by Damozel | I don't want to bring Obama's supporters down, but I am definitely unsettled by the increasing signs of uncritical advocacy I'm seeing among some of them out there in the field. It's as if they've forgotten exactly how critical this election is going to be for Democrats in the rush to crown him their king. It's not a political campaign; it's a cult of personality.
Meanwhile, the more I delve into his background and certain allegations floating around in the background (but not yet fully materialized), the more worried I become. And it's manifest that most of Obama's supporters aren't doing any delving of their own.
As far as I can see, Obama's campaign so far is all based on his image. I asked some of his supporters in my town, "What's he actually done that makes you think he'd be a great president?" They couldn't name a single thing. Even though they support him they have no idea of his actual achievements (other than the achievement of not being Hillary Clinton.) I know more about his achievements than they do, and I'm a Hillary supporter.
The fact is, they don't know their candidate. They wouldn't dream of questioning him. He's not a political candidate; he's a mythical hero. He appeared out of nowhere, as far as they're concerned: pure, unstained, valorous, and full of the will to win.
"What's the worst thing you know about him?" I asked these same supporters. They didn't know any worst thing. They didn't believe there is a worst thing.
And this is what worries me, as a Democrat, more than anything else about him. I don't know the worst thing either. Part of the reason that I don't is because the Obama campaign and many Dems simply won't allow anyone to raise issues that might show grounds why he is NOT the right candidate for the times.
I am highly susceptible---though so far only intermittently--- to Obama's charismatic appeal. Furthermore, I have my own highly personal and emotional reasons for wishing to see an African-American achieve high office in my lifetime. But charm and charisma are not sufficient qualifications for the US presidency, especially now. So I have---FOR NOW--- cast my lot with Hillary, whose drawbacks are all familiar territory and whose experience, failings, and achievements are at least well documented.
As Larry Johnson at No Quarter points out, Obama not only has not been vetted, but his campaign has done everything possible to ensure that he can't be. The usual processes aren't working because if anyone dares question him, they get tagged (even African-Americans) with being racist. The "racism" in question always boils down to this: daring to question the experience, credibility, or integrity of an African-American candidate for president. And silencing the opposition means that no one knows what issues the opposition might raise. Which means that we will find it all out later rather than sooner----and that when we do find out, as we always always do----we might be stuck with the consequences.
As Johnson says, Hillary's hands are tied:
Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton cannot take Obama on in the way she should....[S]ince a sizable portion of the Democratic party and the media have bought into the myth, god help anyone who tries to expose the clay feet of this faux deity.
So Hillary has to navigate perilous waters–trying to expose the superficial gloss of Obama’s positions without being accused of sullying the Obama mythology. For example, a terrific speech in 2002 (almost always selectively quoted) becomes the defining position even though Obama declined to stand with Russ Feingold and others who actually made a stand to oppose the war. When Bill Clinton points out, correctly, the disingenuous blarney of Obama’s so-called valiant stand, it is Bill Clinton who becomes the bad guy. (No Quarter)
I've often asked myself why Republicans are so eager for Dems to choose Obama. If they really thought Hillary was as easy to beat as they would like for you to believe, they'd be going after Obama with both feet. Instead, they're doing their best to help bring Hillary down. This ought to make any Dem who remembers what the opposition is like go "Hmmmm" if not "Huh?", but so far....nope. Everyone's too starry eyed over their rock star.
Larry Johnson, who does NOT like Obama, has been more diligent than most in lining up the arguments against him as a candidate for the presidency. You might wonder why I am referring you to another blogger. Why should you---assuming you don't know Johnson's blog---care any more about what he thinks of Obama than what I do?
Larry Johnson's credentials to speak on matters affecting government are better than those of most bloggers. I follow politics as a hobby. Johnson has first-hand experience with some of the trickier issues facing those who occupy the corridors of power. Having worked with the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism, he is "a recognized expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security,crisis and risk management." He now works "with US military commands in scripting terrorism exercises, briefs on terrorist trends, and conducts undercover investigations on counterfeiting, smuggling and money laundering." As a regular reader of his blog, I've come to respect his opinion.
I don't share all of Johnson's concerns about Obama. It doesn't matter to me that some Republicans may try to use Obama's race to bring him down, though I am sure they will try. I also don't think the Muslim thing matters. People who find that sort of argument persuasive aren't going to vote for Hillary anyway. If they vote at all, it won't be for a Democrat.
But there are specific issues Johnson points out that Obama's supporters should definitely be looking into. If they don't, the Republicans certainly will.
Issues that Johnson and others suggest Obama supporters should raise with their candidate:
1. Obama & the lobbyists
Johnson points out that Obama, critical as he is of "politicians" who take money from lobbyists, has taken quite a bit from them himself. This story in The New York Times, to which Johnson links, takes some of the shine off Obama's portrayal of himself as free from industry influences:
When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state’s freshman senator, Barack Obama, took up their cause.
Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.”
“I just did that last year,” he said, to murmurs of approval.
A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks....
Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.
Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry’s lobbying group, based in Washington. Exelon’s support for Mr. Obama far exceeds its support for any other presidential candidate....
