by Taylor Marsh
Will the real Barack Obama please rise?
As I've been warning and writing for months and months, this is what happens when a candidate has no core ideological compass. So we interrupt the media love fest with Barack Obama, at the expense of our Democratic ideals, to bring you some salient facts.
Politico.com has quite an enlightening article up today on Mr. Obama in his pre-meteoric political phase of his life. His unknown phase reveals a hardcore liberal. However, when compared to the presidential version, I must say he's hardly recognizable. The politics of convenience in action.
Primary voters are deeply involved with considering Mr. Obama as never before. That's as it should be. David Mizner over at MyDD has some thoughts on this very issue today as well, as does Eriposte over at The Left Coaster, and Tom Watson. But let's consider that he's chosen as our general election candidate, which has to be taken into consideration at this point. Reading the article on Politico.com and Mr. Obama's responses to questions in the affirmative or negative, without using the available space to explain his views, I've got to submit that this could get ugly. That is unless the Obama of today can explain the liberal views of yesterday, which are down for all to read. I'd ask why Obama walked away from his liberal leanings, but that's just too easy.
Channeling Tom Schaller, I have to ask, how do Democrats win the general election without the west? Answer: we can't. Of course, I say this with all due respect for the south. So if you want to go there, think about the ways we can and can't win over voters in the south. I contend Mr. Obama has found the one way in which we not only will lose the west and the south, but will likely take us down all across the midwest.
Hold on to your hopes, audacity just straggled them:
Filling out a 12-page questionnaire [part 1 of questionnaire, part 2 of questionnaire] from an Illinois voter group as he sought a state Senate seat in 1996, Obama answered "yes" or "no" -- without using the available space to calibrate his views -- on some of the most emotional and politically potent issues that a public official can confront.
"Do you support ... capital punishment?" one question asked."No," the 1996 Obama campaign typed, without explaining his answer in the space provided.
"Do you support state legislation to ... ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?" asked one of the three dozen questions.
"Yes," was Obama's entire answer. ... ..
Of course, Mr. Obama no longer holds these beliefs about guns. I know, you're shocked. But if that doesn't get you this one sure will.
Obama said he would support a single-payer health plan for Illinois "in principal" [sic], "although such a program will probably have to be instituted at a federal level; the long-term objective would be a universal care system that does not differentiate between the unemployed, the disabled, and so on." The campaign says Obama has consistently supported single payer health care in principle.
Single-payer health plan? It's Dennis Kucinich. And Mr. Obama is carping at Hillary about mandates? His prior beliefs actually include the mother of all mandates. Oh, but Mr. Obama doesn't believe in it today. He just believes in a single-payer health plan on "principal" (sic).
My favorite paragraph is compliments the writers, Mike Allen and Ben Smith:
The questionnaire, which was provided to Politico with assistance from political sources opposed to Obama's presidential campaign, raises questions of whether Obama can be painted as too liberal and whether he is insufficiently consistent.
The campaign responds within the Allen-Smith article:
For instance, Obama says he supports the death penalty in limited circumstances, such as an especially heinous crime. The campaign says Obama has consistently supported the death penalty "in principle" and opposed it "in practice."On handguns, his campaign said he has consistently been for "common-sense limits, but not banning" throughout his 11-year political career.
Someone hand me an icepack, because I think I'm going to faint.
Enter David Axelrod:
"His views are very much in the mainstream of the Democratic Party," said chief strategist David Axelrod, who has known Obama since 1992 and worked with him since 2002. "There are some issues on which he's probably viewed more conservatively. He's been a consistent voice on issues of, for example, parental responsibility and pushed those hard, because he believes in them." ... .. ... But Obama's history is that he's been progressive and pragmatic and been able to work with both sides of the aisle and people across the ideological spectrum to get things done," Axelrod said. "He comes to the table with a point of view, but he's not dogmatic or rigid. He's willing to compromise on details without sacrificing his principles."
Note to David: You can't be a liberal in the late 1990s, with your views on paper for all to see, sans explanations, then say you're candidate is "viewed more conservatively" today without providing a laugh track, especially when you use words like "progressive" and "pragmatic" together in the same phrase.
Oh, and one more thing from the same article.
"Do you support ... any other restrictions on abortions?" the questionnaire asked."No," Obama wrote. The "other" was a reference to an earlier question about "parental consent/notification for minors seeking abortions." Obama wrote that he did not. Obama's campaign said that is his current view and that he has never voted to restrict access to abortions.
Obama's lack of ideology has bothered me from the start. Now comes a questionaire that outlines his earlier ideology as a die hard liberal. Single-payer health care plans. Banning handguns, which takes my gun owner's breath away. No restrictions on abortions and no parental notification for minors. Where is that Obama today?
Triangulating to beat fellow, er... liberals... progressives. I'm so confused.
The Obama campaign can try to walk away from these nuggets the Politico.com found. But you can bet the Republicans won't. In the general election Barack Obama will get creamed on negative ads and so will we, not only for having liberal views, but for flip flopping on them. Imagine our congressional candidates in conservative districts running with a handgun banning general election candidate. The worst of it is that many of the views resurrect battles Democrats have fought, won or made peace with to move on to better, more winnable ground. Banning handguns? Here we go again.
One more thing to consider. The Republicans haven't even gotten started on Mr. Obama, though they sure will cranking after today. As for Clinton, they've done all the negative ads, the swiftboating and caricatures that can be done. The books have been written, rehashed and regurgitated, with this year's screeds all sinking. There's nowhere else to go on Clinton. They'll have to run against her policy ideas, which won't be easy unless Democrats buy into the wingnut spin. With Barack Obama, the fun has barely begun.
