giving her even an ounce of credibility in either her methods or rhetoric.
The problem: Obama was an excellent campaigner, but he is a lousy communicator as president. Too much nuance, no fire.
The cry "All will be lost if Obama doesn't fight more like Sarah Palin!" is coming to you from the same folks who said, "All will be lost if Obama doesn't fight more like Hillary Clinton!" and "All will be lost if Obama doesn't fight more like John McCain!"
Obama never did, but all wasn't lost. Now Hillary works for him, & McCain's in the wilderness. The same voices are still shouting the same message. Folks, Obama's undefeated playing his own game. When he's on that game, they can't touch him. He'd be a fool to abandon it now.
So relax. Barach Obama fights and wins the long game while his opponents keep fighting the short game. That's how McCain and Hillary Clinton could keep on winning the news cycle while losing the war. Come September, we're going to see the same thing we saw last September. Remember how the McCain/Palin campaign came out of their convention on a high? And just as the punditocracy was about to annoint them the certain victors, the wheels fell off? The same thing is happening now. Obama is a dangerous man to bet against.
Obama is dangerous to bet against because he has been incredibly lucky in having some truly inept opponents, and a very well-timed economic meltdown. Now he's playing with the big dogs, and vague, passive feel-good speeches aren't going to cut it. You can't argue past history as a predictor of future success without examining the details. Everybody is undefeated until they lose.
As a critic of his strategy during the nomination battle, when he kept losing primary states to Hillary even after it became obvious she couldn't win, I never said he should "fight more like Hillary". I just wanted him to fight, period. There's a difference between fighting hard and fighting dirty that Democrats seem to have real trouble perceiving.
Obama made his own luck, like all other successful politicians. He fought hard and he fought smart, and was frequently able cut his opposition off from the good terrain. This forced them to make high-risk hail-Mary plays (appealing to blue-collar white racists, and selecting Sarah Palin, respectively) that failed.
Thinking that Barack Obama is an ordinary man lucky enough to have two opponents in a row who self-destructed is a complete misreading of events.
I agree entirely with Robin Wells. There is almost no pushback by the Democrats of the Republicans and right wing outrageous words and conduct in these very important matters.
If the Democrats to not engage this battle, they will have lost the war by default. That includes the President.
Mr. Obama's words over the weekend were not near tough enough regarding Sara Palin's 'Death Panel' slander. Her words are much more remembered and covered - regardless of the fact that they are false - than the President's answer.
Get tough, Democrats - you're going down for the fight. And this lack of toughness has been going on for a very long time - including John Kerry's lack of pushback on the Swiftboaters who wrecked his presidential campaing with lies. It also includes the lack of toughness during the 2000 election when the Republicans sent Congressional staffers to disrupt vote counting in Dade and Broward Counties in Florida. That failure permitted one person on the Supreme Court to decide the 2000 election in favor of Dubya (our wonderful Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on that matter).
The reason Democrats keep losing is that they insist on brining knifes to a gunfight.
Indeed, though I prefer the chess/checkers metaphor.
Obama's reply to Palin should have been "she is lying," and then back that up with solid evidence.
The only thing President Obama would learn from Sarah Palin is how not to do it.
It's sad is that so many accept what others say as truth, rather than deciding the truth for themselves. An email forwarded to me from a conservative group called Liberty Counsel stated: "For those of you who haven't read the house bill on Obama care, here's a summary of what's coming". The attached flyer contains dire warnings of carefully selected sections in HR3200, like:
Sec. 122, Pg. 29, Lines 4-16 - YOUR HEALTH CARE WILL BE RATIONED!
THE BILL SAYS:
SEC. 122, Pg. 29, Lines 4-16: ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED.
(1) provides payment for the items and services described in subsection (b) in accordance with generally accepted standards of medical or other appropriate clinical or professional practice;
(2) limits cost-sharing for such covered healthcare items and services in accordance with such benefit standards, consistent with subsection (c);
(3) does not impose any annual or lifetime limit on the coverage of covered health care items and services;
(4) complies with section 115(a) (relating to network adequacy); and
(5) is equivalent, as certified by Office of the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, to the average prevailing employer-sponsored coverage.
Liberty Counsel's insidious propaganda contains just enough truth (and they’re betting you won’t look any deeper) to make it easy to overlook the lies. I don't agree with everything in HR3200, but I despise the facts that groups like Liberty Counsel and others are preying on the fears of our most vulnerable residents - seniors, children, and the poor.
An 80-year old offers as much to society as the retarded do. It seems harsh but it's true. It's a fact of life. So that's why senior citizens are protesting against the Obama plan. And that's why I agree with Sarah Palin.
Inasnuch as we need healthcare reform the Democrats made a tactical error sending out politicans to sell us something us that they themselves won't sign up for.
You already have a government option. It's called Medicare.
Lyndon Johnson made a profound decision to value your age group more than 40 years ago.
Forty years later all we, the young, are asking is to be treated with equivalent value. 47 million Americans have no access to what you've had for almost half a century.
So stop whining. You've already gotten your little piece of socialism. Let the rest of us have ours.
Yeah I'm not following the logic here, ChinaC.
