by Damozel | As the pundits and prophets dance---a bit previously if you ask me---around the grave they're preparing for Hillary Clinton's campaign, it's worth taking a little time out to consider the merits of what is implied is her impending strategy: nail Obama on his "inexperience."
At The Washington Post, Charles Peters pleads with voters not to be too hasty to buy into the inexperience argument, asking---with a certain possibly unintended Biblical resonance--- that we Judge Him on His Laws.
People who complain that Barack Obama lacks experience must be unaware of his legislative achievements. One reason these accomplishments are unfamiliar is that the media have not devoted enough attention to Obama's bills and the effort required to pass them, ignoring impressive, hard evidence of his character and ability. (WaPo)
Peters points out that most journalists are not very interested in the activities of state legislatures and therefore simply do not know enough about Obama's record to make fair or complete assessments about his commitment and pragmatism. (WaPo)
I am a rarity among Washington journalists in that I have served in a state legislature. I know...that the challenges faced by reform-minded state representatives are no less, if indeed not more, formidable than those encountered in Congress. For me, at least, trying to deal with those challenges involved as much drama as any election. And the "heart and soul" bill, the one for which a legislator gives everything he or she has to get passed, has long told me more than anything else about a person's character and ability. (WaPo)
Peters points out that one Illinois bill into which Obama put his heart and soul was one designed to stop coerced confessions by requiring interrogations to be videotaped. (Side note: This has been the law for years in the UK, and my husband, who did 12 years of service as a special constable for the Metropolitan police, was shocked to learn that it is not the law in every state here). Videotaping an interrogation is a simple, pragmatic, some might say self-evident way of ensuring the integrity of the confession. Naturally, it met massive resistance from all sides.
There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, some of whom worried that Obama's bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to "solve" crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it....
The police proved to be Obama's toughest opponent. Legislators tend to quail when cops say things like, "This means we won't be able to protect your children." The police tried to limit the videotaping to confessions, but Obama, knowing that the beatings were most likely to occur during questioning, fought -- successfully -- to keep interrogations included in the required videotaping. (WaPo)
I was very interested in Peters' description of Obama's technique for getting his bill passed through "n all-out campaign of cajolery." (WaPo) The reason it interested me is that I believe this is exactly what is needed in order to rid America of what I say is the current toxic polarization: reasoning backed by fellowship and the friendliest possible persuasion. According to Peters, Obama got the bill passed not through rhetoric and polemic, but by listening to the opposition (including the police), showing them that he shared their concerns, and helping to pass other legislation that they wanted, he quelled a great deal of the opposition. (WaPo)
."Even Republicans," says Peters gravely, "came to respect him. One Republican state senator, Kirk Dillard, has said that "Barack had a way both intellectually and in demeanor that defused skeptics."" (WaPo) And by reaching out to the other side, he got his measure passed:
Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping (WaPo).
Which actually is very impressive and important piece of information for me.
Unlike some Democrats, I believe that to make changes stick, you have to aim for the center. If people feel that a measure that infringes or undermines their interests has been imposed on them by the opposition, they will kick back----as we saw with the Bush Administration's Republican Congress. On the other hand, if you can show them why the measure helps them, or demonstrate that there are ways to address their concerns without losing the benefit of the measure, you can get the bill passed; and once it's in effect, they can then see for themselves that the worst case scenario doesn't come into being. Which means that you're in a better position to make the next change.... This route to implementing a progressive agenda takes longer, but represents the difference between building your house on quicksand and on building it on firm ground.
According to Peters, Obama's method of getting his bill passed very much exemplifies how he has approached other legislation to which he was committed:
Obama didn't stop there. He played a major role in passing many other bills, including the state's first earned-income tax credit to help the working poor and the first ethics and campaign finance law in 25 years (a law a Post story said made Illinois "one of the best in the nation on campaign finance disclosure"). Obama's commitment to ethics continued in the U.S. Senate, where he co-authored the new lobbying reform law that, among its hard-to-sell provisions, requires lawmakers to disclose the names of lobbyists who "bundle" contributions for them.
Taken together, these accomplishments demonstrate that Obama has what Dillard, the Republican state senator, calls a "unique" ability "to deal with extremely complex issues, to reach across the aisle and to deal with diverse people." In other words, Obama's campaign claim that he can persuade us to rise above what divides us is not just rhetoric. (WaPo).
So Obama's record as a legislator absolutely does matter and does, as Peters argues, deserve more media attention than it has received.
Update. Kevin Drum at The Washington Monthly has an interesting comment on Peters' article, asking the question that troubles him most and then answering it---or more accurately having it answered for him.
RELATED POSTINGS:
Comments