Follow Taylor Marsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/taylormarsh
I SAY REPUGS AND RED STATERS BE DAMNED!!
We're not LIKE them. We don't want power for power's sake..we want to use it to DO things for our country....important things....Hard things....BIG things.....the RIGHT things.
If a Democratic president with majorities in BOTH chambers can't "git 'er done" he/she will not be able to claim it's because "we don't have the votes" (as we hear so often from the current congress on the war). It will be because we don't have the VISION or the WILL to pursue our own principles.
For the last 7 years the Republicans have not been at all SHY about pursuing THEIR agenda.....and look where that's gotten us.
Incessant backpeadaling and triangulation, in order to appease southern conservatives, western gun owners, or whoever is part of the problem NOT the solution.
Polarized?... Partisan?.... You betchum!.....
In response to calls for more "gradualism", "patience", and more years of "all deliberate speed" with regard to civil rights;..... Stokely Carmichael said he was more inclined to say:.... "Stick 'em up motherfu**ers, we TAKIN' what's OURS...Black Power!"
While that level of confrontationalism may not lend itself well to a debate over universal health care...we shouldn't be afraid to say forthrightly and more importantly to BELIEVE what should be obvious by now..
WE'RE RIGHT, THEY'RE WRONG...............tm
I have also only recently changed my mind on capitol punishments.
I am also changing my position somewhat on abortion.
I, like Obama have been against the war from the beginning. I like Obama, did not favor labeling Iran a terrorist organization.
When Ms. Marsh takes Sen. Clinton to task for her shifting positions, it might be worth considering her arguments against Obama.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/11/obama-questionaire-expose_n_76338.html
In Taylor Marsh’s own words, "I'm so confused." And I couldn’t agree more. Again, Marsh, like some others wanting an unequivocal answer to complex questions, proffers the reader a false dilemma -- the fallacy of black and white -- in her portrait of audacious hopelessness re Obama's refusal to be painted into a corner on issues that require both/and answers. Marsh highlights a few like-minded commentators but ignores some of the best -- recent NY Times OpEds by Frank Rich, Roger Cohen, and Gail Collins -- that contradict her hype about Obama's apparent lack of ideology.
Besides, what Obama is not is an ideologue, thank God.
Given the uncivil war between red and blue states -- the heightened and played-upon polarization of our political landscape -- more either/or thinking -- it is Obama who offers a fresh, nuanced perspective wrapped in a judicious intelligence and all those attractive qualities, that "je ne sais quoi," one gets from him -- his genteel manner and cool, his even-tempered ambition, his intellectual gifts and ease with telling the truth -- which adorn and frame his lanky, Lincolnesque figure that has begun to cut its way into more and more hearts eager for civility, sincerity, and an evident virtuousness.
Obama's not perfect, but he's perfectly suited to be president. He's got fight. He's got game. He's strong enough to weather the whispers of this or any other canard quacked by his opponents. I agree with Frank Rich, that an Obama offensive "may prove harder for the Republicans to rally against and defeat than the all-powerful Clinton machine."
Bush/Clinton/Bush/Full Stop -- Obama 2008!
Obama has many unanswered questions and is too concerned with the superstitious, while Hillary voted twicw for the Freedom destroying "patriot" Act.
neither one has the best interests of the American people in mind.
Kucinich has the most integrity, guts and respect for American Freedom.
He does not have a progressive track record. I've been asking since he announced he would run....what has he done, what does he stand for to receive such adoration and praise from so-called progressives and the answer is still......NOTHING.
Again Ms. Marsh you have set Obama supporters back on their heels. Not a single response can dispute the FACTS about Obama's inconsistent history.
The Obama campaign sayid that the questionnaire was filled out by someone who worked for Obama at the time and not Obama itself.
You have no understanding of solidarity, something the GOP has managed to the level of artform.
Look, I love the New York Yankees. If they get beat by the Red Sox, I root for the National League team to beat the tar out of them, merely out of a lifelong disdain for the boys from bean town.
But this isn't sports. And the National League in this case are the party of self serving, live and let die, kill or be killed, only the strong survive Machiavellian demons, the evil empire in the process of building their Death Star- the GOP.
The democrats are the American League, the league of decency, of compassion, of leaving as few children behind as possible and perhaps sending a federally subsidized bus back for the ones who were. Tearing apart any teams in this league, as Ralph Nader did eight years ago, parsing minutiae, and leveling accusations of hypocrisy at some whilst ignoring the transgressions of others does nothing but hurt the cause.
Hillary voted to go to war based on the WMD argument, where Barack did not. I forgive her for that. Do you Ms. Marsh realize she was wrong in that vote? Or do you forgive those you endorse for their mistakes, and only hold accountable those in opposition to your beliefs?
Pyrric victories do the cause no good.
The fact that it sums my feelings about politics in general and describes the perils of whores turning tricks before the lights and cameras makes me squirm with a wish that I had written it myself, alas I lack the insight.
Seriously, thank you, and I hope every one can see that this would make a perfect form letter, simply drop Obama's name and insert the name of your choice.
This fraud of an election sickens me more every day.
Bob Higgins
http://worldwide-sawdust.com
People hopefully develop over the course of a lifetime, and hone their beliefs and policies. Accusing Mr. Obama of vacillating, during the develomental process is unfair, worthy of the GOP vultures with their flip flopping swipes.
Now is not the time to tear apart someone who could potentially be the democratic nominee. First of all, you only give the enemy more ammunition in doing so, and furthermore you look like a horse's ass come election night if Mr. Obama manages to beat whatever candidate you endorse. Then you're stuck with staying home out of protest, and letting this country fall into GOP hands for another four years, or having to vote for someone you openly ridicule.
Think about it.