What gets me are these so-called conservative Christians who act like neither. I have the same problem trying to hold a civil, intelligent conversation with conservatives, some of them family. It just does no good. They believe what they want to and refuse to acknowledge facts when they are presented. I'm all for town meetings if the goal is to have a discussion and get answers, not to shout down the other side. Conservatives don't want to face facts but some of you are ACTING LIKE THUGS at the meetings. How very "Christian" of you.
Some liberals act like thugs. Some politically unaffiliated act like thugs. Lots of people do not want to hear things that upset them. What is your point? You are better because you call them thugs? Most of what I see on these blogs name calling against conservatives or Bush. Calling people names and saying they are thugs unchristian and unintelligent does not help to promote understanding. In fact... it does the opposite.
Sarah Palin moral? How can that be.
While under contract to govern the state of Alaska, Palin's administration failed to keep up on the state's Medicaid obligations and was ordered to cease signing up new patients. No other state in the country had been put under such a moratorium, according to the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
What moral imperative was she operating under when she allowed that to happen?
I agree, her record certainly looks dubious.
I'm proud of you Prudens
How about seeing Obama's face on TV, Prime time, evening, much advertising he's going to be on, and then a VERY short spot, where he states how many Americans the Big Insurance CEO's murdered last year. In a month. In a week. Today. Stating that single payer (best) or public option (guess it will do) is the fix. Murderers I say. Obama should too.
Actually I want them indicted. Charged. Locked iup with Bush and Cheney.
But that's just me I guess.
I suppose that makes me a left wing fringe nut.
Too bad. It is what it is.
Bravo! Guess I'm a left-wing fringe nut also.
I disagree with Robin in two areas
First, blaming all of societies ills on the Republican party is just ridiculous. Obama and even the Democratic party make mistakes and bad decisions. All political parties exploit fear and inject ugly partisan divisions into debates when it suits their needs. To claim one party is the heart of darkness while the other is pure as snow is just plain naive. To say that anyone who disagrees is a lunatic is also a recipe to avoid coming to an understanding. It is as bad as Limbaugh.
Second, I think Obama should not give vague emotional platitudes. A big issue many people have with the health care issue is that most of the bill's details are unknown. If people are ignorant of the bill's contents then why not educate them? I think being logical and very transparent could actually help his case more than going around giving people hugs. As much as I like hugs, I would rather have an honest section by section break down and analysis of the bill. Perhaps promoted by him and led by a bipartisan panel of rational doctors and others who were not career politicians.
Maybe this is not the best solution, but I think it is better than going around calling people lunatics if they dont agree with you. Oh, and I think anything Obama learned from Palin would only hurt him as a politician. They have public images that are very different.
I don't think she is blaming Republicans for all our ills nor is she claiming that Democrats are pure. What she is stating is that the leaders of the Republican party are not engaging in anything remotely bi-partisan in terms of discourse and policy. Their intention, it seems, is to obstruct and oppose for the sake of obstructionism and opposition to anything and everything that is not stamped "republican." Personally, I htink they do this at the risk of their own peril.
I think the thesis here is to address this obstructionism at it's root, which is fear. Fear of change. Fear of something new. Fear of anything different from what we know, even if what we know is not optimal.
Personally, I think referencing Palin here was just a way for the author to grab your attention. The only thing Palin has mastered is an ability to manipulate her audience with distortion, revisionism, and outright lies. In other words, she appeals to her base's FEAR. And THAT is a behavior I sincerely hope no one would ever aspire to, certainly not our President.
My biggest issue is that this "reform" bill does not really reform anything, it just repackages it. Yes, many more (though millions will still get no care) people will now be able to get poor healthcare, which is good as long as they arent misdiagnosed or denied coverage. I think the fundamental issue here is the fact that we seem to be born thinking the for-profit insurance approach is mandatory. This bill supports the insurance industry in one form or another. It also takes away a persons freedom to choose to opt out and imposes taxes which I feel are unfair and unasked for. It is a tax on the poor (2.5% if you are poor or unemployed) and middle class (11%), Obama said he wouldnt do that. He also said he wouldnt try to ram legislation down congress's throat the way Bush did with the Patriot act.
I want anyone, Republican or Democrat to stall this bill until it can be looked at and designed properly. Its passage will either prop up the insurance industry or create a new bloated govt run version of it. There is no evidence to suggest that coverage will get better. At least that is how it reads so far. The system needs to be reviewed from the ground up. I do not think a bad solution now is better than a good solution in a reasonable time frame. A good bill that offers true change is what we need, not this.
'What Obama needs to learn from Palin is that the fight over health care reform is indeed a moral battle.'
Obama already understands that health care reform is a moral battle. He believes everyone should have health care and he advocates a public option. That position is ethical and righteous. Palin does not support a public option or healthcare for everyone. Her position is unethical and immoral.
The majority of Americans want single payer and/or a public option. The small group of conservatives that make a lot of noise are just that.. This group responds to fear and any patriotic speech/symbols you can come up with about the go old days. America is passing them by and they don't know how to compete. This is a side show and Obama knows it.
Beside, he has much bigger problems. He promised America that he would support the average American struggling against the ever growing tide of corporate interests. That is not what we are seeing. We see Wall Street getting most of the support while average Americans continue to struggle. He's allowed healthcare to be crafted by Congress and healt care lobbyists vs the needs of the average American.
Obama has shown that he is young and inexperienced. He is being out played by big business and their lobbyist. He either needs to get in the game or he'll be benched before half time.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