Paul Gunter, an activist based in Maryland who assisted neighbors of the Exelon plants, said he was “disappointed in Senator Obama’s lack of follow-through,” which he said weakened the original bill. “The new legislation falls short” by failing to provide for mandatory reporting, said Mr. Gunter, whose group, Beyond Nuclear, opposes nuclear energy....
But eventually, Mr. Obama agreed to rewrite the bill, and when the environment committee approved it in September 2006, he and his co-sponsors hailed it as a victory.
In interviews over the past two weeks, Obama aides insisted that the revisions did not substantively alter the bill. In fact, it was left drastically different.
(New York Times)
I have a problem with Obama's implications that Hillary's hands are all dirty with money from lobbyists while his are nice and clean. Besides, there's the dis-ingenuousness of using this piece of compromise legislation as an example of standing up to industry. If this is what he means by "reaching out to both sides," he is likely to prove a disappointment to progressives who have jumped on the Obama bandwagon. Just saying.
Johnson remarked: "Just wait till the national media starts sorting through his past record of contributors. (No Quarter; emphasis added) What will they find when they do? Do you know? I've looked into Hillary's contributors. What about Obama's?
Like Johnson, I understand that political candidates take money from lobbyists. I even pretty much accept that they pretty much have to if they want to get elected. But it's one thing to take their money and another to have a go at other candidates who do the same thing---by implying that they are in the pockets of their contributors while you are completely free of such influences.
2. The Rezko connection
Speaking of contributors, Obama supporters need to look more closely than they seem willing to do at his relationship with Tony Rezko. It might be, as Johnson allows, that Obama was able to keep his hands clean. But it's also possible he didn't.
If you are asking, "Tony who?", then you really don't know enough about your candidate. I believe ON FAITH that Obama will prove to be uninvolved, but there is at least a possibility that there will be some backwash of dirty water.
Today’s arrest of...Tony Rezko could be very bad news for Barack Obama’s presidential ambitions. Rezko was arrested because he lied to the Feds–he claimed in November 2006 he had no assets and was virtually broke, but in April 2007 he received $3.5 million from a company owned by an Iraqi billionaire who also happens to be a convicted felon . The man’s name? Nadhmi Auchi.
So what does this have to do with Obama? Well, buried in a footnote in the motion for an arrest warrant, we learn that Auchi was denied a visa to the United States because of his conviction in France on fraud charges. Auchi’s buddy, Rezko sent a request to the U.S. Department of State in November 2005 for a visa waiver. And Rezko asked unidentified “Illinois government officials” to ask for clearance as well. How much you want to bet one of those officials was Barack Hussein Obama.
So here’s the test. Was Obama smart enough, hell, let’s say brilliant, to just say no?
We may not find out until Rezko’s trial starts on 25 February. (No Quarter)
Johnson points to this post by Looseheadprop at Firedoglake discussing Obama's Rezko (and other) problems. Here's an excerpt:
Obama has a Tony Rezko problem. Actually a whole bunch of Tony Rezko problems. And a few other problems here and there which do not say very good things about his character or his sense of ethics or his ability to spot the appearance of impropriety. I include on that list the recent revelations about the legislation which he claims to have "passed" relating to leakage of nuclear material into drinking water. (Read more...)
It's alarming reading. But if you're seriously committed to Obama, you owe it to yourself to read it and to demand answers.
Maybe Obama is completely clean. I hope so. The Democratic party can't afford to have him embarrassed, whether or not he gets the nomination.
3. The Kenya connection
This I didn't know about and---frankly---don't understand, but it sounds as if it raises some questions that might need to be answered (?)
Johnson discusses Obama's connection to "a tribal war in Kenya that
is on the verge of becoming a Rwanda-like genocide...If you are like
most Americans you are blissfully unaware that two of
Kenya’s tribes–the Luo and Kikuyu–are killing each other over a
disputed election that Odinga, [who claims to be] Obama’s cousin,
claims was stolen from
him." (No Quarter)
You probably didn't know about Obama's intervention in the election (I
didn't). According to an article quoted by Johnson,: "'Barack Obama has
had a major impact on the recent disputed Kenyan
election. He spoke in support of Orange Democratic Movement opposition
leader Raila Odinga when in Kenya in 2006.'" (No Quarter)
Johnson says:
There may be an innocent explanation for all of this. But sticking one’s head in the sand and hoping these uncomfortable issues go away is not a strategy for victory in November. (No Quarter; emphasis added)
Right. If you support Obama, you owe it to yourself to find out all the facts. The price of your support should be a full explanation of all the issues.
4. His undocumented achievements [UPDATED]
Johnson's co-blogger, Susan, challenged Obama supporters---"enraptured by his oratory"--- to name just one significant achievement that they can point to as qualifying him for the presidency. She specifically attacks his argument that he stood up against the establishment on the Iraq war.
[G]iving a speech against a war in 2002 is not a real accomplishment, especially when you do it in a liberal urban district of Chicago, and your own neck isn’t on the chopping block if you take the wrong vote. (Then, since you’ve joined the U.S. Senate, you’ve gone along with everybody else, and even refused to assist with Senate efforts to end the war. Your voting record is identical to Sen. Clinton’s except that she had the guts to vote against the confirmation of Gen. George Casey to be Chief of Staff for the Army because, Sen. Clinton discovered, he wasn’t taking care of the troops. But that didn’t bother you.) Then there was that appearance on Meet The Press:
In July of `04, Barack Obama, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this: “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” That was July of `04. And this: “I think” there’s “some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war.”... (No Quarter)
Susan pointed to this post by Thinking Dem on the subject of Obama's "rightness" on the issue of Iraq. If you're an Obama supporter who believes the "I was right about Iraq" rhetoric, you really need to read it. Again, getting your head out of the sand and taking a clear look at your candidate is in your---and ultimately, his---interest. Maybe we need to see him at work for a few more years before we decide to make his the leader of the free world.
UPDATE: A commenter (below) lists his some of Obama's achievements, mainly during his career in Illinois. Fair enough---he obviously wouldn't have got as far as he has without doing something.
I shall re-frame the question. What specific achievements of Barack Obama make him specially fit for the US presidency RIGHT NOW? He may well be the ideal candidate for the future, and I would be delighted to know that he is, but what in his record specially qualifies him to be Commander in Chief and to be in charge of national security at this extremely dangerous juncture in our history?
The 'brilliance' of Obama---I refer to his achievements and his record rather than to his doubtless prodigious intellect--- is, according to me, an unknown quantity, except with respect to his oratorical gifts. There I concede he is unequaled in recent history. But having good speech-writers and a gift for giving people chills (I admit that his speech Tuesday night gave me chills and I am not yet a committed supporter) isn't proof of other gifts. Perhaps he should spend more time addressing these specifics in his public speeches.
Again, shouldn't we require him to put in a few more years proving his brilliance, dedication, etc. before we give him the highest office in the land?
5. Statements about Hillary's experience and record
I heard him reiterate during his speech on Tuesday the same criticisms he has made before of Hillary's experience and record and which her campaign has rebutted. Some of them may be disputable, but some are simply not founded in fact.
6. Misrepresentation of Hillary's (much better) health plan
Expect to hear growing criticism on this score. I discussed the issue here and here.
So anyway, there it is. If Obama's supporters take him on faith that's certainly their privilege. It's everyone's privilege to choose a candidate on whatever basis they prefer; nothing requires that you choose responsibly.
But I wonder: are Obama's supporters so caught up in their candidate's image that they've completely lost sight of the difficult issues confronting the next president?
If the presidency were a ceremonial position, I'd be fine with handing it over to Obama, but the next four years are going to be a nasty and thankless slog, involving decisions that have no good solutions. Attractive as he is, he hasn't got much history to show us how well he'll wear when he has to choose between being popular and politic.
We need to require him to make a case for himself, not just take it on faith that he's as fabulous as he seems. With climate change now an issue, it isn't much of an exaggeration to say that the fate of the world depends on our choosing well. Obama's supporters need to start asking themselves and their candidates the hard questions.
Is he the right person to be president after George W. Bush? Make him show us that he is---not with hazy talk of "change" (not all change is good), but with specific answers to hard questions.
RELATED BN-POLITICS POSTINGS
I, like you, favored Edwards, but being practical realized early on he didn't stand a chance against either Obama or Clinton. I've watched almost every debate and in the end this is what sealed it for me. Though Obama is eloquent and moving when he speaks, his performance in the debates leave me uninspired. Hilary understands policy, she argues remarkably well (even yes, stubbornly). This doesn't always come across as likable, but it does inspire in me a faith that she will fight for what she believes in and largely I stand with her on most of the issues. Obama faltered a lot in the earlier debates, I am also worried than in needing to retain his likability factor he will be unable to get down and dirty and fight for the things that I feel need to be fought for. Also, he doesn't show me he has the depth of policy knowledge that Clinton has. Yes, you can aruge that that is what advisors are for, but I am wary of a President who wins on likability and has adivsor's to see him through his term. Especailly against that boring policy wonk. Wasn't this the GWB argument?
Posted by: cloudy | February 12, 2008 at 06:37 PM
Are you familiar with Harpr's magazine article
back in November 2006:
"Barack Obama Inc.:
The birth of a Washington machine"
by Ken Silverstein
PUBLISHED November 2006
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275
Posted by: Andy | February 20, 2008 at 01:26 PM
Andy,
no, I hadn't read that article. Thanks for posting the link!
Posted by: Buck Naked Politics | February 20, 2008 at 09:22 PM
Despite your troubling details concerning Obama's soiled hands, all three major candidates maintain their purity against evidence to the contrary. I've bought into the allure thing, to some extent, and that's largely because I'm easily swayed by oratorically gifted populists. My pragmatic sense flies out the window. Yet I have to give credit to a candidate who can surround himself with the level of genius and cunning employed by the Obama campaign, that he is able to run circles and more circles around a seemingly dazed and confused old-hat Clinton campaign. I'm thinking--if they can run a national campaign this expertly, maybe they can solve some of our nation's major problems.
Posted by: Steve Graff | February 21, 2008 at 07:29 PM